Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 52
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber. I am very pleased, as are my colleagues in the official opposition, that the finance minister has finally, in Bill C-20, announced these long-awaited measures, but it is worth noting that they have come at a very convenient time for the Prime Minister and the finance minister.
The ethics committee was about to meet and begin a deeper dive into the third ethical scandal facing the Prime Minister and his government. In classic fashion, the finance minister, also under investigation, and also having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws, has tried to distract Canadians with a big money bill and help for people that the government delayed helping when it had the chance.
The Prime Minister has long promised openness, accountability and transparency, telling us that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and he made a commitment to do politics differently, but here we are for a third time as our Prime Minister is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner for his part in the scandal involving the WE organization. The two times he was found guilty of breaking the ethics laws tell us that we do not need to wait for a report, but need the Prime Minister to come clean.
It is clear that ethical considerations are often thrown to the wayside in the PMO and under the Prime Minister. Truly, it has been a theme since he came to office. First, it was his illegal trip to billionaire island, where the Prime Minister was found to have violated sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. He accepted gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island, which were seen as gifts that could have influenced the Prime Minister. Further, the Prime Minister was found to have contravened the act when he did not recuse himself from the discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further a private interest.
Then, of course, it was the SNC-Lavalin scandal, in which the Prime Minister was found to have contravened section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act. Section 9 prohibits public office holders from using their position to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further their own private interests or those of their relatives or friends or to improperly further another person's private interests. This will not be the only time I mention the Prime Minister's friends and relatives, as it deals with conflicts of interest and his dealings. In this case, it was a clear violation by the Prime Minister when he undertook a campaign to influence the then attorney general into letting his friends at SNC-Lavalin off the hook by interfering in a criminal prosecution.
Now the Prime Minister is being investigated for his role in awarding a nearly $1-billion sole-sourced deal to an organization that has deep ties to the Liberal Party of Canada and deep and direct ties to the Prime Minister's family and him. The awarding of this contract is now being investigated by multiple committees of the House of Commons and has spawned two probes by the Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner has announced that he is examining the actions of the Prime Minister in awarding this contract and whether he broke the law again by not recusing himself from the decision despite his close ties.
The Ethics Commissioner has also announced that he is investigating the finance minister for his role in awarding the contract and not recusing himself despite his own close ties to this organization.
As I mentioned before, the finance minister is no stranger to the Ethics Commissioner, having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws already because, as I am sure most Canadians can relate, he forgot he had a French villa and a corporation in France. It happens to the best of us I am sure, but despite the fact that one of the finance minister's—
An hon. member: A common man's problem.
Michael Barrett: A common man's problem indeed.
Despite the fact that one of the finance minister's daughters worked for WE and his family took a WE-sponsored trip in Ecuador, he did not recuse himself.
Now all of these ethical breaches by the Prime Minister and the finance minister follow the same pattern. The Prime Minister will deny he did anything wrong; then he will try to pass the buck; then he will say that he is sorry and then he will get the rest of the Liberals to cover it up.
He said he is sorry, but we know he is only sorry he got caught. If he were sorry, he would have accepted the invitation to appear at committee. If he were sorry, he would waive cabinet confidence. Really, if he were sorry, could he not have just written a letter to the chair of these committees and said that in light of very public revelations about his failure to recuse himself from deliberations and discussions concerning a nearly $1-billion sole-sourced agreement with a firm he has direct ties to, he would like to appear at their committees? Would that not have been the transparency the Prime Minister called for?
We know when the Prime Minister says he is sorry that, he is “sorry, not sorry”. That is why he blocked the investigation into the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We know from the “Trudeau II Report” it was the second time the Prime Minister had broken the law, the second time he had the distinction of being the first prime minister in Canada to to be found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We know from that report that there were nine people who wanted to provide testimony to the commissioner during his investigation, but were not able to. Why? Their response was uniform: it was because it would reveal a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council.
What does that mean? It means that the witnesses were muzzled by cabinet confidence. It means they were not allowed to testify. They were not allowed to listen to their conscience. How can that be? We heard in this very place that the Liberals fully co-operate with the work of officers of Parliament and the Ethics Commissioner every time.
The then government House leader talked about the historic waiving of cabinet confidences. That is not the case. It is not what happened.
He got away with it. He got away with obstructing that investigation. The Prime Minister was not properly incentivized to follow the rules.
We follow that pattern and we find the Prime Minister yet again facing an investigation.
With the WE Charity scandal unfolding before us and despite the Prime Minister's best efforts to the contrary, it is important to establish the facts as we know them. We know this did not begin with the government picking the WE organization at random in June to administer a program for youth. In fact, we found out that the WE organization was pitching the government in mid-April before the government even announced the program. We know that the organization circulated a proposal to several ministers in mid-April.
On April 19, at a meeting with officials from the finance department and ESDC, a Finance official told another senior official, who testified at the finance committee, Ms. Wernick, the senior assistant deputy minister at Employment and Social Development Canada, that in fact it was she who contacted the WE organization.
It is interesting that a mid-level public servant picked up the phone, got the founder of this organization, which we know has tens of millions of dollars in real estate holdings in downtown Toronto among all of its laundry list of other things it engages in, and said, “It is me calling. Is that WE? It is,” and it was the founder on the phone ready to take her call. I am not sure how surprised they were at the WE organization to find out that they were going to be on the receiving end of administering nearly a billion dollars in taxpayer funds.
We also found out at that meeting that this organization was going to benefit by about $43 million dollars in administrative fees. We heard today one of the ministers say that it was just $43 million. What is $43 million between friends?
On April 22, interestingly, the Prime Minister announced that the government would be moving ahead with plans to help young people economically during the crisis and that details would follow later, but while the Prime Minister was making that announcement, the WE organization was submitting a new proposal to the government by email to that same public servant who placed the call only a few days before.
We know that a few days later Volunteer Canada, a national coordinating body for the volunteer sector, reached out to the government to offer support in building a volunteer program aimed at youth. In response, little information was made available while program approval was pending. The government was not interested in Volunteer Canada's expertise or help, and what happened next is most interesting.
The WE organization, which had not been awarded anything at that point in time, contacted Volunteer Canada, which was told that the government did not need its help, and asked for help administering a really big program that was worth about $912 million. That is interesting. I thought that Volunteer Canada was not needed by the government. That is very interesting, and it is interesting, indeed, that the WE organization was already calling people, knowing that they had this in the bag.
Meetings were held between May 25 and June 5 between those groups, and on June 5 Volunteer Canada told the WE organization that it would not be participating, citing several problems with the program, including that the program was going to pay students below minimum wage in any province they participated. That does not sound like help for students.
That is very strange, because the official opposition, the Conservative Party, called for funding for the Canada summer jobs program to be increased beyond what the government had committed this year. I can tell you that in my riding, there were employers approved by the government and who had advised my office that they had students who had applied to work, but that the fund ran out of money.
There were lots of employment opportunities. There was a structure already set up. The Government of Canada was prepared to administer that, but suddenly this new program, plucked out of thin air almost inexplicably, to the benefit of $43 million for these administrators, at a cost of $912 million to the taxpayer and paying less than minimum wage to all program participants, was invented by the government.
I think Volunteer Canada's concerns were right on the money. That kind of consulting, which the government got for free, was for a program with all kinds of problems, but the government bashed on, and on June 25 the Prime Minister announced the program, and later that day his minister said that the WE organization would be administering it.
The current government dismisses questions of conflicts of interest in the awarding of the contract, and the PMO and the WE organization have told several media outlets that the Prime Minister's family was not paid to speak at WE events. Later, on July 3, the WE organization announced that it would not be administering this program. On that same day, the Ethics Commissioner, in response to my letter, announced he would be launching an investigation of the Prime Minister.
On July 9, we learned that the Prime Minister's family was paid by the WE organization.
On July 15, the WE organization issued a statement that it was returning to its roots and would conduct a review of its structure and activities. When a cheque is about to be cut for $912 million, due diligence by the government would have meant that it would have taken a look at what WE's structure and activities were: a board in shambles and a bank covenant not met.
A review of structure and activities should have been done by the Government of Canada before it offered its friends at WE Charity $43 million in a bailout. It is an unusual pattern, to say the least, but these ethical breaches by the Prime Minister certainly followed the same pattern I mentioned before.
Members will remember from the SNC-Lavalin scandal that the Prime Minister's first response was that the allegations in The Globe and Mail were false. We know that this was demonstrably false now. That was proven when it was deemed that he broke the law. The Liberal Prime Minister broke the law. His statements were false.
The Prime Minister's ties to this organization, the finance minister's ties to this organization and the Liberal Party's ties to this organization are deep and there are many.
It is hard to believe that there was no one in the cabinet room and no one on the line who saw this conflict, this problem on the horizon. Is it that everyone knows what happens when someone stands up to the Prime Minister? We saw that with the member for Vancouver Granville, the former attorney general. We saw that with Dr. Jane Philpott, the former president of the treasury board. She stood up to the Prime Minister. What happened to Dr. Philpott? What happened to Canada's first female indigenous attorney general? The Prime Minister fired them, and those Liberals sat silently when that happened. They were complicit in that cover-up and they are complicit in this one.
The Liberals filibustered at the ethics committee on Friday and waited until they talked out the clock. They spoke virtually uninterrupted for hours about all things unrelated and demonstrated misunderstanding in some cases and hypocrisy in others. I took to the floor to encourage them to have the courage of their convictions to vote. If they were going to vote against, they should let the chips fall where they may. Votes are won and lost all the time. However, they moved to adjourn the meeting. They did not have the courage of their convictions. They wanted to further the cover-up.
Therefore, we had the announcement for this bill. The Prime Minister has said it is all about helping people. When the WE Charity scandal first broke, he said that it was all about helping the children. I think it is all about helping the friends, family and donors of the Prime Minister. Canadians deserve better. The Prime Minister must allow the Ethics Commissioner to do his work unobstructed, with transparency, that disinfectant value that sunlight brings. He should waive cabinet confidence. What does he have to hide?
I call on all Liberals to have the courage of their convictions, to appeal to their better angels and to let the Prime Minister know that what he represents is not what Canadians deserve.
Canadians deserve better. They have elected 338 members. They have elected a Liberal caucus that can let their leader know that his behaviour is unacceptable. If they will not ask him to resign, why do they not at least tell him that he must appear at committee, must waive cabinet confidence and must own this scandal?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the practice known as “March Madness” where expenditures are made in order to avoid having unspent funds at the end of each fiscal year: what are the specific policies, programs or incentives that are currently in place, if any, in order to discourage March Madness spending, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) Crown corporation, and (iv) other government entity?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board’s financial policy instruments apply to departments as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, or FAA. Organizations in the Government of Canada, for example Crown corporations, that are not defined in section 2 of the FAA are encouraged to adopt these policy instruments to the extent possible.
Under Treasury Board’s policy on financial management, the deputy head, as accounting officer for the department, is responsible for ensuring that departments have effective systems of internal control to mitigate risks in the following broad categories: public resources are used prudently and in an economical manner; financial management processes are effective and efficient; and relevant legislation, regulations and financial management policy instruments are being complied with.
Deputy heads are also responsible for effective multi-year expenditure plans, or multi-year financial planning, to ensure funds are spent on departmental priorities. Departments must maintain effective due diligence and ongoing monitoring of spending to ensure alignment to their mandates.
Additionally, most departments are able to carry forward a portion of unspent funds from one year to the next. This flexibility acts as a disincentive for the “March madness” spending.

Question No. 5--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the SNC-Lavalin affair: (a) how many individuals has the Privy Council Office determined are to be bound by cabinet confidence and are thus unable to speak with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP); and (b) will the Prime Minister allow the RCMP to conduct a full investigation and waive cabinet confidence for all individuals the RCMP wishes to interview, and, if not, why not?
Response
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, anyone having access to confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, i.e., cabinet confidences, is required to maintain the confidentiality of that information. This includes ministers of the Crown, ministerial exempt staff and departmental officials. Before taking office as a member of the Queen’s Privy Council, every minister swears to keep matters discussed in council, including cabinet, secret. Public servants and ministerial staff are required, as a condition of employment, to keep confidential any information that comes to their knowledge in the performance of their duties pursuant to the terms and conditions of employment.
The government fully co-operated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In the course of an investigation, the RCMP is independent of the control of the government. Whether the RCMP conducts an investigation is a decision of the RCMP alone. Therefore, only the RCMP would be aware if any minister of the Crown, ministerial exempt staff or departmental official invoked their confidentiality obligations in this matter.
The RCMP was given the same access to cabinet confidences and privileged information as was provided to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 2019-0105. The decision to provide access to the RCMP was made by the Clerk of the Privy Council as custodian of cabinet confidences.
Any questions concerning activities of the RCMP should be forwarded to them directly.

Question No. 14--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to projects funded under the Canada 150 Signature Project Program: (a) what are the details of each project, including (i) project name, (ii) description, (iii) location, (iv) original project cost, (v) final project cost, (vi) original funding commitment, (vii) final funding amount provided to the project, (viii) project completion date; and (b) for each project that went over budget or required additional government funding, what was the reason for the cost overrun?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, information on grants and contributions awarded by the Department of Canadian Heritage, including pan-Canadian signature projects of Canada 150, is available on the Government of Canada proactive disclosure website: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=score_desc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Canadian%20Heritage.
Of note, the location of a beneficiary is not representative of the scope of a project. For instance, signature activities were of a national scale and, therefore, were delivered in many communities across Canada.

Question No. 18--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the late delivery of the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) by Irving Shipbuilding, which was originally scheduled for 2018 and is now scheduled for 2020: (a) what is the new anticipated delivery date; (b) why was the delivery date delayed; and (c) will the government receive a discount or will Irving Shipbuilding be required to pay a late delivery fee as a result of the delay and, if so, how much?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the new anticipated delivery date for the first Arctic and offshore patrol ship by Irving Shipbuilding is early 2020.
With regard to part (b), shipbuilding is complex, especially for a first-of-class vessel, and schedules can be challenging to predict. In the case of the first Arctic and offshore patrol ship, the originally anticipated delivery date of summer 2018 has been adjusted to early 2020. The adjustments to the schedule result from challenges associated with new production processes within a new facility on a first-of-class vessel. Irving Shipbuilding has learned lessons from the build of the first ship that are being applied to the construction of the subsequent ships. Resulting efficiencies will help the planning and achievement of anticipated dates for the delivery of the other ships in the class and the program as a whole.
With regard to part (c), although there are no late delivery fees or discounts, the shipyard is financially incentivized to deliver on schedule and on budget. The level of profit varies depending on the final cost of each ship, which is a factor of time and level of effort. Further, the contract calls for the supplier to report regularly to Canada on schedule and cost performance, for individual ships as well as for the program as a whole, which is designed to provide the government with the information required to manage the program and to update planned delivery dates as is reasonable and appropriate.

Question No. 19--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the diplomatic letter received by the government from United States officials that criticizes the level of defence spending: (a) what are the details of the letter including, (i) date on which it was received, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) summary; and (b) how many similar letters critical of the level of defence spending have been received by the government since November 4, 2015, and what are the details of all such letters, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) summary?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, positions Canada to remain strong at home, secure in North America and engaged in the world. Through this policy, Canada is making significant investments to the Canadian Armed Forces.
The United States remains Canada’s most important ally and defence partner. The Canada-U.S. bilateral defence partnership covers the full range of defence activities, from joint training exercises to personnel exchanges, strategic policy discussions and operational co-operation both at home and abroad. Canada is committed to remaining secure in North America, through our partnership with the U.S., including through the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. Canada and the U.S. are both founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and Canada remains committed to working with the U.S. and NATO allies and partners to contribute to a more stable, peaceful world.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the Government of Canada applies the principles of the Access to Information Act and certain information is withheld on the grounds that disclosing such information would be injurious to national security, defence and/or international affairs.

Question No. 20--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the new search and rescue planes, which were supposed to be delivered by Airbus on December 1, 2019: (a) why was the delivery date delayed; and (b) what is the new delivery date?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government is making investments to ensure that our search and rescue crews have the necessary aircraft to support life-saving services to Canadians in need. As such, we are procuring 16 new planes that are capable of providing improved search and rescue capabilities over long ranges, in difficult weather conditions and at night.
Canada accepted the first aircraft in Spain on December 18, 2019. As outlined in the defence capabilities blueprint, National Defence anticipates receiving all aircraft by 2022-23. For more information, please visit: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1721
With regard to part (a), the acceptance of the first aircraft was delayed to ensure final inspections of the aircraft could be completed and to assess the readiness of the aircraft operating manuals.
With regard to part (b), as noted above, Canada accepted the first aircraft on December 18, 2019.

Question No. 24--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to page 25 of the Liberal Party of Canada election platform which stated that “we will merge existing financial and advisory services currently scattered between several agencies into Farm Credit Canada”: (a) which specific entities and services will be merged into Farm Credit Canada (FCC); (b) how many jobs at each of the entities in (a) will be (i) eliminated, (ii) transferred to FCC; (c) what is the breakdown of jobs in (b) by location; and (d) what is the projected timeline for this merger?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is currently analyzing the platform commitment referenced by the member of Parliament for Foothills in Question No. 24 on December 5, 2019, with respect to Farm Credit Canada. An approach to implement this commitment is being developed in alignment with the mandate letter for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, which tasks the minister to support farmers as they succeed and grow, and to lead the consolidation of existing federal financial and advisory services currently scattered among several agencies. The new entity, farm and food development Canada, will serve as a single point of service, delivering products from across government, with an expanded and enhanced mandate and additional capital lending capability.
Therefore, at this time, the following information is available with respect to the specific questions.
With respect to part (a), the scope of specific entities and services to be merged is still under analysis.
With regard to part (b), potential impacts on jobs cannot be defined at this time.
Regarding part (c), given that the potential on jobs cannot be defined at this time, a regional breakdown cannot be provided.
Finally, with respect to part (d), the projected timeline for the implementation of this commitment will depend on the results of the analysis and the implementation approach taken.

Question No. 31--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Natural Resources Canada since January 1, 2018, what are the details of each including (i) date of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) project description?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, grants and contributions, including those under $25,000, provided by Natural Resources Canada since January 1, 2018, are proactively disclosed and can be found at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=scoredesc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Natural%20Resources%20Canada.

Question No. 32--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to Bill C-69 of the First Session of the 42nd Parliament: what specific measures passed in Bill C-69, if any, will the government remove in order to improve the economy in western Canada?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a strong economy depends on a healthy environment. The Impact Assessment Act protects the environment and respects indigenous rights, while strengthening the economy and encouraging investment.
The Impact Assessment Act sets out a federal process for impact assessment of major projects that considers both positive and negative environmental, economic, social and health impacts of potential projects.
To support Canada’s competitiveness and attract investment, the impact assessment system provides clear expectations and shorter legislated timelines, and aims to avoid duplication with other jurisdictions wherever possible, with the goal of one project, one review.
While our intention is not to reopen the legislation for amendments, we are open to constructive suggestions and discussions moving forward as we look to implement the law.

Question No. 35--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the fleet of Challenger aircraft: (a) does the government have plans to purchase new aircraft to replace the fleet; (b) which aircraft is the government considering as a replacement; and (c) what is the projected cost of replacements?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government is providing the Royal Canadian Air Force the equipment it needs to succeed on operations, at home and abroad.
The Challenger fleet fulfills critical roles for the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Government of Canada, including rapidly deployable medical and military transport to theatres of operation and secure and reliable transport for Canadian representatives, including the Governor General and the Prime Minister. For example, the disaster assistance response team utilized a Challenger as part of Canada’s initial response to the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines.
With respect to part (a), as outlined in the defence capabilities blueprint, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces will assess options for the continued provision of administrative and utility flight services.
With respect to part (b), following the development of operational requirements for the fleet, the Canadian Armed Forces will better understand which specific aircraft meets the parameters.
With regard to part (c), as the costs will depend on the option selected, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are unable provide detailed projected costs at this time.

Question No. 40--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to training flights for the government’s fleet of Challenger aircraft, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are all instances where the Prime Minister, ministers, or other government officials have had their “guests” fly on a training flight; and (b) for each instance in (a), what are the details of the leg of each such flight, including (i) names of guests on manifest, (ii) names of guests on each flight, if different than (i), (iii) date of flight, (iv) origin, (v) destination?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force provides flight services for official travel by the Governor General, the Prime Minister, ministers or other government officials, and their guests.
Since January 1, 2016, the Royal Canadian Air Force has not conducted any Challenger training flights with guests of the Prime Minister, ministers or government officials aboard.

Question No. 46--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to government statistics on veterans’ homelessness: what is the current number, or estimated number, of homeless veterans, and what is the breakdown by (i) municipality, and (ii) province?
Response
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as per the ESDC national shelter study, 2005 to 2016, 1.8% of shelter users, an estimated 2,400 people, reported having served in the military in 2016. This is a decrease from nearly 3,000 people, or 2.2%, in 2014.
Veterans who have used emergency shelters were more likely to be male, at 84.4%. Male shelter users tended to be older, 48 years old on average, than female shelter users, who were 38 years old on average. Nearly half, or 42.7%, of females having served in the military were under age 30, compared with 13.8% of males.
The national shelter study provides a national estimate of veteran emergency shelter use. However, reliable provincial community estimates of veteran shelter use are not available, as some provinces are under-represented in the data, and there are communities for which we do not receive data for the entirety of the shelter system.

Question No. 58--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the government’s response to the need for a new sewage treatment plant in Inverness, Nova Scotia: (a) how much money has the government committed for a new sewage treatment plant; and (b) when will construction on the new plant (i) begin, (ii) be completed?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s response to the need for a new sewage treatment plant in Inverness, Nova Scotia, the federal government has not received an application for a new sewage treatment plant. Under the investing in Canada infrastructure program, projects must first be prioritized by the province before they are submitted to Infrastructure Canada for consideration.

Question No. 61--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to Destination Canada, excluding general tourism promotion: what measures, if any, is the agency taking to specifically promote Canada as a hunting, angling, and outfitting destination?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Economic Development and Minister of Official Languages, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Destination Canada is not currently engaged in any marketing efforts related to hunting and outfitting. For angling, three provincial marketing organizations are currently developing a potential strategy. Upon completion of the strategy, Destination Canada will determine if it will support the provincial marketing efforts.

Question No. 63--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the Phoenix pay system: (a) how many individuals currently owe the government money as a result of an overpayment; (b) how many individuals are currently owed money by the government as a result of being underpaid; (c) what are the median amounts for the individuals in (a) and (b); and (d) what are the highest amounts for the individuals in (a) and (b)?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as of December 5, 2019, it is estimated that 98,249 individuals potentially owe the government money as a result of an overpayment.
As the Phoenix pay system cannot segregate true overpayments from administrative overpayments, it is not possible to accurately provide specific figures for true overpayment, which represent money owed to the government.
True overpayments are created in situations where employees receive pay to which they were not entitled. For example, this occurs when employees’ termination or leave without pay, e.g. parental leave, is entered after the pay period of their departure date, resulting in extra paycheques.
Administrative overpayments are a result of the system’s design. They have no impact on employees, given that refunds are automatically generated and netted out in the next pay period. Administrative overpayments are created to ensure employees receive the pay to which they are entitled.
For example, an acting situation is when an employee is temporarily moved from a regular position into a position at a higher classification, and therefore a higher salary rate. When the acting is entered late in Phoenix, the system pays the higher salary rate from the start of the acting period and reverses the payments that were made at the regular salary rate. The system records the inflow and outflow as an administrative overpayment. A new payment is then automatically generated, at the correct acting salary rate.
In recognition of extraordinary challenges due to the backlog, recovery of most overpayment balances will not begin until all of the employee’s outstanding pay transactions have been processed, the employee has received three consecutive accurate pays, and the employee has indicated the preferred repayment option.
In response to (b), unpaid amounts owed to employees can be related to several factors. For example, they can result from regular pay transactions such as overtime and acting pay that are not yet processed or due to errors. It is not possible to report on these figures accurately until all pay-related transactions in the backlog are processed by compensation advisers. While accurate figures are impossible to obtain regarding total underpayments, estimates can be made by departments based on methods such as amounts self-reported by employees, or amounts paid to employees through priority payments due to missing pay.
Employees who have been underpaid can request emergency salary advances or priority payments from their departments.
In response to (c), the median value of total overpayment balances is $1,383.
The government is not in a position to provide the answer regarding underpayments as the system cannot automatically calculate such transactions.
In response to (d), to protect the privacy of the affected government employee, the highest overpayment value will not be reported.
It is important to note that when PSPC reports a balance of overpayments, the figure includes true overpayments as well as administrative overpayments. True overpayments represent employees receiving pay that they are not entitled to, whereas administrative overpayments are part of the system’s design and have no impact on employees. As the Phoenix pay system cannot segregate true overpayments from administrative overpayments, it is not possible to accurately provide specific figures for true overpayment, which represent money owed to the government.
The government is not in a position to provide the answer regarding underpayments as the system cannot automatically calculate such transactions.

Question No. 65--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to government statistics on medical malpractice in Canada: what are the government’s statistics related to how many deaths occurred as a result of medical malpractice in each of the past 10 years, broken down by year?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, oversight of the medical profession is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. However, the Canadian Institute for Health Information tracks occurrences of unintended harm during hospital stays that could have been potentially prevented by implementing known best practices, which can serve as an overall picture of safety in Canadian hospitals (data from Quebec is excluded for methodological issues).

Question No. 66--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the March 2019 leak of information related to the Supreme Court nomination process: (a) did the government investigate the leak, and, if not, why not; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, who investigated the leak; (c) was the leak referred to the RCMP and, if not, why not; and (d) is the government aware who leaked the information and, if so, who was responsible?
Response
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, any and all unauthorized disclosure of confidential and private information is taken seriously. We have been informed that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is investigating the matter. ?At this time, the Privy Council Office has no further comment?.
As stated on March 27, 2019, “We [the Prime Minister’s Office] take the integrity of our institutions seriously. The PMO would never leak who would be considered for a judicial appointment.”

Question No. 67--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the Huawei’s participation in Canada’s 5G Networks: when will the government make a decision regarding Huawei’s participation?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government acknowledges the importance of securing 5G telecommunications systems. Cybersecurity is complex and multi-faceted, particularly when we are considering the infrastructure of the network itself. 5G technology is expected to affect not just our telecommunications sector, but also many other sectors, as it will enable innovations such as automated transportation, smart cities and remote medicine.
The government’s technical, economic, foreign policy, and security experts are working together diligently to examine the security challenges and potential threats involved in 5G technology, while recognizing the importance this technology holds in the continued development of a dynamic and digital economy. This examination will help determine the best way to maximize the benefits of this extraordinary technology for Canadians, and to minimize the associated security and privacy risks.
Canada will make appropriate decisions in due course.

Question No. 70--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to Public Services and Procurement Canada notifying companies about media requests received by the department, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all instances where the department has notified a company about a media request, including (i) date, (ii) name of company, (iii) title of the individual who notified the company, (iv) title of the individual at the company who was provided with information related to the media request, (v) reason for notifying the company, (vi) summary or description of the media request, (vii) name of the media outlet the request was received from?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the department’s standard media process does not include contacting nor sharing media requests with companies. That said, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, is committed to providing Canadians, including media, with timely, factual information about our work, and in doing so, PSPC may, from time to time, verify information with companies when working on inquiries involving work contracted to them. When doing so, PSPC is careful to protect the privacy of journalists.
PSPC does not systematically track these exchanges; thus, the department is unable to answer within the allotted time.

Question No. 77--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard and related regulations: (a) how was the estimated emissions reduction of 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases determined; and (b) what is the margin of error of the estimated emissions reduction?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada modeled a scenario for the clean fuel standard, CFS, in the late summer/early fall of 2016 in support of the pan-Canadian framework on climate change.
The energy, emissions and economy model for Canada, E3MC, was used, which integrates the simulation of the supply, demand and price of all sources of energy and emissions and has a macroeconomic model that examines consumption, investment, production and trade decisions.
The 10% reduction in life-cycle carbon intensity of the CFS was modelled through assumed changes in combustion intensity as follows: 10% renewable content by 2030 for diesel and gasoline, including light and heavy fuel oil, in transportation, buildings and industry, including off-road transportation; 5% renewable content by 2030 for natural gas in buildings, industry and electricity generation; 90% of petroleum coke and heavy fuel oil switch to natural gas in industry, excluding Newfoundland and Labrador.
A full cost-benefit analysis with updated greenhouse gas or GHG emissions reductions projections will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the CFS regulations. This will include an estimate of emissions reductions in 2030.
In response to (b), the E3MC is not a probabilistic model and has no built-in representation of uncertainty. In turn, no margin of error for the 30 million tonnes was estimated.
In general, a variety of factors could affect the projected emissions reductions from a policy such as the CFS, including other policies that are targeting the same sources of emissions, such as carbon pricing; changes to assumptions on economic growth and world energy prices; and future developments in technologies, demographics and resources that cannot be predicted.
A full cost-benefit analysis with updated GHG emissions reductions projections will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the CFS regulations. This will include a detailed discussion of the uncertainty associated with the modelled impact of the CFS.

Question No. 80--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to carbon taxation: (a) what are the current projected annual emissions reductions resulting from carbon taxation by 2030, excluding output-based pricing system (OBPS), broken down by province; (b) what are the current projected annual emissions reductions resulting from OBPS, broken down by province; and (c) if these estimates differ from any estimate that has been published by the government since November 2015, what is the reason for the differences for all such cases?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is widely recognized that economy-wide carbon pollution pricing is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas or GHG emissions. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act provided the legal framework and enabling authorities for the federal backstop carbon pollution pricing system. This system is composed of two parts: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, which is the fuel charge, and the output-based pricing system, OBPS, for industrial facilities. The OBPS creates a strong financial incentive for the least efficient facilities to reduce their emissions per unit of output and for strong performers to continue to improve.
The federal backstop system applies in any province or territory that does not have a carbon pollution pricing system that meets the federal benchmark, or in those that request it. Currently, the federal fuel charge applies in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Yukon and Nunavut. Currently, the federal OBPS applies in Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Nunavut, and partially in Saskatchewan.
Carbon pollution pricing will make a significant contribution toward meeting Canada’s GHG reduction target. Carbon pollution pricing across Canada is estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 50 to 60 million tonnes in 2022. As noted in the June 2019 OBPS regulatory impact analysis statement, the federal OBPS is estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 3.6 megatonnes in 2022.
While pricing carbon pollution is key, it is not the only thing we are doing to fight climate change. Canada’s clean growth and climate plan includes more than 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt and become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate, foster clean technology solutions, and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy.

Question No. 87--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the federal carbon tax: what will the carbon tax rate be for each of the next 10 years, broken down by year?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which received royal assent on June 21, 2018 as part of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, establishes the framework to implement the federal carbon pollution pricing system in provinces and territories that request it and in provinces and territories that do not have a system that meets the federal stringency requirements. The federal system has two components: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, which is the “fuel charge”, and a trading system for large industry, which is the “output-based pricing system” or OBPS.
The federal fuel charge applies, as of April 1, 2019, in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; as of July 1, 2019, in Yukon and Nunavut; and, as of January 1, 2020, in Alberta. The government has announced its intention to no longer apply the fuel charge in New Brunswick, as of April 1, 2020, as the province proposed to implement a provincial carbon levy, as of that date, that meets the federal stringency requirements for the sources that it covers.
The federal fuel charge rates reflect a carbon pollution price of $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e, as of April 1, 2019, which will rise by $10 per tonne annually until it reaches $50 per tonne in 2022.
The OBPS started applying in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and partially in Saskatchewan on January 1, 2019, and in Yukon and Nunavut on July 1, 2019. Rather than paying the fuel charge, covered facilities provide compensation for the portion of their greenhouse gas or GHG emissions that exceeds their applicable emissions limit, based on an activity-specific output-based standard. If a covered facility’s GHG emissions exceed the prescribed emissions limit in a year, it may compensate for its excess emissions in three ways. It may submit surplus credits it earned in the past, or that it has acquired from other facilities; submit other prescribed credits that it acquired; or pay an excess emissions charge. The excess emissions charge rates reflect a carbon price of $20 per tonne of CO2e in 2019, and an increase of $10 per tonne annually until it reaches $50 per tonne in 2022.
First ministers have committed to reviewing carbon pollution pricing across Canada in 2022. This will inform the path forward and help ensure that carbon pollution pricing is fair and effective across Canada.

Question No. 88--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the increased number of tax files shared between the government and the Internal Revenue Service in the United States: (a) how many files were shared in (i) 2017, (ii) 2018, (iii) 2019; and (b) what is the reason for the dramatic increase in the number of files being shared in 2019?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of 113 jurisdictions that have signed a model 1 intergovernmental agreement, IGA, with the United States of America, U.S., with respect to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, FATCA.
Under the IGA, the CRA acts as a conduit to facilitate the transmission of financial account information of “U.S. persons” from Canadian financial institutions, FIs, to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, IRS. Information regarding “U.S. persons” can be found under article 1(ee) of the IGA: https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/pdf/FATCA-eng.pdf.
In response to part (a), the approximate numbers of records sent to the IRS under the IGA for the years in question are as follows: 600,000 in 2017, for 2016 tax year; 700,000 in 2018, for 2017 tax year; 900,000 in 2019, for 2018 tax year.
In response to part (b), with respect to the increase in records over time, the following factors are of particular relevance.
In addition to the IGA, the common reporting standard, CRS, was implemented in July 2017. As a result of this development and FIs’ desire to align their compliance requirements for these two regimes, more U.S. reportable accounts were identified. Also, when the CRS came into force, legislation was amended to require self-certification on all new accounts for both the IGA and CRS, which also resulted in an increase in records.
Furthermore, as the exchanges under the IGA operate by records and not by account holder, more than one record can exist for any person or entity. As time goes on, new accounts are opened and there are changes to account information, such as updates to an address or to produce a tax identification number, which creates additional records, even though they relate to a single account and taxpayer.

Question No. 89--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: broken down by riding, what is the number and percentage of individuals whom the minister considers to belong to the middle class?
Response
Hon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government’s focus on middle-class prosperity reflects its priority on policies that grow the economy and benefit a very broad group of Canadians.
The income required to attain a middle-class lifestyle can vary greatly based on Canadians’ specific situations: e.g., what their family situation is, whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive. Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 90--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to government statistics on foreign oil imports: what was the amount of oil imported into Canada, broken down by country of origin in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018, (iv) 2019?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s energy sector is a key driver of the economy; provides good, well-paying jobs to hard-working Canadians; and is an overall net exporter of fuels. The government understands the importance of providing Canadians with reliable and transparent information. To that end, the Canada energy regulator or CER website provides information on oil imports, broken down by country of origin and year: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/snpsht/2019/03-03mprtscrdl-eng.html. As noted by the CER, imports of oil from other countries into Canada decreased by 12% in 2018. Data for 2019 is not yet available; however, figures are expected to be similar to those from 2018.

Question No. 91--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project: (a) what specific sections of the project have been completed to date; (b) which specific sections of the project are expected to be completed in 2020; and (c) what is the current expected completion date for the project?
Response
Mr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) and (b),
in August 2019, Trans Mountain Corporation, TMC, resumed construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. TMC intends to construct the project in seven segments and five terminals, each of which could be referred to as a “section”. As of December 6, 2019, the date of the question, TMC has not completed construction at any individual segment or terminal. As of that date, construction at Westridge terminal is the most advanced.
In response to part (c), TMC will be providing updates on construction progress, including the completion of construction at individual segments and terminals, on a regular basis.

Question No. 103--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the transition from the National Energy Board (NEB) to the Canada Energy Regulator: (a) how many individuals or full-time equivalents (FTE) were previously employed by the NEB; (b) how many FTEs are employed by the Canada Energy Regulator; (c) what are the total costs associated with the transition; and (d) what is the itemized breakdown of the transition costs?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on August 28, 2019, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act came into force, replacing the National Energy Board Act, and the National Energy Board became the Canada Energy Regulator. The Canada Energy Regulator is a new, modern and world-class federal energy regulator with the required independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe and sustainable Canadian energy sector in the 21st century.
With regard to (a), on July 2, 2019, there were 494.7 FTEs employed by the National Energy Board.
With regard to (b), on November 29, 2019, there were 511.6 FTEs employed by the Canada Energy Regulator.
Note that information regarding parts (a) and (b) was pulled from material prepared for other internal reporting purposes on the date specified.
With regard to (c) and (d), funding for the National Energy Board to support its transition to the Canada Energy Regulator was outlined in budget 2019. Information regarding the transition costs from the National Energy Board to the Canada Energy Regulator is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The regulator concluded that producing and validating the information for this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 106--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the promise on page 20 of the Liberal election platform, where it says the government will be “giving $250 to every new business looking to expand their online services”: (a) what is the government’s threshold or definition of a “new” business; (b) will this be a one-time payment or an annual subsidy; and (c) how many businesses does the government project to be eligible for this payment?
Response
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion and Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to helping small businesses in digital adaptation, which is essential for small and medium-sized enterprises to grow and compete in an interconnected global economy. Please refer to the ministerial mandate letters for further information: https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters

Question No. 107--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the establishment of a minister of state for Diversity, Inclusion and Youth to assist the Minister of Canadian Heritage: how many public service employees have been transferred from the Privy Council Office (PCO) to the Department of Canadian Heritage as a result of this change, broken down by secretariat or section of the PCO?
Response
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the establishment of a Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Youth, six employees from the LGBTQ2 Secretariat and nine from the Youth Secretariat have been transferred from the Privy Council Office to the Department of Canadian Heritage as a result of this change.

Question No. 114--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the document "Clean Fuel Standard: Proposed regulatory approach", released in June 2019: (a) what is the estimated economic impact; (b) when was the estimated economic impact first received by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change; and (c) when will the estimated economic impact be shared publicly?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in February 2019, Environment and Climate Change Canada published a cost-benefit analysis framework outlining the approach for undertaking the cost-benefit analysis that will estimate the cost impacts and benefits attributable to the proposed clean fuel standard regulations. Feedback on this framework is being considered as we continue to conduct economic analysis.
With regard to (b), as the design of the clean fuel standard has not been finalized, there has been no final economic impact assessment shared with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
With regard to (c), a full cost-benefit analysis will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the draft regulations for liquid fuels.

Question No. 119--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the government’s plan for dealing with the mercury poisoning issues at the Grassy Narrows First Nation: (a) what are the government’s specific plans for the Grassy Narrows First Nation; (b) when will the promised medical treatment facility in Grassy Narrows be completed; and (c) what specific amount has been allocated for the medical treatment facility in (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, (iv) 2023?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Canada has committed to fund the design, construction and operation of a mercury treatment facility in Grassy Narrows First Nation in response to mercury poisoning that contaminated the English-Wabigoon River system and to expand the current health facility in Grassy Narrows First Nation to provide expanded services for all its residents.
With respect to the existing health facility, Canada is providing $9 million in funding to enhance the current facility and to expand the services the current facility delivers. This expansion will include increasing primary health care delivery, including clinical spaces, medical equipment, and support for remote practice and telepractice, pharmacy and public health services and community-based programs such as mental health and wellness. The health facility and accommodations update is estimated to be 1,230.88 square metres when completed, compared to the current facility space of 347 square metres, which was built in 1989. The building design will include the ability for future expansion of other health services, i.e., a paramedic room, X-ray, additional residence units. Ongoing dialogue continues between Canada and Grassy Narrows First Nation, and it is anticipated that construction will begin in the summer of 2020 to renovate the current health facility.
Regarding the construction and operation of a mercury treatment facility, a feasibility study was completed by the community and discussions are ongoing about the design, construction and scope of health services to be delivered in conjunction with the Province of Ontario.
The proposed 22-bed centre provides space for clients impacted by mercury poisoning and includes space for additional accommodations for allied health professionals. On December 4, 2019, Minister Miller met with Chief Turtle of Grassy Narrows to discuss next steps to advance work being undertaken to support the specific health and assisted-living needs of Grassy Narrows First Nation. Canada remains committed to working in close partnership with the community to reach an agreement that will adequately meet their needs now and in the long term.
With regard to (b), the timelines for completion of the mercury treatment facility will be based on the outcomes of ongoing discussions with Grassy Narrows First Nation to ensure that the facility’s design adequately supports and complements the health services required by the community.
The Government of Canada is strongly committed to ensuring the health and well-being of first nations communities and that addressing the health needs of communities must be achieved through collaborative relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.
With regard to (c), discussions between Grassy Narrows First Nation and Canada are ongoing, and funding from 2020-23 will be allocated based on the successful conclusion of these discussions.

Question No. 120--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the Canadian Small Modular Reactor Roadmap and the note on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's website that “The Government of Canada is reviewing its recommendations and plans to develop an action plan in the near future“: will the government be releasing the plan by the end of 2020, and, if not, what is the timeline for releasing the plan?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in November 2018, the Government of Canada welcomed the release of “A Call to Action: A Canadian Roadmap for Small Modular Reactors”. The report was the culmination of a 10-month pan-Canadian, stakeholder-led engagement initiative convened by Natural Resources Canada. It brought together provincial and territorial governments, utilities, industry, civil society, indigenous communities, and interested stakeholders to explore opportunities in Canada for this emerging technology.
The report found that SMRs could carry significant opportunities for Canada. It also made clear, however, that the Government of Canada cannot act alone, and included over 50 recommendations for 14 different partners and stakeholder groups.
The Government of Canada has already acted on a number of opportunities outlined in the report, including finding efficiencies and streamlining the regulatory system to mitigate barriers to innovation while always ensuring safety; working to connect nuclear industry partners with new potential end-users, including resource sectors; and collaborating with international partners to ensure that proper enabling frameworks are in place.
Partners across Canada have also been taking action on recommendations from the report, including Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL; the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC; provinces; utilities; industry; and civil society organizations.
The Government of Canada will continue to engage stakeholders, as well as local and Indigenous communities, moving forward.

Question No. 125--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to page 36 of the Liberal election platform, which stated that “we will work with [British Columbia] to develop a responsible plan to transition from open net pen salmon farming in coastal waters to closed containment systems by 2025”: (a) what analysis has been conducted by the government with respect to (i) the current commercial viability of closed containment systems in Canada, (ii) the likely change in commercial viability of closed containment systems in Canada between now and 2025, (iii) the environmental risks and benefits associated with closed containment systems, (iv) the comparability of closed containment systems to alternative technologies that are designed to reduce potential impacts to wild salmon stocks, (v) the timeline that would be required for commercial salmon farmers to convert to closed containment, and (vi) the likely economic and social impact of requiring operators to convert to closed containment systems by 2025; (b) when were these analyses conducted; and (c) what were the results of these analyses?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as part of its commitment to an in-depth understanding of emerging technologies, in 2008, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, assessed the technical feasibility of closed containment methods for salmon aquaculture, sourcing input and information from 60 international experts. This peer review of six working papers was led by DFO through the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, CSAS, which is the department's primary scientific, peer review process. In this review, land-based recirculating aquaculture systems, i.e., land-based closed containment, showed biological and technological potential; however, at that time none were producing exclusively adult Atlantic salmon, and numerous attempts to do so had resulted in failure for various reasons. Further research on the effects of high-density culture on fish welfare and disease management was recommended. The floating closed containment systems evaluated, especially rigid walled systems, presented engineering challenges that might limit use in more exposed areas; however, the potential for these to be addressed with engineering solutions was identified. The results of the 2008 report “Potential Technologies for Closed Containment Saltwater Salmon Aquaculture” are available at the following link: https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/332156.pdf.
In follow-up to the CSAS study, in 2010, the department conducted an economic analysis of a model commercial-scale closed containment facility. The study concluded that while closed containment production of adult Atlantic salmon has the potential for financial feasibility, it is very susceptible to a range of commercial variables that could quickly make it uneconomical. The results of the report, the “Feasibility Study of Closed Containment Options for the British Columbia Aquaculture Industry”, are available at the following link: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/programs-programmes/BC-aquaculture-CB-eng.htm.
As announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in December of 2018, DFO, in partnership with Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, and the Province of British Columbia, B.C., commissioned and funded a study on the state of salmon aquaculture technologies to examine the risks and opportunities of the most promising emerging technologies for salmon farming in B.C. The study explored the financial, environmental and social elements of emerging aquaculture technologies and highlighted some of the ways to incent the adoption of these new technologies, including how other countries have incented adoption. The study explored four technology options: land-based closed containment, floating closed containment, offshore technologies, and hybrid systems, which combine both land- and marine-based systems. We expect that the state of salmon aquaculture technologies study will be released soon.
The state of salmon aquaculture technology study indicated that all four production technologies have the opportunity to reduce interactions between farmed and wild salmon compared to conventional open-net pen aquaculture production, but the assessment against other environmental, economic and social elements varied. While full grow-out to market-size fish in land-based closed containment inherently has the most strengths in environmental performance with respect to reducing interactions with the marine environment and wild fish, the study also indicated that a high amount of energy is used in closed containment system construction and operation, but noted that this, as well as the corresponding greenhouse gas emissions, could be offset by locating systems closer to consumer markets and feed sources and by using low-carbon energy alternatives where possible.
The study concluded that overall, land-based closed containment and hybrid systems are the most technologically developed for application in B.C., while floating closed containment and offshore technologies still require about five to 10 years of further development and evaluation. The study indicated that land-based closed containment, though less financially proven, is the most socially acceptable technology by opponents of open-net pen aquaculture, as long as it is developed and operated in B.C. On the other hand, the study also indicated that the hybrid system is likely more profitable and the preferred choice for the majority of industry, contingent on its also operating in the B.C. coastal region, responding to some of the key economic and environmental performance criteria.
The government has not studied the commercial viability of closed containment systems in Canada between now and 2025, nor the economic and social impact of requiring operators to convert to closed containment systems by 2025.

Question No. 127--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the government’s plan to provide almost $600 million in subsidies to select media outlets: (a) what (i) objective criteria, (ii) subjective criteria will be used to determine which outlets receive funding; and (b) what weight or level of importance will be given to each of the criteria in (a)?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada introduced three tax measures in budget 2019 to strengthen Canadian journalism. These include the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of an eligible newsroom employee for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019; the digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025; and a new type of qualified donee called a “registered journalism organization” for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.
The “gateway” for eligibility for all the income tax measures is for an organization to first be designated as a “qualified Canadian journalism organization”, QCJO. While designation as a QCJO does not automatically entitle organizations to specific tax measures, it is the necessary first step in determining if any of the three income tax measures could apply.
With regard to (a) and (b), note that the terms “objective criteria” and “subjective criteria” do not appear in the relevant definitions of the Income Tax Act. The relevant criteria that must be met for the tax measures listed above are set out in the act as follows: qualified Canadian journalism organization, 248(1); Canadian journalism tax credit, subsection 125.6(1); digital news subscription tax credit, subsection 118.02; and registered journalism organization, subsection 149.1(1).
Budget 2019 also announced that an independent panel of experts would be established for the purpose of providing recommendations and guidance on the administration of the legislative provisions that were introduced to support journalism. The Journalism and Written Media Independent Panel of Experts delivered its report containing recommendations on certain aspects of the legislation in July 2019.

Question No. 128--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund: what are the details of all grants awarded by the fund since January 1, 2019, including (i) name of the recipient, (ii) date on which the funding was received, (iii) amount received?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, please note that the requested information is available on the Government of Canada’s website at: https://open.canada.ca/en/search/grants
Instructions: open the link; enter in the search field, “Canada periodical fund, aid to publishers”; and select a year.

Question No. 129--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the $600 million media bailout fund: (a) how much money has been distributed to date; (b) who were the recipients of the money; and (c) how much did each recipient in (b) receive?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government introduced three tax measures in budget 2019 to support Canadian journalism. These include the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of an eligible newsroom employee for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019; the digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025; a new type of qualified donee called a “registered journalism organization” for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.
The “gateway” for eligibility for all the income tax measures is for an organization to first be designated as a “qualified Canadian journalism organization”, QCJO. While designation as a QCJO does not automatically entitle organizations to specific tax measures, it is the necessary first step in determining if any of the three income tax measures could apply.
With regard to (a), (b) and (c), the CRA does not have any data of the nature requested, as the tax measures to support journalism and the QCJO designation process have not yet commenced. As of December 6, 2019, that is, the date of this question, one of the three tax measures to support journalism has come into force and the CRA has not publicly released its application form and guidance, which are necessary for organizations to be able to apply for and be designated for QCJO status.

Question No. 132--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the current ongoing construction taking place on the lawn of Parliament Hill between Centre Block and the Centennial Flame: (a) what is the specific purpose of the construction; (b) when will the construction be completed and the entire lawn be open to the public again; (c) what is the estimated cost associated with the construction; and (d) what are the details of all contracts signed in relation to the construction, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of contract, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the current ongoing construction taking place on the lawn of Parliament Hill between Centre Block and the Centennial Flame is related to the Centre Block rehabilitation program, which includes excavating the northern portion of the lawn in order to construct phase II of the Visitor Welcome Centre. The project is being completed as part of the long term vision and plan, a multi-year strategy for restoring and modernizing Canada’s historic parliamentary precinct.
With regard to (b), the front lawn will be reinstated following the restoration of the Centre Block. The timelines for construction are in development and will be available in 2020 once a detailed building condition assessment program and schematic design are complete.
PSPC, in concert with its government and parliamentary partners, is committed to maintaining a positive experience on Parliament Hill while construction is taking place.
With regard to (c), critical information on the state of the Centre Block and its future functional requirements is still under assessment. The scope, schedule and budget will be available in 2020 once the detailed condition assessment is complete and schematic design is sufficiently advanced.
With regard to (d), the Centre Block rehabilitation program is utilizing a construction management contracting model to deliver the construction component of the project. Under this model, the construction manager competitively tenders and oversees all aspects of the construction execution. Contracting opportunities are posted by the construction manager on MERX. This construction management contract was competitively tendered and awarded to a joint venture comprised of PCL/Ellis Don in the spring of 2017.
The link to the construction management contract can be found on the Government of Canada buyandsell.gc.ca website: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-FP-001-68514?order=title&sort=asc#title
With regard to (d)(i), the vendor is PCL/EllisDon in joint venture. With regard to (d)(ii), the amount is $598,000,000. With regard to (d)(iii), the contract was awarded in April 2017 and is valid until March 2029. With regard to (d)(iv), the goods and services consist of construction management services. With regard to (d)(v), the buy and sell reference number is PW-$FP-001-68514, and the buy and sell solicitation number is EP748-151886/D

Question No. 133--
Mr. Erin O'Toole:
With regard to the government's treatment of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman: what are the total expenditures incurred to date for the investigation and prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman, broken down by type of expenditures?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown can only reveal the total legal cost related to this case. Based upon the hours recorded, the total amount of legal costs incurred amounts to approximately $1,425,389.68, as of December 9, 2019.

Question No. 135--
Mr. Erin O'Toole:
With regard to international summits, meetings, and events held in Canada since January 1, 2016: (a) how often were RCMP members seconded from local detachments to perform duties related to an international summit, meeting or event; (b) of the cases referred to in (a), how often were members seconded from RCMP detachments with 10 or fewer members; (c) of the cases referred to in (a), how often were more than 50% of the members in a detachment seconded; and (d) of the cases referred to in (a), how often were more than 25% of the members in a detachment seconded?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP’s protective policing program is mandated to ensure the safety and security of government-led events, as prescribed by Canadian legislation, directives and international conventions. This includes, for example, the 2016 North American leaders summit in Ottawa, Ontario, and the recent 2018 G7 leaders summit in La Malbaie, Quebec.
To execute this mandate and ensure the proper functioning of a government-led event, the RCMP deploys resources and implements security measures commensurate to the RCMP’s assessment of the threat and risk environment for that particular unique event.
RCMP protective policing personnel, which are located in multiple divisions across the country, will be deployed in support of a government-led event to ensure the appropriate security posture. In some cases, divisional resources and personnel from within other areas of the RCMP, i.e., federal policing or vontract, will also be deployed, if required.
For operational reasons, the RCMP cannot disclose detailed information that may expose security postures adopted to ensure the security of government-led events, including the number of resources deployed from divisions.

Question No. 138--
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to the government’s response to the concern of small communities that they will be unable to meet the government’s wastewater regulations by 2020: (a) will the government fine small communities who are unable to meet the regulations; (b) will the government provide urgent funding to the communities in order to meet these new regulations; and (c) what remedies will be available to small communities that do not have the means to upgrade their facilities in order to meet the regulations?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada has an obligation to enforce environmental laws and regulations and takes its responsibilities seriously. Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, is responsible for administering and enforcing the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish, and the wastewater systems effluent regulations, WSER, made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, FA.
ECCC aims to enforce the WSER in a manner that is fair, consistent and predictable.
If ECCC enforcement officers become aware of an alleged violation they may take appropriate action in accordance with the compliance and enforcement policy for the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. This ECCC policy states that if there is evidence of a contravention, officers can take a number of different enforcement measures considering factors set out in this policy, including issuing warnings or directions. Warnings are administrative documents, which brings an alleged violation to the attention of an alleged violator in order to promote any necessary action to come back into compliance with the WSER. Directions are legal documents in which the enforcement officer orders the alleged offender to come back into compliance with the WSER. Warnings and directions are enforcement options used before prosecution, and do not involve monetary fines.
Further, according to the Fisheries Act, FA, no one can be convicted if the person establishes that they exercised due diligence or reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would render the person’s conduct innocent.
With more serious alleged offences, officers can conduct investigations to collect evidence for the purposes of prosecuting in court. The evidence collected is sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. A decision to prosecute an alleged offender is the sole discretion of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Once the person has been charged, an option that does not involve court proceedings is “alternative measures”. Alternative measures are agreements negotiated with the accused by the Attorney General of Canada, in consultation with the Minister of the Environment. It will contain measures that the accused must take in order to restore compliance.
Where there are no alternative measures, a person who is found guilty of contravening the WSER following court proceedings is liable to a fine the amount of which will differ greatly depending on whether the offender is an individual, a small revenue corporation or another person and whether it is their first offence.
These regulations do not fall under ECCC legislation, which allows for ticketing or administrative monetary penalties, the contraventions regulations and the administrative monetary penalties regulations, for violation to certain other ECCC acts or regulations.
In response to (b), Environment and Climate Change Canada will not provide any funding related to Q-138.
In response to (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada does not have any remedies related to Q-138.

Question No. 139--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the government funding transfers to the Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIB): (a) what is the total amount of money transferred to date; (b) what are the details of each transfer, including (i) date, (ii) amount; (c) how many Canadian infrastructure projects have been funded as a result of the money transferred in (a), and what are the details of all such projects, including the amount received from the AIB; and (d) how many jobs in Canada have been directly created as a result of the funding in (a)?
Response
Mr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), Canada became a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, through the purchase of shares valued at $199.1 million U.S. To date, $79.64 million U.S. has been transferred.
In response to parts (b)(i) and (ii), the dates and amounts are March 8, 2018, $39.82 million U.S., and March 11, 2019, $39.82 million U.S.
In response to part (c), multilateral development banks, MDBs, such as the World Bank and AIIB are organizations that provide development resources in the form of financing, grants and technical assistance to low- and middle-income countries, for the purposes of social and economic development. Canada does not borrow from MDBs, and no Canadian infrastructure project has been funded by the AIIB.
In response to part (d), the MDBs provide financing and other types of assistance to projects in developing countries. As such, no funding has been provided to Canada. However, Canadian companies can engage in AIIB projects and core functions, e.g., Hatch and TD Securities.

Question No. 140--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: broken down by riding, what is the number and percentage of individuals whom the minister considers to be middle class?
Response
Hon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government’s focus on middle-class prosperity reflects its priority on policies that grow the economy and benefit a very broad group of Canadians.
The income required to attain a middle-class lifestyle can vary greatly based on Canadians’ specific situations, e.g., what their family situation is, whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive. Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 143--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the over $56,000 owed by the RCMP to the managers of the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas: (a) what is the exact amount owed; (b) why did the government not sign a contract for the expenditures prior to incurring them; (c) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures owed to the managers of the island; (d) when will this outstanding amount be paid; and (e) as this vacation was found by the Conflict of lnterest and Ethics Commissioner to be a violation of the law, will the government require the Prime Minister to pay this outstanding amount from personal funds?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), there is no outstanding amount owed.
In response to (b), the RCMP is working to improve operational planning practices with the goal of ensuring adherence to Government of Canada policies.
In response to (c), for operational reasons, the RCMP cannot disclose detailed information that may expose security postures adopted to ensure the safety and security of any given principal and/or event.
In response to (d) and (e), the amount has been paid.

Question No. 146--
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to government support for the workers in New Brunswick impacted by the closing of the Glencore Smelter in Belledune: what specific measures, if any, is the government taking to support the affected workers?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the November 13, 2019 announcement, Service Canada has been working closely with the New Brunswick, NB, Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour, PETL, to coordinate efforts and provide support to the workers impacted by the closing of the Glencore smelter in Belledune. The area director for NB has contacted the MP’s office to inform them that Service Canada is supporting employees and that the employer can contact them if they have any questions.
Service Canada attended information fairs for unionized and non-unionized employees on December 2, 2019, in Belledune, New Brunswick, and December 3, 2019, in Beresford, New Brunswick. This event was a collaboration between the provincial department of PETL and the employer, Glencore. Employees in attendance had the opportunity to ask questions and Service Canada took note of them in order to better address their concerns about employment insurance, EI.
Service Canada and NB PETL held joint information sessions on December 11 and 12, 2019. Eight sessions were held for unionized employees and 82 people attended. The sessions provided general information on EI and other Government of Canada services and programs. A session for non-unionized employees was scheduled for December 13, 2019, but had to be cancelled because these employees are still working. It has been rescheduled to January 2020.

Question No. 149--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to Canada’s vote of “yes” on the United Nations General Assembly Agenda Item 69 “Right of peoples to self-determination”: what is the government’s rationale for Canada to change its previous vote of “no” on this annual agenda item?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
Canada is strongly committed to the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. Canada’s vote today is a reflection of this long-standing commitment.
Canada voted in support of this resolution as it addresses the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Canada strongly supports the international consensus on a two-state solution, so that both sides can have a secure and prosperous future.
Canada would also like to strongly reiterate our stated position and concern that there are too many resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation which unfairly singles out Israel for criticism. Canada would prefer to see the international community channel its efforts towards helping both sides to resume direct negotiations and work towards achieving a lasting peace for both peoples.

Question No. 150--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the government voting in favour of the anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations on November 19, 2019: (a) why did the government vote in favour of the Palestinian resolution, which was sponsored by North Korea, Egypt, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe; (b) when did the government decide that it was going to vote in that manner; and (c) did the government notify any organization of its intention to vote in that manner prior to November 19, 2019, and, if so, which organizations?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to parts (a) to (c), Canada is strongly committed to the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. Canada’s vote today is a reflection of this long-standing commitment.
Canada voted in support of this resolution as it addresses the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Canada strongly supports the international consensus on a two-state solution, so that both sides can have a secure and prosperous future.
Canada would also like to strongly reiterate our stated position and concern that there are too many resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation which unfairly singles out Israel for criticism. Canada would prefer to see the international community channel its efforts towards helping both sides to resume direct negotiations and work towards achieving a lasting peace for both peoples.

Question No. 151--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the SNC-Lavalin affair: (a) what are the details of all correspondence or other communication received by the government from the RCMP on this matter, including (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles or subject matters, (v) summary of content, (vi) forms (email, telephone call, etc.); and (b) broken down by each instance in (a), what were the details of the government’s responses, including (i) who responded, (ii) dates of response, (iii) summary of responses, (iv) forms?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no records were found of correspondence or other communication from the RCMP to the government on the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Question No. 157--
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to the government’s election platform commitment to support the Newfoundland-Labrador fixed transportation link: (a) does the government have any specific timeline for this project, and, if so, what is the timeline; and (b) has the government allocated or budgeted any money for this project, and, if so, how much?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s election platform commitment to support the NewfoundlandLabrador fixed transportation link, the Government of Canada will work in collaboration with the provincial government towards the development of a proposal.
Further discussions are required before (a) a timeline and (b) budget and allocation of funds can be specified.

Question No. 158--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the finding of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) in the February 2019 report that some veterans would be “greatly disadvantaged” by the new regime: (a) what specific action, if any, has the Minister of Veterans Affairs taken since the report was released to address the concerns of the PBO; and (b) if no specific action has been taken by the minister, (i) when will action be taken, (ii) why not?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Pension for Life is a combination of benefits that provides recognition, income support and stability to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who experience a service-related illness or injury. As of April 1, 2019, over 80,000 veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members were efficiently transitioned to the new suite of benefits.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report concluded that most veterans will receive lifetime payments that are between 6% and 24% higher under Pension for Life than they would have received under the previous regime, despite the significant increases in financial supports made to the new Veterans Charter through budget 2016.
As directed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Canada is thoroughly reviewing the implementation of Pension for Life and may recommend changes, where needed, to improve the outcomes and experiences of veterans and their families.

Question No. 159--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the backlog of veterans waiting for their disability benefits: (a) what is the current status of the backlog; (b) how many veterans are still waiting for their compensation; (c) how many veterans receive less compensation under the new pension program as opposed to the previous program; and (d) what is the government doing to increase compensation for veterans who are now receiving less compensation under the new pension program?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), Veterans Affairs Canada defines “backlog” as applications that have not been completed within the service standard of 16 weeks.
As of December 9, 2019, there are 19,663 backlogged disability benefit applications, consisting of 16,192 distinct clients in the backlog. A client could have more than one disability application. For example, a client could have a first application for hearing loss and then a reassessment application for cervical disc disease. A distinct client count represents the number of unique clients counted in the pending and backlog groups, regardless of how many applications they have. There has been a 90% increase in first applications since 2015.
With regard to the total number of veterans with pending disability benefit applications, including those that have not exceeded the service standard, there are 33,618 distinct clients who have a pending disability benefit application and are in the process of receiving a decision regarding compensation.
Veterans Affairs Canada continues to work to improve service delivery and ensure every Canadian veteran receives the benefits they deserve in a timely manner.
With regard to (c) and (d), Pension for Life is a combination of benefits that provides recognition, income support and stability to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who experience a service-related illness or injury. As of April 1, 2019, over 80,000 veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members were efficiently transitioned to the new suite of benefits.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report concluded that most veterans will receive lifetime payments that are between 6% and 24% higher under Pension for Life than they would have received under the previous regime, despite the significant increases in financial supports made to the new Veterans Charter through budget 2016.
As directed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Canada is thoroughly reviewing the implementation of Pension for Life and may recommend changes, where needed, to improve the outcomes and experiences of veterans and their families.

Question No. 160--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to government expenditures related to Bruyea v Canada (Veteran Affairs): (a) what is the total of all expenditures incurred to date in relation to the case; and (b) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures, including estimated staff time?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information that has been requested in part (b) is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown can only reveal the total legal cost of all government expenditures related to Bruyea v Canada (Veterans Affairs). Based upon the hours recorded, the total amount of legal costs incurred amounts to approximately $183,551.04 as of December 9, 2019.

Question No. 163--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the First Nations Child and Family Services Program: (a) how much money has been spent in total on legal proceedings pursuant or related to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal since 2007; (b) how much money has been spent in total on legal proceedings pursuant or related to the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concerning the program (2016 CHRT 2), including but not limited to appeals, motions to stay, hearings regarding compliance orders or preparatory work for the same, since January 26, 2016; (c) in reference to the total costs in (b), what are the total costs broken down by (i) the CHRT, (ii) the Federal Court?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information requested in parts (b) and (c) is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown can only reveal the total cost of legal proceedings pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the CHRT, for the period starting in 2007 and up to December 9, 2019. Based upon the hours recorded, the total legal costs incurred amount to approximately $5,261,009.14 as of December 9, 2019.

Question No. 173--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS): (a) where is the information on NSS contract awards being published; (b) what is the updated schedule for the Canadian Surface Combatant project; (c) what is the value of the contracts awarded to Irving Shipbuilding for the Canadian Surface Combatant to date; (d) what is the value of the contracts awarded to Irving Shipbuilding’s subcontractors for the Canadian Surface Combatant to date; and (e) have any licence fees been paid out under the Canadian Surface Combatant project, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) dates, (ii) amounts, (iii) vendor, (iv) description or summary of licence fee agreement?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), government contracts are posted on the Buy and Sell website at https://buyandsell.gc.ca/. This includes contracts under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, the NSS, with the exception of those subject to the provisions of the national security exemption, which are not posted publicly.
With regard to part (b), construction of the Canadian surface combatant is currently scheduled to begin in the early 2020s. Additional information on the NSS and its specific projects is available on the following Government of Canada web pages: https://www.canada.ca/en/ public-services-procurement/news/2019/02/ government-of-canada-selects-design- for-canadian-surface-combatants.html , https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp /mer-sea/sncn-nss/navcom-surfcom-eng.html and https://www.canada.ca/en/ department-national-defence/ services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html .
With regard to part (c), the current total value of the contracts issued to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., or ISI, for the Canadian surface combatant, CSC, project, including ancillary contracts and the definition contract, is $521.8 million including taxes.
With regard to part (d), the value of subcontracts issued by ISI for work on the CSC project is included in the total value of the contracts in part (c) above and is confidential commercial information that is not released separately.
With regard to part (e), the competitive CSC request for proposals for the selection of the starting point design and the design team included the provision for bidders to include a cost for the license for the starting point design. The cost of the license for the starting point design is part of the cost of the CSC definition subcontract issued by ISI for work on the CSC definition contract. It is included in the total value of the CSC definition contract and is confidential commercial information that is not released separately.

Question No. 175--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to the Havana syndrome, where Canadian diplomatic employees in Cuba suffered various health symptoms in 2017 and 2018: (a) has the government determined the cause of the health issues, and, if so, what are they; (b) what specific efforts were made by the government to determine the cause of the health issues; and (c) what specific new measures, if any, has the government taken to ensure the health and safety of diplomatic employees and other individuals at the Embassy of Canada in Cuba?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. With regard to parts (a) to (c), the health, safety and security of our diplomats serving abroad and their families is a top priority for the Canadian government.
Global Affairs Canada continues to investigate the potential causes of the unusual health symptoms; a conclusive cause has not been identified. The Government of Canada has sent RCMP investigators and technical experts, Health Canada occupational health professionals, and representatives from Global Affairs Canada to address health concerns and to further the investigation.
Cuba has co-operated with Canada since the beginning of our investigation, including by working jointly with the RCMP investigators.
For privacy, security and legal reasons, Global Affairs Canada cannot comment on the specifics of the ongoing investigations or individual cases, nor on specific security measures.

Question No. 178--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to page 30 of the Liberal election platform which promised to plant two billion trees over 10 years as part of a broader initiative to conserve and restore forests, grasslands, agricultural lands, wetlands and coastal areas: (a) what proportion of the estimated 30 Mt reduction in carbon emissions can be attributable to the tree planting component of the program; (b) what proportion of the estimated $3 billion cost of this program will go to the tree planting component of the program; (c) will the two billion trees be incremental to the reforestation activities that already take place in Canada; (d) what proportion of these trees are expected to be planted in urban and suburban areas; and (e) for those trees planted outside of urban and suburban areas, will the government convert any areas to a forested condition where the current or climax condition is unforested?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), natural climate solutions like planting trees can help get Canada significantly closer to reaching its emissions reduction targets while creating good, well-paying jobs for Canadians. The government is committed to working with experts to design a suite of natural climate solutions that will reduce emissions by an estimated 30 megatonnes by 2030. Canada’s managed forests and forest products sequestered 26 megatonnes of CO2 in 2017, not including emissions from natural disturbances. The amount of additional sequestration, or reductions in carbon emissions, realized specifically by the proposed tree planting component of the commitment will be determined based on the tree species, region of planting, current land use and site conditions, and the number of trees planted per year.
The government is committed to working with key partners, including provinces, territories and indigenous communities, as this initiative moves forward.
With regard to (b), the tree planting initiative is part of a broader commitment to fund natural climate solutions. The proportion of the estimated budget to be allocated to tree planting is currently being explored.
With regard to (c), the two billion trees will be incremental to the reforestation activities that already take place in Canada.
With regard to (d), the proportion of trees expected to be planted in urban and suburban areas is still being considered, but planting will take place in these areas. The government is committed to working with key partners, including provinces, territories and indigenous communities, as this initiative moves forward. In addition to operationalizing the plan to plant two billion trees, the mandate letter for the Minister of Natural Resources specifically mentions support for cities to expand and diversify their urban forests, including support for research and funding.
(e) Natural Resources Canada and other federal departments are considering both reforestation and afforestation as critical elements of the tree planting initiative. Afforestation efforts in areas outside of urban and suburban areas will be determined through stakeholder engagement and discussions. Typically, afforestation would occur in areas that could normally hold forest, but currently do not.

Question No. 179--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to Governor in Council appointments: (a) were each of the following appointments made in a manner consistent with the caretaker convention, (i) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1331 (October 15, 2019), (ii) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1332 (October 15, 2019), (iii) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1333 (October 15, 2019), (iv) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1335 (October 21, 2019), (v) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1336 (October 21, 2019), (vi) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1337 (November 1, 2019), (vii) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1338 (November 12, 2019), (viii) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1339 (November 19, 2019); and (b) for each appointment referred to in (a) made in a manner consistent with the caretaker convention, why was its making consistent with the convention; (c) for each appointment referred to in (a) not made in a manner consistent with the caretaker convention, why was the appointment made?
Response
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all these appointments were of public servants to heads of mission positions, a routine part of the normal operations of government. Given the routine and non-controversial nature of these appointments, moving forward with them during the caretaker period was entirely consistent with the “Guidelines on the conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, exempt staff and public servants during an election”, available at https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/ services/publications/guidelines-conduct- ministers-state-exempt-staff-public-servants-election.html .

Question No. 183--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the federal carbon tax: (a) what is the (i) number of farmer, (ii) percentage of farmers who have received the Fuel Charge Exemption Certificate for Farmers, broken down by province; (b) what is the total amount of federal advertising expenditures aimed at ensuring farmers know about the requirement to fill out the forms required to get the certificate; and (c) what specific remedies are available to Alberta farmers who have not received their Exemption Certificates by January 1, 2020?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, does not have information concerning the administration of the federal carbon tax.

Question No. 194--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the prison needle exchange in facilities run by Correctional Service Canada (CSC): (a) how many needles were distributed to inmates in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, boken down by correctional institution; (b) of the needles distributed, how many went missing or were not returned to CSC, broken down by correctional institution; (c) what specific procedures are in place to ensure the safety of correctional officers; and (d) how many incidents have taken place to date where (i) officers or staff, (ii) other inmates were “stuck” or injured by a needle from the program?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i) and (a)(ii), since the start of the prison needle exchange program, the PNEP, in June 2018, 715 needles have been distributed. This number represents the number of needles distributed from the start of the PNEP program to the time of analysis, not the number of inmates who have received a PNEP kit. In 2018, 35 needles were distributed, 33 in the Atlantic Institution and two in the Grand Valley Institution for women. In 2019, 680 needles were distributed, 620 in the Atlantic Institution, three in Edmonton Institution for Women, and 57 in the Grand Valley Institution for women.
With regard to (b), all PNEP needles distributed were returned for a 100% return rate. In two instances at Atlantic Institution, a PNEP needle was not stored in the approved location; CSC staff seized the needles in question, and the participants were temporarily suspended from the program in order to be reassessed.
With regard to (c), specific procedures to ensure the safety of correctional officers and other offenders areas follows. First is threat risk assessment, or TRA. The application process includes a TRA, conducted by operations, in order to review pertinent security information to determine the potential risks from supporting the applicant’s participation in the program. The TRA model is similar to the one currently in place for offenders who use other needles and syringes, such as EpiPens and those for diabetic insulin use. This model has proven to be safe and effective. Second is kit monitoring. Needles are provided in kits in a clear plastic storage container. Procedures are in place to ensure the kit and its contents are secure and accounted for through regular monitoring, generally two times per day, during routine “stand to” counts. The third procedure is for needle exchanges: When participants wish to exchange their needles, they must return the original CSC-issued needle/syringe unit with the safety glide cap properly in place to Health Services. A nurse ensures the needle is in place before it is discarded into a biohazard sharps waste container by the participant. Next are procedures for cell searching. Procedures have been established for the routine searching of a participant’s cell whereby the kit is secured before an officer or dog proceeds with a search. Finally, there are procedures on violation of terms. Participants sign a contract, and in the event the participant does not follow the institutional procedures and the agreed-upon terms and conditions of the contract for participation in the PNEP, the inmate may be suspended temporarily or removed from the program, and a new TRA may be required.
With regard to (d)(i) and (d)(ii), no incidents have been reported of officers or other staff being “stuck” or injured by a needle from the PNEP. No incidents have been reported of other inmates being “stuck” or injured by a needle from the PNEP.

Question No. 200--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each, including (i) dates of funding, (ii) recipients, (iii) locations, (iv) project descriptions?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, information on grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage, PCH, from January 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, is available on the Government of Canada proactive disclosure website at https://rechercher.ouvert.canada.ca/fr/gc/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Patrimoine%20canadien&gc-search-year=2018|2019&gc-search-agreement-range=(b)%20moins%20de%2010%20000%20%24|(c)%20de%2010%20000%20%24%20%C3%A0%2025%20000%20%24 .
Information on grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage, PCH, from October 1, 2019, to December 1, 2019, will be released via proactive disclosure by January 31, 2020.

Question No. 204--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to individuals working full-time, part-time, on contract, or on a casual basis at Global Affairs Canada’s offices abroad, including local and third-country cooperants and advisors, as of December 1, 2019: (a) how many such individuals were required to have (i) a secret security clearance or above, (ii) a confidential security clearance, (iii) no security clearance; and (b) how many individuals were working at Global Affairs Canada’s offices abroad, as of December 1, 2019, either without the required security clearance or pending the issuance of a security clearance?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to part (a), all Canadian-based staff, CBS, and there are approximately 1,304 at our missions abroad, have a top secret clearance. All locally engaged staff, LES, and there are approximately 3,986, have a reliability status.
Global Affairs Canada does not grant confidential security clearances.
All staff requiring clearances are compliant with Global Affairs Canada security requirements. Persons without security status require escort.
With regard to part (b), all CBS and LES have the clearances necessary to perform their duties. Top secret clearance is the minimum for CBS, while LES are cleared at the reliability status level. Some LES may qualify for and be granted a secret clearance, but only under exceptional circumstances.

Question No. 206--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: (a) what percentage of seniors does the minister consider to be middle class; (b) what percentage of seniors does the minister consider to be (i) of an income or means lower than middle class, (ii) of an income or means higher than middle class; and (c) how does the percentage in (a) compare to the percentage of Canadians as a whole, whom the minister considers to be middle class?
Response
Hon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government’s focus on middle-class prosperity reflects its priority on policies that grow the economy and benefit a very broad group of Canadians.
The income required to attain a middle-class lifestyle can vary greatly, depending on Canadians’ specific situations such as their family situation, whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive. Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 208--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the government’s list of terrorist organizations: (a) why has the government not yet listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran as a terrorist organization; and (b) does the government consider the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be a terrorist organization?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), keeping Canadians safe is of paramount importance to this government. We are working with like-minded countries to ensure that Iran is held to account for its support of terrorism.
As we have long said, Canada has already taken a number of actions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC.
We continue to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force as a terrorist entity, and we also continue to impose sanctions on Iran and the IRGC, targeting its branches as well as senior-level members of its leadership.
The listing of entities is an ongoing process, and government officials continue to assess all groups and monitor new developments. Last year we added three additional Iran-backed groups to the Criminal Code list as terrorist entities.
We remain unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world

Question No. 212--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to rail safety: (a) how many railway incidents have occurred as a result of sleep-related fatigue issues since November 4, 2015; (b) what are the details of all such incidents, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) summary of incident, (iv) damage caused, if applicable; (c) what specific measures has the government implemented since November 4, 2015, aimed at preventing railway incidents resulting from employee fatigue; and (d) what is the current minimum turnaround time between shifts for (i) conductors, (ii) railway yard workers, (iii) other railway workers?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, TSB, is the independent agency that collects and analyzes data related to railway incidents in Canada and investigates the cause and factors contributing to their occurrence. As such, they are the appropriate authority to respond to this question.
With regard to part (b), as the authority responsible for collecting data on railway incidents in Canada, the TSB, is the appropriate party to respond to this question.
With regard to part (c), a number of specific measures have been implemented since November 4, 2015, which are aimed at preventing railway incidents resulting from employee fatigue. One is safety management system regulations. New regulations prescribing the implementation of a safety management system were published in 2015. They included specific requirements for railways to follow in terms of scheduling shifts based on the principles of fatigue science.
Another is a notice of intent, or NOI. In November 2017, Transport Canada, TC, published an NOI that described a fatigue strategy. The strategy included a review of fatigue risk management systems, FRMS, and research into key positions in the rail industry and their sensitivity to fatigue. The NOI also stated TC’s intention to initiate amendments to the Work/Rest Rules for Railway Operating Employees, or WRR, and the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015, and, if necessary, to pursue the development of new regulations to address fatigue in the rail industry.
Another measure was a Fatigue in Transportation forum. A Fatigue in Transportation symposium was held in Montreal in the summer of 2018. The forum, which brought together over 200 participants, included speakers from academia, government and the transportation industry to build knowledge and promote increased awareness of fatigue in the transportation sector.
Another measure was updated work/rest rules. The Minister of Transport issued a ministerial order in December 2018 that required industry to update the existing work/rest rules to reflect the latest principles in fatigue science. This includes revisions to maximum duty lengths, minimum rest periods, advance notice of schedules, maximum cumulative duty times and the development of fatigue management plans. Transport Canada received a revised proposed working draft of these rules on December 16, 2019, and the industry must conduct a consultation with its unions. Submission by industry of a new proposal is expected for consideration and approval in early 2020.
With regard to part (d), conductors and locomotive engineers who operate in freight service/yard service are subject to the provisions of the current work/rest rules. These rules do not contain a minimum turnaround time or mandated time off duty between shifts unless the employee has worked more than 10 hours. If the employee has worked in excess of 10 hours and is away from the home terminal, the employee must have six hours off duty. If they are at the home terminal, they must have eight hours off duty. Usually employees who are on regularly scheduled assignments, yard service, do not receive calls for work.
Railway yard workers are also subject to these provisions but are often assigned a regular schedule, obviating the need for a minimum turnaround time.
Other railway workers, which is interpreted to mean non-operating employees, are subject to part III of the Canada Labour Code, and their collective agreements where applicable. Under section.169.2 (1) of part III of the Canada Labour Code, employees are eligible for a minimum rest period of at least eight consecutive hours between work periods or shifts.

Question No. 216--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Statutes of Canada 2019, Chapter 14 (An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence), over the development, drafting and legislative process for this legislation: (a) was any consideration given by the government as to how this legislation would affect the International Joint Commission’s Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River Plan 2014; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, were any briefing notes written detailing these considerations, broken down by (i) title, (ii) subject, (iii) author, (iv) date written, (v) department internal tracking number; (c) was any consideration given by the government as to how this legislation would affect water levels and shoreline properties in Canada; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, were any briefing notes written detailing these considerations, broken down by (i) title, (ii) subject, (iii) author, (iv) date written, (v) department internal tracking number?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in developing Bill C-68 to modernize the Fisheries Act, including restoring lost protections to fish and fish habitat, extensive consultations were undertaken with indigenous peoples, other levels of government, industry and non-government organizations, and the public at large. While there was no direct consideration of the International Joint Commission’s plan, the modernized act draws on views and perspectives of many partners and stakeholders to provide a wide range of tools to support the proper management of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.
In response to (b), for DFO, this is notot applicable, given the reply to (a).
In response to (c), the purpose set out in Bill C-68 was to provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries, and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including preventing pollution. The powers, authorities and tools contained in the modernized act in and of themselves do not impact water levels and shoreline properties in Canada. Therefore, these impacts were not considered in developing Bill C-68.
The rationale is that prior to the amendments in Bill C-68 being adopted, the Fisheries Act included long-standing provisions for the management of water flow in relation to existing obstructions, such as dams or other barriers in a water course. These are for the purpose of the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, such as to provide for fish passage around such barriers by means of fish ladders, or to provide for the flows downstream of a barrier sufficient to protect fish and their habitat. These authorities were previously found in section 20 of the Fisheries Act as it read immediately prior to royal assent of Bill C-68, and with the coming into force of all the amendments provided for in Bill C-68, they are now found in section 34.3.
As the result of Bill C-68, section 34.3 was amended to establish subsection 34.3(7), that provides for the minister to make regulations respecting the flow of water that is to be maintained to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat in relation to existing obstructions. Subsection 34.3(7) is enabling only and has no force or effect until such time as regulations may be made. Any future regulations would necessarily include broad consultation with affected partners and stakeholders.
In response to (d), for DFO this is not applicable, given the reply to (c).

Question No. 225--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the 16 CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft purchased by the government: (a) what are the operational limitations of the aircraft; and (b) what specific limitations were discovered during operational testing in 2019?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government is making investments to ensure that our search and rescue crews have the necessary aircraft to support life-saving services to Canadians in need. As such, we are procuring 16 new planes that are capable of providing improved search and rescue capabilities over long ranges, in difficult weather conditions and at night.
Canada accepted the first aircraft in Spain on December 18, 2019. As outlined in the defence capabilities blueprint, National Defence anticipates receiving all aircraft by 2022-23.
Details can be found at http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1721
With regard to operational limitations, the Royal Canadian Air Force has not yet commenced the initial testing and evaluation of the aircraft. The initial operational testing period for the CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft is expected to be conducted in the first half of 2020.

Question No. 231--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the government’s profit policy as related to shipbuilding: (a) what risk assessment or mitigation does the government conduct related to guaranteed contracts for the Arctic off-shore patrol ships (AOPS), Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), and Halifax Class Frigates; (b) what is the profit range offered to Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (ISI) for its work on the AOPS, CSC and Halifax Class Frigates; (c) what is the total profit offered for guaranteed work under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, whereby there are cost plus contracts; (d) what are the details, including findings, of any third party review of Canada’s profit policy related to the AOPS and CSC, and (e) what are the details of all briefing materials related to the profit rate negotiated with ISI for the CSC and AOPS, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada has developed a formal risk management plan for the national shipbuilding strategy, NSS. The plan is informed by international best practices and helps to predict, identify and manage the key risks facing the NSS. Key risks include: timely analysis and decision-making, mitigated through a senior-level governance structure; human resources capacity, mitigated through hiring more procurement officers, training government analysts on estimating cost, and supporting for training and apprenticeship programs; and public communications, mitigated through annual reports, announcements, technical briefings, and other opportunities to provide Canadians with timely information on the NSS.
Contracts for AOPS, CSC and Halifax class frigate work periods are subject to procurement risk assessments conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board framework for the management of risk, the PSPC integrated risk management policy and the PSPC acquisitions program risk assessment framework. information on risk assessments in contracts is available online on the Buy and Sell website
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/3/1/5 and https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/6/5/15/1
Procurement risk factors are assessed on a continuous basis and steps are taken to support the effective administration of the contracts.
In response to (b), contracts issued to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., ISI, are negotiated to arrive at a fair and reasonable cost for the work, including the profit paid for performing the work. Profit ranges under the multi-ship contract, for work on the Halifax class frigates from 2008-21, the AOPS contracts and the CSC contracts are within the overall range of the policy on cost and profit as per the PSPC supply manual. Information on the profit policy is available online on the Buy and Sell website:
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/10
The details of the profit level negotiated and approved for these contracts cannot be disclosed as it is confidential commercial information which could prejudice the competitive position of ISI.
In response to (c), profits under the NSS are negotiated through individual contracts and are guided by the policy on cost and profit. As such, there is no total profit offered for work under the NSS per se.
In response to (d), no third party reviews of Canada’s profit policy related to the AOPS or CSC projects have been conducted. Contracts issued to ISI were negotiated to arrive at a fair and reasonable cost for the work, including the profit paid for performing the work. The negotiated profit is within the framework of the PSPC policy on cost and profit.
However, third party reviews have been conducted for both projects in support of contract negotiations, to undertake risk assessments prior to contract awards and amendments, and to evaluate the level of effort required for ISI to complete tasks. Details of these reviews cannot be disclosed as they contain confidential commercial information of ISI.
In response to (e), details of briefing material for the AOPS and CSC projects on negotiated profit rates cannot be disclosed as they contain confidential commercial information of ISI.

Question No. 238--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the Office of the Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise: (a) when will a system for fielding complaints be operational; (b) what will be the process for assessing complaints when they arrive; (c) how many official complaints has the office received to date; and (d) if the answer to (c) is none, what steps has the ombudsperson and her staff undertaken since her appointment on April 8, 2019?
Response
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion and Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to (a), the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, CORE, system for filing complaints is currently in development. It plans to implement phase one by launching a web portal for filing complaints in early May 2020. An electronic client management system, CRM, is under development and will be implemented as part of phase two of the complaint system, which will improve its accessibility.
In response to (b), CORE’s standard operating procedures have been drafted and will be made available for consultation with stakeholders in early January 2020. When the CORE website is launched, there will be an opportunity for broader public consultation.
In response to (c), CORE has not received any official complaints to date.
In response to (d), since the appointment of Sheri Meyerhoffer as ombudsperson in April 2019, numerous activities have been undertaken, including: establishing the office, i.e., staff, space, systems, procedures, meetings with more than 150 stakeholders as of November 30, 2019, speaking engagements, participation in numerous national and international events and conferences and the negotiation of memoranda of understanding with Global Affairs Canada and other government bodies.
150th Anniversary of Canadian ConfederationAga Khan IVAircraftAlbas, DanAlbertaAlghabra, OmarAngus, CharlieArctic and Offshore Patrol ShipsArmy of the Guardians of the Islamic Rev ...Arnold, MelAsian Infrastructure Investment Bank ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 1--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the barge Nana Provider and its grounding off of Quadra Island in the Salish Sea on November 9, 2019, while being towed by the Polar King: (a) was the government notified by domestic or international authorities if the Nana Provider was carrying any dangerous goods as defined in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and, if so, which authorities reported the dangerous goods and when; (b) were the barge and tug following a proper route as prescribed in the Canadian Coast Guards’ Radio Aids to Navigation 2019 in the time leading up to the Nana Provider’s grounding; (c) what are the requirements for a vessel to use the Inside Passage instead of travelling along the West Coast of Vancouver Island and did the Nana Provider meet those requirements; (d) was there any communication from the Coast Guard’s Marine Communications and Traffic Services prior to the grounding that would have prevented it; (e) what has the government determined was the reason for the barge running aground; (f) if the reason has not yet been determined, (i) when is the expected date of completion of the investigation; (ii) will the results of the investigation be publicly available; (iii) how does the government intend to inform local, Indigenous, provincial and federal representatives of the result of the investigation; (g) to which authority or authorities was the occurrence reported and when; (h) how were affected Indigenous communities consulted and involved in the reporting, management of the stationary barge, and salvage processes; (i) what was the capacity of each of the federal vessels that responded to the occurrence to mitigate damage to the environment and people nearby; and (j) how long did it take each of the federal response vessels to arrive from the time of reporting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 3--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to government usage of cargo planes, excluding for military purposes, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all instances where government aircraft was used for cargo flights including (i) date, (ii) origin and destination for each leg, (iii) type of aircraft, (iv) description of cargo, (v) related government event cargo was used for, if applicable; and (b) what are the details of all instances where the government chartered cargo aircraft including (i) date, (ii) origin and destination for each leg, (iii) type of aircraft, (iv) description of cargo, (v) related government event cargo was intended for, if applicable, (vi) vendor, (vii) amount paid to vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 4--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to government expenditures with the Internet media company BuzzFeed, since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenditure or ad campaign, (iv) title for each “quiz” or “story” purchased?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 6--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to communication between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and the government: (a) with the exception of media inquiries, did anyone in the government receive any communication from the CBC, during the 2019 writ period and if so, what are the details of the such communication including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) subject matter, (v) summary of contents; and (b) what are the details of any correspondence or briefing materials which have been provided to the Privy Council Office, the Office of the Prime Minister or the Department of Canadian Heritage regarding the CBC since September 11, 2019, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) file number, (vi) summary of contents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 7--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the government’s policy on the political neutrality of Crown corporations: what is the government’s policy regarding Crown corporations commencing legal action or suing political parties during a writ period?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 8--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to taxpayer-funded legal representation, since November 4, 2015: has any cabinet minister, including the Prime Minister, retained taxpayer-funded independent legal counsel and, if so, (i) what was the matter related to, (ii) what was the rationale provided to the Department of Justice to authorize the independent legal counsel, (iii) what was the name of the independent legal counsel, (iv) what was the total cost of the independent legal counsel, (v) what was the hourly rate authorized by the government to pay for the independent legal counsel, (vi) why were government lawyers not used instead of independent legal counsel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 9--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to government loans and grants to businesses since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the names of the companies that received grants and loans, including, (i) the program under which the loan was granted, (ii) the amount of the loan, (iii) the amount that has been paid back to date, (iv) the amount that is currently outstanding, (v) the amount that was originally announced, (vi) the reason for any write-down or write-off, (vii) the number of jobs that were supposed to be created by the loan, (viii) the number of jobs that were actually created after the loan was issued, (ix) the number of jobs that were committed to be maintained because of the loan, (x) the number of jobs that were actually maintained; and (b) for companies that failed to meet their job numbers, what action has the government taken to address the missed target?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 10--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to spending on stock photographs or images by the government since January 1, 2018, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each contract or expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) details and duration of contract, (iv) date, (v) number of photos or images purchased, (vi) where the photos or images were used (Internet, billboards, etc.), (vii) description of advertising campaign, (viii) file number of contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 11--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to government advertising, since June 1, 2018: (a) how much has been spent on billboards; and (b) for each expenditure in (a), what was the (i) start and end date, (ii) cost, (iii) topic, (iv) number of billboards, (v) locations of billboards, (vi) vendor, (vii) type of billboards, such as electronic or traditional?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 12--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to government expenditures on membership fees, broken down by department, agency and Crown corporation, since June 1, 2018: (a) how much money has been spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure including the name of the organization or vendor, date of purchase, and amount spent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 13--
Mr. Mike Lake:
With regard to the government’s international development funding, since April 1, 2019: what are the details of all funding provided to civil society organizations, including the (i) name of the organization, (ii) amount received, (iii) amount requested, (iv) purpose of the funding and the description of related projects, (v) date of the funding announcement, (vi) start and end dates of the project receiving funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 15--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what is the total yearly operations budget of the bank; and (b) what is the breakdown of the yearly operations budget by line item?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 16--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the Building Canada Fund: (a) what is the list of all projects currently being funded by the fund; (b) for each project in (a) what are the details including (i) project name, (ii) description, (iii) location, (iv) current status of the project, (v) projected completion date, (vi) whether or not federal payment for project has actually been delivered to date, and if so, what is the amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 17--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to government-funded infrastructure projects: (a) what is the complete list of projects the government expects to be completed in the 2020 calendar year; and (b) what are the details of all projects in (a), including (i) expected dates of completion, (ii) locations, (iii) federal ridings, (iv) projects’ title or summary, (v) total federal contributions, (vi) dates when projects began?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 21--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to Canada’s military presence in the Middle East and its participation in Operation ARTEMIS, Canada’s mission to help stop terrorism and make Middle Eastern waters more secure: (a) how many Canadian Armed Forces members are currently deployed as part of Operation ARTEMIS; (b) does the Royal Canadian Navy currently have any naval assets deployed as part of Operation ARTEMIS; (c) what contributions is Canada making to regional maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea; and (d) does the government consider the Islamic Republic of Iran to be in violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and, if so, what action has the government taken to hold the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable for these violations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 22--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what is the complete list of infrastructure projects financed by the bank since June 1, 2018; 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
(Return tabled)

Question No. 23--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the September 2019 Globe and Mail story entitled “Minister intervened in decision regarding performance pay for Canada Infrastructure Bank CEO”: (a) on what date or dates did the Minister of Infrastructure intervene regarding bonuses or performance pay for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Canada Infrastructure Bank; (b) what was the eligibility range of bonuses or performance pay; (c) what was the range of bonuses or performance pay (i) prior to and (ii) after each ministerial intervention, broken down by date of intervention; and (d) what is the current range for the CEO’s (i) salary, (ii) bonus and performance pay, (iii) other compensation, (iv) total compensation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 25--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to government spending announcements made between June 1, 2019, and September 11, 2019: (a) broken down by each announcement, which ones were (i) announcements of new money, (ii) re-announcements of funding already committed, (iii) announcements of a renewal of existing ongoing funding; and (b) of the announcements in (a) has any of the announcement funding actually been delivered and, if so, and broken down by announcement, (i) which announcements have had the funding actually delivered, (ii) how much was actually delivered, (iii) on what date was the funding actually transferred from the government to the recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 26--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to contracts granted by any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2017, to the Bluesky Strategy Group: (a) who authorized the contract; (b) what are the contracts' reference and file numbers; (c) what are the dates of the contracts; (d) what are the descriptions of the services provided; (e) what are the delivery dates; (f) what are the original contracts' values; and (g) what are the final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 27--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to appointments to federal boards, agencies, and associations since January 1, 2019, broken down by appointment: what are the details of each appointee, including (i) name, (ii) province, (iii) position, (iv) start and end date of term, (v) was the appointment a reappointment or a new appointment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 28--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to the additional goods and services tax (GST), or harmonized sales tax where applicable, revenue received as a result of the GST being charged on the carbon tax: how much revenue did the government receive from the GST being charged on the carbon tax in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 29--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to government spending for photographers or photography service contracts since January 1, 2019, broken down by department or agency: (a) how much was spent; (b) what were the dates and duration of each contract; (c) what was the initial and final value of each contract; (d) what were the details of all events or occasions for each contract including (i) date, (ii) event description; and (e) what were the locations where the services were performed for each contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 30--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to materials prepared for ministers from January 1, 2019, to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is the (i) date on the document, (ii) title or subject matter of the document, (iii) departmental internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 33--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to expenditures on social media influencers, including any contracts which would use social media influencers as part of a public relations campaign, since June 1, 2018: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) campaign description, (iv) date of contract, (v) name or handle of influencer; and (b) for each campaign that paid an influencer, was there a requirement to make public as part of a disclaimer the fact that the influencer was being paid by the government and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 34--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to management consulting contracts signed by the government since January 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, and Crown corporation: (a) what was the total amount of money spent; (b) for each contract, what was the (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) file number; (c) each time a management consultant was brought in, what was the desired outcome or goals; (d) how does the government measure whether or not the goals in (c) were met; (e) does the government have any recourse if the goals in (c) were not met; (f) for which contracts were the goals met; and (g) for which contracts were the goals not met?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 36--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the number of RCMP officers, broken down by province: (a) what is the total number of active Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers as of (i) January 1, 2014, (ii) January 1, 2015, (iii) January 1, 2016, (iv) January 1, 2017, (v) January 1, 2018, (vi) January 1, 2019, (vii) present; (b) what are the names and locations of each RCMP detachment open as of (i) January 1, 2014, (ii) January 1, 2015, (iii) January 1, 2016, (iv) January 1, 2017, (v) January 1, 2018, (vi) January 1, 2019, (vii) present; and (c) how many RCMP officers were assigned to each detachment referred to in (b) as of (i) January 1, 2014, (ii) January 1, 2015, (iii) January 1, 2016, (iv) January 1, 2017, (v) January 1, 2018, (vi) January 1, 2019, (vii) present?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 37--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to warrants issued pursuant to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act: (a) from 2010 to 2019, broken down by year, how many warrants have been issued: and (b) from 2010 to 2019, broken down by year, what is the average time from request to implementation of a warrant?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 38--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
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 escaped or were unlawfully at large in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018, (iv) 2019 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. 39--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to correctional institutions, sorted by institution and by year since 2015: (a) how many offenders died while in custody; and (b) what was the cause of death?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 41--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to government expenditures related to the Canada 2020 sponsored speech of Barack Obama on May 31, 2019, including tickets, sponsorship and other expenses, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what are the details of all expenses, including the (i) amount, (ii) description of goods or services; and (b) for all tickets or conference fees purchased, (i) who attended the event, (ii) what was the number of tickets, (iii) what was the amount per ticket?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 42--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the government’s CC-150 (Airbus), since January 1, 2019: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 43--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to government procurement and contracts for the provision of research or speech writing services to ministers, since April 1, 2019: (a) what are the details of contracts, including (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work, (v) value of contract; and (b) in the case of a contract for speech writing, what is the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be delivered, (iv) number of speeches to be written, (v) cost charged per speech?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 44--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s claim that the government will not be legalizing or decriminalizing hard drugs: (a) does that include heroin; and (b) will the government exclude heroin from any so-called “safe supply” programs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 45--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the merger of the Hamilton Port Authority and the Oshawa Port Authority: (a) what is the proposed timeline for the merger; (b) how many jobs are projected to be transferred as a result of the merger, and where will those jobs be transferred to; (c) how many jobs are projected to be redundant or eliminated as a result of the merger; and (d) did the government do an economic impact assessment on the merger and if so, what were the results for (i) Oshawa, (ii) Hamilton?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 47--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to Section 2.33 of the Fall 2017 Report of the Auditor General of Canada which states in reference to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that “They gave us wrong information almost 30 per cent of the time”: (a) what specific action has CRA taken since the publication of the report to stop the dissemination or wrong information; and (b) what are the latest available statistics regarding how often CRA disseminates wrong information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 48--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the National Housing Co-Investment Fund: (a) what are the details of all funding recipients from the Fund since January 1, 2019, including (i) name of recipient, (ii) amount of federal contribution, (iii) date, (iv) description of project, (v) location; (b) what specific standards, for (i) accessibility, (ii) energy efficiency, are required of the recipients in (a); (c) did any of the recipients in (a) fail to meet the accessibility or energy efficiency standards and, if so, what are the details, including (i) name of recipient, (ii) which standards they failed to meet, (iii) what specific measures, if any, are in place to ensure that recipients meet the standards, (iv) whether a waiver issued to the recipient and, if so, by whom?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 49--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to expenditures made by the government since January 1, 2019, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified), or a similar code if department uses another system: 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. 50--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to contracts granted by any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2017, to the Pembina Institute: (a) who authorized the contract; (b) what are the contracts' references and file numbers; (c) what are the dates of the contracts; (d) what are the descriptions of the services provided; (e) what are the delivery dates; (f) what are the original contracts' values; and (g) what are the final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 51--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each, including (i) dates of funding, (ii) recipients, (iii) locations, (iv) project descriptions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 52--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to contracts granted by any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity since January 1, 2017, to Feschuk-Reid: (a) who authorized the contracts; (b) what are the contracts' reference and file numbers; (c) what are the dates of the contracts; (d) what are the descriptions of the services provided; (e) what are the delivery dates; (f) what are the original contracts' values; and (g) what are the final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 53--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircraft, since May 1, 2019: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 54--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the Cambridge Analytica and AggregateIQ scandal and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s comment that “Reform is urgently needed to maintain public trust in political parties and our democratic system”: what specific reforms will the government commit to in response to the Privacy Commissioner’s concerns?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 55--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the Office of the Prime Minister and ministers' offices, from January 1, 2019, to present: (a) how much was spent on contracts for (i) consultants, (ii) advisors, (iii) other temporary personnel; (b) what are the names of the individuals and companies that correspond to these amounts; and (c) for each person and company in (b), what were their billing periods and what type of work did they provide?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 56--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to projects funded since December 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. 57--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each, including (i) date of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) project description?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 59--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to government funding for the proposed central Inverness County airport to service golf courses in Cabot, Nova Scotia: will the government be providing funding to the airport and, if so, what are the details of any such funding including amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 60--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the funding announced in budget 2018 in relation to the opioid crisis: (a) how much of the funding announced in budget 2018 has been delivered to date; and (b) what are the details of the funding delivered to date, including (i) recipient (ii) date funding was received, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of funding, (v) duration and intended location of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 62--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to government spending on online advertising since January 1, 2018: what is the total amount spent in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, broken down by outlet or online platform?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 64--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS), broken down by fiscal year for 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19: (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. 68--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government’s decision not to fully cooperate with the RCMP in relation to the SNC-Lavalin affair, including the decision not to grant the RCMP access to all relevant documents: was the decision not to cooperate made by (i) the cabinet, (ii) the Prime Minister, (iii) the Clerk of the Privy Council without approval by the cabinet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 69--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard the one-for-one rule with respect to regulations and red tape: for each new regulation which was put in place since January 1, 2019, what regulation was removed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 71--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s policy in relation to the Islamic Republic of Iran: (a) when will the government comply with the will of the House as expressed in Vote No. 754 on June 12, 2018; (b) what is the cause of the delay in listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code of Canada; (c) has the government compiled a list of Iran’s human rights offenders in preparation of imposing sanctions in accordance with the Justice for the Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law); and (d) if the answer in (c) is yes, what individuals are on this list?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 72--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the ongoing internment and persecution of Uyghur Muslims in China: (a) what specific actions has the government taken to protect and promote the basic human rights of Uyghur Muslims in China; (b) has the government conducted any investigations or examinations into whether the People’s Republic of China is committing ethnic cleansing or genocide of Uyghur Muslims; (c) has the Office of Freedom, Human Rights, and Inclusion undertaken any projects or activities to address the internment and persecution of Uyghur Muslims in China; and (d) if the answer in (c) is yes, (i) what is the total amount spent on said activities, (ii) how many full time employees have been dedicated to said activities, (iii) what is the description of the projects or activities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 73--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the Contracting Policy Notice 2019-01 from the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) what is required on the part of the bidder to indicate that they meet the accessibility requirement; (b) how will the responsible departments ensure that suppliers are incorporating accessibility criteria into their bids; and (c) is accessibility being added to the value proposition evaluation criteria under the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 74--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to expense claims by a minister or ministerial exempt staff which were paid out, since June 1, 2018, but then later paid-back to the Receiver General: what are the details of each such payment or reimbursement, including (i) date of expense claim, (ii) date money was reimbursed to the Receiver General, (iii) amount of initial expense claim and payment, (iv) amount reimbursed to the Receiver General, (v) description of products or services for each claim, (vi) reason for reimbursement to the Receiver General?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 75--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to contracts granted by any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2019, to The Gandalf Group or any of its partners: (a) for each contract, what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts; (iv) descriptions of the services provided, (v) the delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values; and (b) what are the details of any research, polling or advice provided to the government as a result of the contracts in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 76--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the purchase of promotional products for handouts or giveaways at trade shows, conferences, and other events, since June 1, 2018 and broken down by department, agency, or Crown corporation: (a) what products were purchased; (b) what quantity of each product was purchased; (c) what was the amount spent; (d) what was the price per unit; (e) at what events, or type of events, were the products distributed at; (f) what country was each product manufactured in; and (g) what is the relevant file number for each purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 78--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to the proposed Department of Defence Procurement: (a) what are the anticipated or preliminary costs associated with creating the proposed department; (b) has a fiscal analysis been conducted on the creation of the proposed department; and (c) have any third parties been contracted to develop or evaluate the creation of the proposed department and, if so, who?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 79--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to the Treasury Board’s "Policies for Ministers’ Offices": (a) when was section 3.6 of the policies amended to increase, from one to three, the departmental staff assigned to ministers’ offices whose salaries and other personnel costs are not borne by ministers’ offices’ budgets; (b) are salaries and other personnel costs of departmental staff assigned to ministers’ offices included in the information presented in the Expenditure of Ministers’ Offices tables in Section 10 of Volume III of the Public Accounts of Canada; and (c) if the answer to (b) is no, what are the amounts, for the 2016-17, and subsequent fiscal years, of salaries and other personnel costs of departmental staff assigned to ministers’ offices, broken down in the same manner as information is presented in those Expenditure of Ministers’ Offices tables (i.e., by year, portfolio, individual minister, and standard object)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 81--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to government advertising: what percentage of government advertising was spent on media outlets that focus on primarily serving rural areas as defined by Statistics Canada, broken down by year since 2016?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 82--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to contracts issued by ministers' offices for the purpose of media training, since January 1, 2018: what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendors, (ii) dates of contract, (iii) dates of training, (iv) individuals whom training was for, (v) amounts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 83--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to materials prepared for deputy ministers or department heads from January 1, 2019, to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 84--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to government expenditures on conference fees, since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on conference fees; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) host and title of the conference, (iii) date of the conference, (iv) location, (v) number of attendees paid for by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 85--
Mr. Chris Lewis:
With regard to federal taxes, including tariffs, service charges and fees, since 2015: (a) in which instance was there an increase, a new imposition or the elimination of a credit or benefit, broken down by (i) the particular tax, tariff, charge, fee or credit, (ii) the rate or amount, (iii) the date it took effect, (iv) the revenue any increase has generated, (v) the department that made the change; and (b) what is the annual total of revenue generated by each of the changes in (a), broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 86--
Mr. Chris Lewis:
With regard to renovation, redesign and refurnishing of ministers’ or deputy ministers’ offices since January 1, 2019: (a) what is the total cost of any spending on renovating, redesigning, and refurnishing for each ministerial office, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) moving services, (iii) renovating services, (iv) painting, (v) flooring, (vi) furniture, (vii) appliances, (viii) art installation, (ix) all other expenditures; and (b) what is the total cost of any spending on renovating, redesigning, and refurnishing for each deputy minister’s office, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) moving services, (iii) renovating services, (iv) painting, (v) flooring, (vi) furniture, (vii) appliances, (viii) art installation, (ix) all other expenditures?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 92--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to reports of bed bugs and other insect infestation in government buildings in the National Capital Region: what are the details of all such infestation reports since January 1, 2017, including (i) name of building, (ii) address, (iii) type of infestation (bed bugs, wasps, etc.), (iv) was corrective action taken in response to the report, and, if so what action was taken, (v) date of infestation report, (vi) date of corrective action, (vii) total amount spent on each of corrective action, (viii) number of employees sent home as a result of the infestation, (ix) dates on which employees were sent home?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 93--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the 37,000 buildings owned by the government: (a) how many buildings are above the occupancy capacity; (b) how many buildings are at 100% capacity; (c) how many buildings are between 90% and 100% capacity; (d) how many buildings are between 80% and 90% capacity; (e) how many buildings are between 70% and 80% capacity; (f) how many buildings are between 60% and 70% capacity: (g) how many buildings are between 50% and 60% capacity; (h) how many buildings are under 50% capacity; and (i) for buildings referred to in (h), what are the costs related to (i) upkeep and maintenance, (ii) utilities, (iii) cleaning?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 94--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the acquisition of buildings by government departments or agencies, since June 1, 2018, for each transaction: (i) what is the location of the building, (ii) what is the amount paid, (iii) what is the type of building, (iv) what is the file number, (v) what is the date of transaction, (vi) what is the reason for acquisition, (vii) who was the owner of building prior to government acquisition, (viii) what is the government-wide object code?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 95--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
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. 96--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regards to government computers and cyberattacks: (a) what is the government’s policy when a ransomware attack occurs; and (b) has any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity made any payments to any individuals or organizations as a result of a ransomware attack since November 4, 2015, and if so what are the details including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) form of payment, (iv) recipient of payment, if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 97--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Privy Council Office, since January 1, 2019: what are the (i) vendors' names and locations, (ii) contracts' references and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the goods or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 98--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to government expenditures on gala, concert or sporting event tickets since May 1, 2019: what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) total cost, (iv) cost per ticket, (v) number of tickets, (vi) title of persons using the tickets, (vii) name or title of event for tickets purchased by, or billed to, any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 99--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to government expenditures on the rental of aircraft since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on the rental of aircraft; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) dates of rental, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) purpose of trip, (vi) origin and destination of flights, (vii) titles of passengers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 100--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to costs associated with the Prime Minister’s transition team following the 2019 federal election: (a) what were the total costs associated with the transition team; (b) what is the breakdown of all expenditures by type; (c) what are the details of all contracts entered into by the government for the transition team, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services; (d) why did the government rent office space at 222 Queen Street in Ottawa for the transition team as opposed to using existing government office space; and (e) how much did the government pay for the office space at 222 Queen Street and what was the rental or lease start date and end date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 101--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to materials prepared for ministerial exempt staff from January 1, 2019, to present: for every briefing document prepared, what is (i) the date on the document, (ii) the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number, (iv) the author, (v) the recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 102--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to meetings of cabinet and its committees, since November 4, 2015: how many times, broken down by year, did cabinet and each of its committees meet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 104--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to polling by the government since January 1, 2018: (a) what is the list of all poll questions and subjects that have been commissioned since January 1, 2018; (b) what was the (i) date and duration, (ii) sample size of each poll in (a); and (c) what are the details of all polling contracts signed in January 1, 2018 including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) date and duration, (v) summary of contract including number of polls conducted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 105--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the federal executive vehicle fleet for ministers, as of December 5, 2019: (a) what is the total number of vehicles in the fleet; (b) what has been the total cost of (i) procuring vehicles for the fleet, (ii) the fleet as a whole; (c) what is the estimated total annual cost of salaries for drivers, including ministerial exempt staff and federal public servants whose primary responsibility consists of driving vehicles in the fleet; (d) what are the models, years and manufacturers of each vehicle in the fleet; and (e) what are the names and positions of each authorized user of a vehicle in the fleet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 108--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to annual budgets allocated to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Office of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: (a) is there a separate annual budget for each office and, if not, is there one consolidated budget; (b) for the offices in (a), what is the allocated budget amount; and (c) how many Privy Council Office officials have been assigned to assist the minister in her role as (i) Deputy Prime Minister, (ii) Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 109--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to government support for residents and property owners impacted by the high water levels on Lake Ontario: (a) what actions, if any, will the government take, either directly, or through the International Joint Commission/the International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Board, in order to minimize the amount of flooding on Lake Ontario in 2020; (b) what is the government’s (i) short-term, (ii) medium-term, (iii) long-term plans to address the water levels on Lake Ontario; c) what specific financial assistance, if any, is the government providing to (i) residents or property owners, (ii) municipalities, impacted by the outflow levels in 2020; (d) what specific financial assistance, if any, did the government provide to (i) residents or property owners, (ii) municipalities, impacted by the outflow levels in (i) 2017, (ii) 2019; (e) since 2016, how many times has the (i) high trigger or (ii) low trigger of the H14 criterion been met; (f) for each instance in (e), (i) what was the date, (ii) water level, (iii) specific actions taken as a result of the trigger; and (g) for each instance in (e) where a trigger level was met, but action was not taken, what was the rationale for not taking action?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 110--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the total amount of late-payment charges for telephone services, since June 1, 2018, and broken down by late charges incurred by government department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what is the total amount late-payment charges and interest charges incurred in each month for services provided by (i) Rogers, (ii) Bell, (iii) Telus, (iv) other cellular or cable provider?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 111--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to government purchases of tickets or passes for Canada 2020 events during 2019: what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) date of event, (ii) event description, (iii) amount, (iv) number of tickets or passes, (v) price per ticket or pass, (vi) titles of individuals for whom the tickets or passes were intended?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 112--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government’s participation in the UN Climate Change Conference COP 25 in Madrid, Spain, in December 2019: (a) how many individuals were in the Canadian delegation; (b) what were the titles of all individuals in (a); and (c) what are the titles of all other individuals who attended COP 25 for whom the government paid expenses?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 113--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the new “For Glowing Hearts” logo unveiled by Destination Canada: (a) which firm or individual designed the logo; (b) what were the total expenditures in relation to designing the logo; and (c) what are the details of any other expenditures in relation to the logo, including (i) amount, (ii) description of goods or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 115--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the disposition of government assets, since January 1, 2018: (a) on how many occasions has the government repurchased or reacquired a lot which had been disposed of in accordance with the Treasury Board’s "Directive on Disposal of Surplus Materiel"; and (b) for each occasion in (a), what was the (i) description or nature of the item or items which constituted the lot, (ii) sale account number or other reference number, (iii) date on which the sale closed, (iv) price at which the item was disposed of to the buyer, (v) price at which the item was repurchased from the buyer, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 116--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the government operating booths or displays at trade shows or similar type events, since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: what are the details of each event, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) title of event, (iv) amount paid by the government for space at the event, (v) amount spent by the government in relation to the displays and a breakdown of such expenses, if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 117--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the consumption of alcohol and food on flights taken on government-owned Airbus and Challenger aircraft since January 1, 2019: (a) on which flights was alcohol consumed; and (b) for each flight where alcohol was consumed, (i) what is the value of the alcohol consumed, (ii) what was the origin and destination of the flight, (iii) what was the flight date, (iv) what is the breakdown of alcoholic beverages consumed by specific beverage and quantity, (v) what is the cost of food consumed on each flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 118--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to Transport Canada’s testing of the Boeing 737 Max aircraft: (a) will Transport Canada be conducting its own testing of the aircraft prior to recertification and, if so, which specific tests will Transport Canada be conducting itself; (b) will Transport Canada be relying on the testing of foreign nations or their relevant agency to recertify the aircraft and, if so, which specific tests will Transport Canada be relying on from foreign nations; (c) will Transport Canada be relying on the testing of Boeing to recertify the aircraft and, if so, which specific tests will Transport Canada be relying on from Boeing; and (d) will Transport Canada be relying on any other forms of testing to recertify the aircraft and, if so, which forms?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 121--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to foreign interference in the 2019 federal election: (a) is the government aware of any organized efforts from foreign nations to interfere in the 2019 election, and, if so (i) what nations were responsible for the effort, (ii) what efforts did each nation make; and (b) did any member of the government request that any foreign head of state or former foreign head of state endorse any particular party during the last election, and, if so, does the government considered that action to be foreign interference?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 122--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to social media “influencers” who have been selected to be paid by Elections Canada in relation to the 2019 election: (a) who are all of the “influencers”; (b) what are the details of each “influencer”, including platforms and “handles”; (c) why was each “influencer” chosen by Elections Canada; and (d) how much remuneration has Elections Canada agreed to pay each “influencer”, broken down by “influencer”?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 123--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to the True North Centre for Public Policy v Canada (Leaders’ Debates Commission) litigation: (a) what costs have been incurred to date on behalf of the Leaders’ Debates Commission; (b) what costs have been incurred to date on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada; (c) was the Minister of Democratic Institutions or the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada briefed, and, if so, what are the details of each briefing; (d) were instructions provided by the minister or the president; (e) were instructions sought from the minister or the president; and (f) if the instructions were not sought from the minister or the president, who is the most senior official who instructed counsel for the Attorney General of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 124--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program, since January 1, 2019: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions made from the program, including for each the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) project description, (iv) start date and duration of project, (v) type of contribution (e.g. repayable grant, loan, etc.), (vi) location of recipient, including municipality and province; and (b) what is the total amount paid out from the program, broken down by province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 126--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP): (a) what is the total amount of OPP funds disbursed to since June 1, 2018; and (b) what are the details of each project or organization funded by the OPP, including (i) recipient, (ii) location, (iii) date of announcement, (iv) amount received to date, (v) project description or purpose of funding, (vi) duration of project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 130--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the federal Crown Borrowing Program (CBP), which seeks to increase the liquidity and efficiency of Crown corporation borrowings, from January 1, 2017, to date: (a) how many requests for loans were received by the CBP lending facility’s lending desk; (b) of the applications for loans, how many were approved; (c) for each of the approved CBP loans, what was (i) the purpose of the loan, (ii) the total loan amount, (iii) the terms of the loan, (iv) the issuance date, (v) the maturity date; (d) what is the total aggregate amount of loans provided to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation; (e) what is the total aggregate amount of loans provided to the Business Development Bank of Canada; (f) what is the total aggregate amount of loans provided to Farm Credit Canada; (g) of the CBP loans issued, how many have defaulted or been deemed to be non-repayable; and (h) what is the total outstanding issuance of CBP loans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 131--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, from September 1, 2019, to date: (a) how many applicants have applied for a mortgage through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (b) of the applicants in (a), how many applicants have been approved and accepted mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (c) of the applicants in (b), what is that average value of the mortgage loan; (d) of the applicants in (b), what is that median value of the mortgage loan; (e) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers; (f) what is the breakdown of the percentage of loans originated with each lender comprising more than 5% of total loans issued; and (g) what is the breakdown of the value of outstanding loans insured by each Canadian mortgage insurance company as a percentage of total loans in force?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 134--
Mr. Erin O'Toole:
With regard to the government's campaign for a United Nations Security Council seat in 2021: (a) what are the total expenses to date directly related to the campaign, broken down by type of expense; and (b) what are the details of all contracts related to the campaign, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 136--
Mr. Erin O'Toole:
With regard to the government’s position in response to the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong: (a) has there been any communication between the Government of Canada or its officials and the Government of China or its officials related to the demonstrations and, if so, what are the details, including (i) date, (ii) form of communications, (iii) who was involved in the communication, (iv) content of the messages sent or received; (b) what is the government’s official response to the demonstrations; and (c) what is the government’s position regarding offering asylum to pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 137--
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to the impact of the Muskrat Falls project on electricity rates in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what estimates or projections does the government have regarding electricity rates in Newfoundland and Labrador in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021, (iv) 2022; and (b) what specific measures will the government take to reduce electricity rates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 141--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) inspections at the Port of Vancouver: (a) what is the average wait time for inspection of a shipment; (b) how does the current wait time relate to (i) the previous five years, (ii) other major ports in Canada; (c) what is the current number of employees working on container inspection and how does it relate to employee numbers in the previous five years; (d) what is the average cost (i) to the importer when a container is selected for examination, (ii) to the CBSA to perform each inspection; and (e) what resources are being allocated by the CBSA to (i) address findings of the Audit of the Commercial Program in the Marine Mode, dated December 4, 2018, (ii) decrease current wait times associated with inspection?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 142--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to cybersecurity penetration testing, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department or agency: (a) has cybersecurity penetration testing occurred; (b) was the penetration testing conducted internally or by an external contractor; (c) if an external contractor was hired, what are the details of the contract, including the (i) date and duration of contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount; and (d) what was the nature of the penetration testing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 144--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to the $6-million budget for the Leader’s Debates Commission: (a) how much has been spent to date; and (b) what is the breakdown of how the budget was spent, broken down by line item?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 145--
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to Canada Post domestic mail being opened by United States customs officials: (a) does the government or Canada Post allow foreign officials to open domestic mail under any circumstances and, if so, what are those circumstances; (b) what specific measures, if any, will the government take to ensure that Canada Post domestic mail sent to or from Campobello, New Brunswick, is not opened by a foreign government's officials; and (c) has the government raised this matter with U.S. government officials and, if so, what are the details, including (i) who raised the issue, (ii) with whom was it raised, (iii) date, (iv) form, (v) what was the U.S. response?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 147--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to Correctional Service Canada, broken down by year since 2008: (a) what was the average number of individuals in a maximum security penitentiary; (b) what was the average number of individuals in a medium security penitentiary; (c) what was the average number of individuals in a minimum security penitentiary; (d) what was the average number of individuals serving their sentence in the community; and (e) for each number in (a) through (d), what capacity percentage does that number represent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 148--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the government’s proposed Journalism and Written Media Independent Panel of Experts: (a) why does the government require panel members to sign a confidentiality agreement; (b) why will the panel’s deliberations not be held in public; and (c) why will the government not list media applicants which are denied funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 152--
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay:
With regard to all government spending announcements between June 1, 2019, and September 11, 2019: (a) what is the total amount of all commitments; (b) for each announcement, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) amount, (iv) description or summary, (v) duration of proposed spending, (vi) name of the member of Parliament or the minister who made announcement, (vii) program from which funding was allocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 153--
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay:
With regard to all contracts awarded by the government since January 1, 2019, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to a foreign firm, individual, business, or other entity with a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) for each contract in (a), what is the (i) name of vendor, (ii) date of contract, (iii) summary or description of goods or services provided, (iv) file or tracking number, (v) country of mailing address; and (c) for each contract in (a), was the contract awarded competitively or sole sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 154--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to government revenue from taxes or duties related to cannabis sales: (a) what was the original projected revenue from these taxes or duties in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019; (b) what was the actual revenue generated from these taxes or duties in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019; and (c) what is the projected revenue from these taxes or duties in each of the next five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 155--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to RCMP requests for cooperation directed at the Privy Council Office (PCO) or the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO) since January 1, 2016: (a) how many requests for cooperation have been denied by PCO or PMO; and (b) what are the details of each denied request, including (i) date of request, (ii) date of response, (iii) highest official in PCO or PMO who authorized the denial, (iv) summary and topic of request, (v) reason for denial?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 156--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: what is the minister's definition of the middle-class?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 161--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the number of Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers: broken down by province and job category, what is the total number of active CBSA officers as of (i) January 1, 2014, (ii) January 1, 2015, (iii) January 1, 2016, (iv) January 1, 2017, (v) January 1, 2018, (vi) January 1, 2019, (vii) present?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 162--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to contraband seized in correctional institutions, broken down by year and institution from 2015 to present: (a) what quantity of tobacco was seized; (b) what quantity of cannabis was seized; (c) what quantity of crack cocaine was seized; (d) what quantity of crystal methamphetamine was seized; (e) what quantity of opioids was seized; (f) how many cellular telephones were seized; (g) how many weapons were seized; and (h) what is the total institutional value of all seized contraband?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 164--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the First Nations Child and Family Services program: (a) how much funding has been allocated in each fiscal year since 2009-10, broken down by province or territory, fiscal year, and category of expenditure (i.e. operations, maintenance, prevention, and community well-being and jurisdiction initiative); (b) how much has been spent in each fiscal year since 2009-10, broken down by province or territory, fiscal year, and category of expenditure; and (c) how many apprehensions of children have been undertaken in each fiscal year since 2009-10, broken down by fiscal year, province or territory and by on- and off-reserve apprehensions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 165--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to contracts under $25,000 for communications research services or professional communications services signed since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each contract, including (i) vendor, (ii) date and duration of contract, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 166--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Department of Finance since January 1, 2019: what are the (i) vendors' names and location, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the goods or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 167--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to diplomatic appointments made by the government since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all diplomatic appointments made of individuals who were not diplomats or employees of Global Affairs Canada prior to their appointment, including (i) name, (ii) position, including the country and title, (iii) date of the appointment, (iv) salary range?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 168--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the Ministries and Ministers of State Act: (a) on November 20, 2019, were ministers of state appointed pursuant to that Act, and, if so, (i) who are the ministers of state, (ii) who are the ministers to whom those ministers of state have been appointed to assist, (iii) what is the gender of the individuals listed in (i) and (ii); (b) is the answer to (a)(iii) consistent with the Prime Minister’s commitment to a gender-balanced cabinet; and (c) which provisions of the Salaries Act, as enacted by Bill C-24 during the previous Parliament, prevented these ministerial appointments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 169--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to relocation costs for exempt staff moving to the National Capital Region since January 1, 2019: (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 amount authorized to be paid out, (ii) cost for moving services, (iii) cost for hotel stays?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 170--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to contracts granted by any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2017, to Data Sciences Incorporated: (a) who authorized the contracts; (b) what are the contracts' reference and file numbers; (c) what are the dates of the contracts; (d) what are the descriptions of the services provided; (e) what are the delivery dates; (f) what are the original contracts' values; and (g) what are the final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 171--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to projects funded under the government’s Supercluster Initiative: what are the details of all funding delivered to date, including (i) project title and description, (ii) location, (iii) funding promised to date, (iv) funding actually delivered to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 172--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the purchase of carbon offset credits by the government, broken down by department, agency, and Crown corporation: (a) what is the total amount purchased in carbon offsets since January 1, 2018; and (b) what are the details of each individual purchase, including, for each, the (i) price of purchase, (ii) date of purchase, (iii) dates of travel, (iv) titles of individuals on trip, (v) origin and destination of trip, (vi) amount of emissions the purchase was meant to offset, (vii) name of vendor who received the carbon offset payment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 174--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to immigration to Canada since January 1, 2016, and broken down by year: (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 (i) temporary student visas were issued, (ii) individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary student visa; (e) how many (i) temporary worker permits were issued, (ii) individuals were admitted to Canada on a temporary worker permit; (f) how many (i) temporary visitor records were issued, (ii) 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 by source country for each class of migrant; and (j) for applications for the categories enumerated in (a) to (h), how many individuals were found inadmissible, broken down by (i) each subsection of section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (ii) each subsection of section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iii) each subsection of section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (iv) each subsection of section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (v) each subsection of section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 176--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the government’s Venture Capital Catalyst Initiative: what are the details of all funding provided from the program, including (i) recipients, (ii) dates, (iii) location of recipients, (iv) descriptions or summaries of business or programs receiving funding, (v) amounts of funding, (vi) whether the funding was in the form of a (vii) repayable loan, (viii) non-repayable grant?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 177--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to individuals who have illegally or “irregularly” crossed the border into Canada since January 1, 2016: (a) how many such individuals have been subject to deportation or a removal order; and (b) of the individuals in (a), how many (i) remain in Canada, (ii) have been deported or removed from Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 180--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to correspondence, both on paper and electronic formats, received by the Office of the Prime Minister from the general public since January 1, 2019: (a) what were the top 10 topics or subjects matters, in terms of volume of correspondence; and (b) for each of the top 10 topics in (a), how many pieces of correspondence were received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 181--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the caretaker convention: (a) is the government, as of the date of the notice of this question, observing the caretaker convention; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, (i) when did the government cease observing the caretaker convention, (ii) what prompted this change, (iii) is this consistent with section 1 of the Privy Council Office’s “Guidelines on the conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, exempt staff and public servants during an election“ publication which provides that the caretaker period “ends when a new government is sworn-in, or when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear”; and (c) what is the government’s definition of “when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear” in cases where the government party represents fewer than a majority of seats in the House of Commons?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 182--
Ms. Leona Alleslev:
With regard to the export of military goods: (a) what was the average, median, shortest and longest approval time for an export permit in (i) 2014, (ii) 2015, (iii) 2016, (iv) 2017, (v) 2018, (vi) (2019); (b) what is the precise process through which each permit application goes prior to final approval, including the titles of those required to sign off at each stage of the process; (c) has the process in (b) changed since November 4, 2015, and, if so, (i) what precise changes were made to the process, (ii) when was each change made; and (d) what specific measures, if any, is the government implementing to speed up the approval process?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 184--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to defence procurements that have been delayed, since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the complete list of procurements that have been delayed and what are the details of each procurement, including (i) original procurement date, (ii) revised procurement date, (iii) description of goods or services being procured, (iv) reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 185--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Western Economic Diversification Canada since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each, including (i) date of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) project description?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 186--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to foreign takeovers and acquisitions of Canadian companies by foreign state-owned enterprises covered by the Investment Canada Regulations and the Investment Canada Act: (a) from January 1, 2016, to present, how many foreign state-owned enterprises have taken over or acquired Canadian companies; (b) what are the details of each takeover or acquisition in (a), including the (i) name and country of the foreign enterprise, (ii) name of the Canadian company subject to the takeover or acquisition; and (c) for each transaction referred to in (b), (i) was a review conducted pursuant to the Investment Canada Act, (ii) was a national security review conducted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 187--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members serving abroad: (a) how many CAF members were serving abroad as of January 1, 2019; (b) what is the breakdown of these deployments by country; (c) how many CAF members are currently serving abroad; and (d) what is the breakdown of current deployments by country?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 188--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the Veterans Affairs Canada service standard of 16 weeks for decisions in relation to disability benefit applications, for the 2018-19 fiscal year or in the last year for 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 (six months), (iv) greater than a year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 189--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to ministerial travel between June 21, 2019, and September 11, 2019: (a) how much money was spent by each minister and their accompanying staff, per trip, on (i) accommodation, (ii) flights, including number of flights, (iii) car rentals, including number of cars, (iv) fuel claims, (v) meals, (vi) incidentals; (b) how many staff members were on each trip, broken down by ministerial staff and departmental staff; and (c) what was the destination and purpose of each trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 190--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to ministerial travel between June 21, 2018, and September 11, 2018: (a) how much money was spent by each minister and their accompanying staff, per trip, on (i) accommodation, (ii) flights, including number of flights, (iii) car rentals, including number of cars, (iv) fuel claims, (v) meals, (vi) incidentals; (b) how many staff members were on each trip, broken down by ministerial staff and departmental staff; and (c) what was the destination and purpose of each trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 191--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to performance incentives or bonuses paid out in the last fiscal year: what amount was paid out, broken down by department and position level?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 192--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), for the last fiscal year: (a) how much money was spent by the CIB; (b) how many projects have been proposed for the CIB; (c) how many projects have been evaluated for the CIB; and (d) how many projects have been approved for the CIB?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 193--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to classified or protected documents, since January 1, 2019, 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 these instances occurred in the offices of ministerial exempt staff, including those of 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. 195--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each, including (i) date of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) project description?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 196--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to any focus groups administered by the government since January 1, 2019, and broken down by each instance where a focus group took place: (a) what were the specific topics being assessed or analyzed by the focus groups; (b) what are all costs associated with putting on these focus groups, including venue rental, incentives for attendees, food and beverage, travel expenses; (c) which government officials or ministerial staff were in attendance at each focus group; (d) for each of the focus groups conducted, what were the results or findings; and (e) what was the date of each focus group?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 197--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to privacy breaches since January 1, 2018, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) how many privacy breaches have occurred; and (b) for each privacy breach, (i) was it reported to the Privacy Commissioner, (ii) how many individuals were affected, (iii) what were the dates of the privacy breach, (iv) were the individuals affected notified that their information may have been compromised and, if so, on what date and by what manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 198--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to government expenditures on media monitoring, since January 1, 2018, and broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) duration of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 199--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to errors made and corrected on proactive disclosure, since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity covered by proactive disclosure: (a) what was the total number of errors discovered; (b) for each error, what were the details of the original posting, including what information was originally published on the proactive disclosure website; (c) for each correction, what are the details of the corrected information, including the contents of both the (i) original information, (ii) corrected information; and (d) for each error, on what date was the (i) erroneous information published, (ii) corrected information published?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 201--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Global Affairs Canada since January 1, 2019: what are the (i) vendors' names and locations (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the goods or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 202--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to government statistics regarding foreign investment in Canadian real estate: (a) how much foreign money does the government estimate is currently invested in unoccupied or unutilized Canadian residential real estate, broken down by (i) value, (ii) number of dwellings, (iii) municipality, (iv) province; and (b) how much foreign money does the government estimate is currently invested in unoccupied or unutilized Canadian commercial real estate, broken down by (i) value, (ii) number of dwellings, (iii) amount of commercial space, (iv) municipality, (v) province ?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 203--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to government scrutiny of foreign funding of Canadian real estate investments: (a) has the government conducted any specific studies in relation to examining the sources of foreign capital in Canadian real estate, and what were the findings of the studies; (b) what percentage of foreign capital in Canadian real estate does the government estimate to be from illegitimate or illegal sources; (c) what specific measures does the government take to ensure that foreign investment is from legitimate sources; (d) how many foreign-funded real estate transactions have been investigated for possible money laundering since January 1, 2018; (e) what is the status of each of the investigations in (d); and (f) what specific actions is the government taking to ensure that Canadian real estate transactions are not used for money laundering?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 205--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to spending by departments, agencies and Crown corporations, since January 1, 2018: what were the total costs of rentals and purchases of individual staging, lighting and audio equipment, and production and assorted technical costs for all government announcements and public events, broken down by (i) date of event, (ii) location, (iii) event description, (iv) vendor name, (v) goods or services provided by each vendor, (vi) contract value, including cost of each good or service, if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 207--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to the impact of the carbon tax on fixed-income seniors: (a) did the government do any studies, prior to implementing a federal carbon tax, on the impact of the carbon tax on fixed-income seniors, and what were the findings of the studies; (b) what relief, if any, will the government provide to seniors who are unable to afford the higher prices of fruits and vegetables as a result of the carbon tax; and (c) what seniors organizations, if any, were consulted prior to the implementation of the carbon tax, and what are the details of each of their submissions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 209--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the national security exception for federal procurements, since January 1, 2016: how many times has this exception been invoked, broken down by (i) date of contract, (ii) department, (iii) contract amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 210--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to requests from the District of Mission, British Columbia, for government assistance in relation to the Mission sanitary sewer crossing project: (a) what funding will the government provide to Mission in order to replace the sewage pipe system, and when will it be provided; (b) has the government conducted any studies on the potential impact of a sewage pipe breach into the Fraser River and, if so, what are the details, including (i) date, (ii) who conducted the study, (iii) findings, (iv) website where the study can be found online; (c) has the government performed a cost or risk assessment in relation to the cost of replacing the sewage pipe compared to the environmental and financial costs associated with a sewage breach along the Fraser River, and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment; and (d) if the answer to (c) is negative, why has an assessment not been done?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 211--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) what are all of the current 1-800 telephone numbers that Canadians can use to call the CRA; (b) for each 1-800 telephone number, which taxpayers are intended to use each telephone number and which specific services are available; (c) broken down by month, since January 1, 2018, how many telephone calls have been received by each telephone number; and (d) broken down by month, since January 2018, what was the average wait time or time on hold for callers to each telephone number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 213--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to the updatedCanada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) signed on December 10, 2019: what are the specific details of all changes between this agreement and the previous CUSMA signed on November 30, 2018?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 214--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the report entitled “An Examination of Governance, Existing Data, Potential Indicators and Values in the Ottawa River Watershed”, tabled in the House on June 19, 2019: (a) how many public servants were involved in the creation of this report; (b) how many organizations were invited to provide input, direction or consultation during the preparation of the report; (c) how many organizations responded to the invitation to provide input, direction or consultation during the preparation of the report; (d) of the input provided by the organizations that responded in (c), how many were directly used in the creation of the report; (e) for each of the organizations identified in (b), (c), and (d), what is the (i) name of the organization, (ii) contact information of the organization, broken down by question; (f) for each of the organizations invited in (b), since November 4, 2015, have any received funding from the government, broken down by (i) name of the organization, (ii) contact information of the organization, (iii) amount of money received, (iv) department and program that the funding came from, and (v) date on which the funding was received; (g) what is the total of all expenditures for the creation this report, broken down by category; (h) for any expenditure on advertising for the creation of this report, what are the (i) dates the advertising appeared, (ii) the medium used for the advertising, (iii) locations that the advertising could be seen, (iv) amount of money spent on advertising, (v) who approved the advertising expense; (i) for any expenditure on hospitality during the creation of the report, what is the (i) amount spent, (ii) date that the hospitality took place, (iii) location of the event, (iv) what kind of food and beverages were served, (v) who approved the hospitality expense; (j) for any expenditure on transportation and the rental of vehicles during the creation of this report, what is the (i) amount spent, (ii) date that the transportation or rental took place, (iii) location of travel, (iv) what method of transportation was used, (v) in the case of rentals, what is the make and model of the vehicle that was rented, (vi) who approved the transportation or rental expense; and (k) for any expenditure on venue rentals or leases during the creation of this report, what is the (i) amount spent, (ii) location of the rental or lease, (iii) purpose of the rental or lease, (iv) who approved the venue rental or lease expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 215--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the International Joint Commission’s Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River Plan 2014, since November 15, 2015: (a) have any briefing notes been prepared on Plan 2014; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each briefing note, broken down by (i) title, (ii) subject, (iii) author, (iv) department, (v) date written, and (vi) department internal tracking number; and (c) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, have any ministers or ministerial exempt staff issued a written response to a briefing note on Plan 2014, broken down by (i) author, (ii) department), (iii) method of response, (iv) date written, (v) summary of responses?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 217--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Statutes of Canada 2019, Chapter 14 (An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence): what is the anticipated total cost of implementing the 2007 Brisbane Declaration on Environmental Flows, broken down by (i) department, (ii) program, (iii) fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 218--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare: (a) what are the total expenditures of the Council to date, broken down by line item; and (b) what is the total of all costs associated with producing the report “A Prescription for Canada: Achieving Pharmacare for All”, broken down by line item?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 219--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to government-owned buildings and properties on Sparks Street in Ottawa, between Elgin Street and Bank Street, from 2014 until present: (a) how many retail units are available for commercial lease; (b) what are the details of each unit, including (i) street address, (ii) cost to lease, (iii) whether is it vacant or occupied; and (c) for the units in (a), what is the total number of vacant and occupied units?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 220--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to expenditures on single-use bottled water by the government in fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19 and to date in 2019-20: (a) what are the total expenditures, broken down by department or agency; (b) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods, including quantity, (v) reason the bottled water was purchased; and (c) of the expenditures in (b), which expenditures were incurred for consumption in facilities where access to safe drinking water was readily available?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 221--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and the 17 federal departments and agencies that make up the innovation, science and economic development portfolio, since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each, including (i) date of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) project description?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 222--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and the 17 federal departments and agencies that make up the innovation, science and economic development portfolio, since January 1, 2018: what are the (i) vendors' names and locations, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the goods or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 223--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and the 17 federal departments and agencies that make up the innovation, science and economic development portfolio, and broken down by year since the 2016-17 fiscal year: (a) what was the total amount spent on (i) travel for government employees, (ii) travel for stakeholders; (iii) travel for individuals who are neither government employees nor stakeholders, (iv) hospitality; and (b) what are the details of all travel for stakeholders, including (i) date of travel, (ii) cost of trip, broken down by flight cost, accommodation costs and other costs, (iii) name of stakeholder, (iv) organization represented, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 224--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to government enforcement of measures aimed at preventing vaping among youth: (a) how much has been spent since January 1, 2019, on enforcing anti-vaping regulations, broken down by type of enforcement and regulation being enforced; (b) what was the vaping rate among youth in (i) 2017, (ii) 2018, (iii) 2019; (c) what specific measures will the government take to lower the youth vaping rate; and (d) what is the government’s target for lowering the vaping rate in (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 226--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to Canada’s submarine fleet: (a) what were the total number of days at sea for each submarine in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019; (b) how much money was spent to repair each submarine in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019; (c) what is the total cost of the current submarine maintenance plan to maintain the submarines in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021; (d) what are the projected future costs of maintenance of the submarine fleet until end-of-life; and (e) what are the details of all briefing notes prepared by the National Shipbuilding Strategy secretariat related to submarines in 2018 and 2019, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 227--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the replacement of Canada’s polar class icebreakers: (a) what is the expected date of their replacement; (b) what are the planned roles for these new vessels; (c) what is the budget or cost for their replacement; (d) what are the details, including findings of any reports or analysis related to operating older icebreakers (Louis St. Laurent and Terry Fox), including (i) expected years they will have to continue to operate before replacements are built, (ii) total sea days for each vessel in 2017, 2018 and 2019, (iii) total cost of maintenance in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for each polar class vessel; (e) what is the planned maintenance cost of the vessels for each of the next five years; (f) what are the details, including findings, of any review of the vessel meeting environmental standards or risk of not including the polar code for emissions; and (g) what are the details of any reports or briefing notes prepared for or circulated by the National Shipbuilding Strategy Secretariat related to these vessels in 2017, 2018 and 2019, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 228--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the government’s plans to build 16 multipurpose vessels of the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what is the expected budget and schedule for the design and construction for each vessel; (b) what are details of all contracts related to (a), including (i) vendor, (ii) start date, (iii) end date, (iv) amount, (v) description of goods or services, including completion date, where applicable; (c) what is the total number of crew expected for each vessel; (d) what is the expected delivery date for each vessel; (e) what is the risk to cost or budget identified in the planning for these ships; and (f) what are the details of any reports or briefing notes prepared for or circulated by the National Shipbuilding Strategy secretariat related to these vessels in 2018 and 2019, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 229--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN): (a) which surface platform in the Royal Canadian Navy is deemed a warship and why has it been designated as such; (b) will the Joint Support Ship (JSS) be a warship; (c) what specific characteristics will enable to JSS to be a warship; (d) what is the RCN’s definition of interim operational capability (IOC) and full operational capability (FOC); (e) when will the first JSS achieve IOC and FOC; (f) when will the second JSS achieve FOC; (g) what is the most recent cost identified to the Assistant Deputy Minister (Material) for (i) JSS 1, (ii) JSS 2; and (h) what are the details of the design contracts for JSS 1 and JSS 2, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number, (vi) start and end date of contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 230--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to arctic off-shore patrol ships (AOPS): (a) will the two AOPS for the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) require redesign or changes and, if so, what specific changes are required and what is the anticipated cost of each change; (b) what are the details of any contracts signed with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (ISI) in relation to the AOPS, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number, (vi) start and end date of contract; (c) when and in which reports did the CCG first identify the need for AOPS; (d) has the CCG identified any risks or challenges in operating the two AOPS and what are those risks; (e) what will be the total estimated costs of the two AOPS to CCG; and (f) what are the details of all briefing documents prepared on this matter, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 232--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) fleet: (a) how many ships were committed in the first phase of the contract with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (ISI); (b) what are the details of all contracts related to the CSC design, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) summary of goods or services provided, (v) file number, (vi) start date and end date of contract; (c) what is the most recent cost estimate for the first three ships as provided to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence (Materiel) and the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy; (d) what are the specific design changes that are (i) being considered, (ii) being implemented, (iii) expected to increase the size, capacity, speed, and weight of the Type T26 from the original United Kingdom design; (e) who proposed each change and approved the changes in (d)(ii); (f) what was the rationale for each design change; (g) what, if any, are the specific concerns or issues related to costs, speed, size, weight and crewing of the T26 frigate design that have been identified by the Department of National Defence, third party advisors and any technical experts to the (i) Minister of National Defence, (ii) Minister of Finance, (iii) President of the Treasury Board, (iv) Privy Council Office, (v) Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy; (h) what were the technical requirements for the CSC; (i) what are the details of any reports from the independent third party advisors related to this project prepared in draft or final form in the past 12 months, including (i) date, (ii) third party advisor name, (iii) summary and findings of report; (j) what is the cost for spares for each of the CSC; (k) what is the cost of infrastructure upgrades for the CSC fleet; (l) what are the details of each contract signed between the government and ISI related to the CSC, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number, (vi) start and end date of contract; and (n) what are the details of all briefing documents prepared on this matter, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 233--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the fiscal year 2005-06 and the current year: what are all the federal infrastructure investments (including direct transfers to municipalities, regional district associations or First Nations, national parks, highways, etc.), broken down by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 234--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to Transport Canada under the OPP since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Transport Canada since 2016, broken down by year and program; (c) how much money has been allocated to Fisheries and Oceans Canada under the OPP since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (e) how much money has been allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada under the OPP since 2016, broken down by year; (f) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Environment and Climate Change Canada since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (g) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (h) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative since 2016, broken down by year; (i) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; and (j) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 235--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada: what was the amount of lapsed spending in the department, broken down by year, from 2005-06 to the current fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 236--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government's negotiations with the United States on softwood lumber: (a) when did formal negotiations on a new softwood lumber agreement commence; (b) how many negotiating sessions have been held to date; (c) who participated in those negotiations in Canada, the United States or elsewhere; and (d) when was the latest negotiating session?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 237--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government’s Softwood Lumber Action Plan, announced June 1, 2017: (a) how was the funding allocated, broken down by (i) department, (ii) organization, (iii) location, (iv) date of allocation, (v) amount of funding; and (b) how much of this funding been delivered to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 239--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) signed in December 2019: (a) what analysis was done by the government on the impact of the concessions made in the latest version of the agreement to the supply management sector and what were the conclusions; and (b) what is the projected impact of the new agreement on the incomes of (i) dairy, (ii) egg, (iii) chicken, (iv) turkey, (v) hatching egg producers and farmers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 240--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments in the House on December 11, 2019, that “I have had direct discussions with my Australian counterparts on the issue of protection of the Canadian wine industry”: (a) what are the details of these discussions, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) Australian counterpart with whom the discussion took place; and (b) what specific commitments, if any, did the Prime Minister offer or receive during these discussions?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-431-1 Barge Nana Provider8555-431-10 Stock photographs and images8555-431-100 Prime Minister's transition team8555-431-101 Materials prepared for mini ...8555-431-102 Meetings of cabinet8555-431-104 Polling by the government8555-431-105 Federal executive vehicle fleet8555-431-108 Annual budgets allocated to ...8555-431-109 Support for residents and p ...8555-431-11 Government advertising8555-431-110 Late-payment charges for te ... ...Show all topics
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-05-27 19:16 [p.28104]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to follow up on a question that was asked some time ago.
Just for context, the original question had to do with an SNC-Lavalin executive who was convicted of having been part of a major fraud scandal that involved funnelling money into the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada. It was only a day or two after I asked this question in the House that The Globe and Mail broke a story about allegations of inappropriate political pressure coming out of the Prime Minister's Office on the attorney general of the day in order to drop criminal charges in favour of a DPA for SNC-Lavalin. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since that question was initially asked.
Given all the context and the history we have seen over the last number of months on the SNC file and the fact that the government has still refused to say that it will not give a deferred prosecution agreement and given everything that has happened, it makes perfect sense for the government to say that until there has been a public inquiry into the allegations of political interference by the PMO into the SNC-Lavalin affair, it will not grant a deferred prosecution agreement to that company.
As I said, when I originally asked the question, it had to do with an SNC-Lavalin executive who broke the fundraising rules. A lot has happened on that file since. I think Canadians would find it reassuring to hear the government say that until there has been a proper independent public inquiry into what went on in that case, a deferred prosecution agreement will not be granted. Will the government make that commitment?
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2019-05-27 19:18 [p.28104]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to reiterate our government's priority on protecting the integrity of our public programs and services. Our department, Public Services and Procurement, is the central purchasing agent and real property manager on behalf of other departments and agencies. Our department is deeply committed to protecting the integrity of the federal procurement process and all of the other processes for which we are responsible. There is nothing more important than maintaining the trust of Canadians.
Fraud, collusion and corruption have absolutely no place in the public sphere. That is why Public Services and Procurement Canada has a rigorous framework around prevention, detection and enforcement. It is firmly based on the values of fairness, transparency and accountability and is focused on delivering real results for all Canadians.
For instance, there is a code of conduct for procurement which clearly outlines expectations as well as roles and responsibilities for both suppliers and public servants.
In addition, we have a fairness monitoring program, one of a range of tools used by the government to support the integrity of the procurement process. The program engages independent impartial third parties to observe high-value, highly sensitive and complex procurements. The oversight helps to assure all parties that activities are being conducted fairly. Final reports from fairness monitors are of course posted on the Internet.
A key piece of the framework was introduced in 2015 when PSPC put in place a government-wide integrity regime, which aims to ensure that the government does business with ethical suppliers in Canada and abroad. As part of this work, PSPC conducts more than 20,000 integrity verifications annually on contracts and real property transactions. That is one of the ways we hold suppliers accountable for wrongdoing and ensure that the rules are applied consistently across government.
Under this regime, instead of a suspension, the department can enter into an administrative agreement with a supplier that has run afoul of the regime. The agreement stipulates the conditions that the supplier must fulfill to maintain its status to be awarded federal contracts. Among other things, these may include remedial measures and regular reporting on progress and compliance. The names of those suppliers are published on the department's website.
As my colleague opposite knows, SNC-Lavalin entered into an administrative agreement with the department in December 2015 and, as such, the corporation may be awarded contracts as long as it follows a very stringent corporate compliance regime. It must demonstrate strong oversight to protect innocent third parties, such as pensioners and employees, from financial harm.
Canadians should know that we monitor these agreements closely to ensure that all of the requirements are met. Our integrity regime is robust, and I assure my colleague that we continue to look for opportunities to strengthen our measures designed to deter and manage corporate wrongdoing.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2019-05-27 19:22 [p.28105]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the importance of Canadians having a sense of trust in the processes that govern procurement, to be sure, but also in our justice system. I think it would be really bad for Canadians' confidence in our judicial system if, given everything that has happened on the SNC-Lavalin file, SNC-Lavalin were to be granted a DPA by the government before a full independent review of what happened in that case, with findings that exonerate the government from allegations of public interference.
I would like to give the parliamentary secretary another chance to let Canadians know that his government will not grant a DPA to SNC-Lavalin prior to an independent, full review of what went on with regard to the allegations of political interference that concludes there was no political interference.
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2019-05-27 19:23 [p.28105]
Mr. Speaker, Public Services and Procurement does not grant deferred prosecution agreements. We implement very solemnly the administrative arrangements that we currently have, taking that responsibility very seriously. Our integrity regime is one of the most stringent in the world, and we will safeguard the public trust and uphold the values of fairness, transparency and accountability in contracting right across the government.
While we have a good system, our government is committed to making it even better. In the meantime, the member can rest assured that we will continue to apply the highest ethical standards in all that we do.
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)

Question No. 2341--
Mr. Ed Fast:
With regard to expenditures by the Advisory Council on Climate Action, since the announcement of the formation of the group: (a) what are all the total expenditures by the organization broken down by year; (b) what is the breakdown of the yearly expenditures by (i) line item, (ii) financial code used by organization; and (c) what are the details of all contracts issued in relation to the group, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of April 23, 2019, Environment and Climate Change Canada has not yet incurred expenditures related to Q-2341.

Question No. 2343--
Mr. Rob Nicholson:
With regard to the integrity regime since January 1, 2016: how many times did SNC-Lavalin or affiliates of SNC-Lavalin request advanced determinations of ineligibility, broken down by (i) date of request for advanced determination, (ii) date of decision on the request from Public Services and Procurement Canada?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the ineligibility and suspension policy, a supplier or potential supplier may request an advanced determination of its own status under the integrity regime. Since January 1, 2016, there have been no advanced determinations of ineligibility requested by SNC-Lavalin or one of its affiliates under the integrity regime.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2291--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the government operating booths or displays at trade shows or similar type events, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown Corporation or other government entity: what are the details of each event including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) title of event, (iv) amount paid by the government for space at the event, (v) amount spent by the government in relation to the displays and a breakdown of such expenses, if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2323--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the annual review of eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) implemented by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) since 2016: (a) what is the average cost of the reviews, broken down by (i) year, (ii) category of client; (b) how many planned full-time equivalents (FTEs) are assigned to review GIS eligibility; (c) what is the branch responsible for these reviews; (d) for the branch in (c), (i) what is its annual budget, (ii) what is the number of FTEs in the branch; (e) how many of the FTEs in (d)(ii) are working as a (i) Program and Services Delivery Clerk (ii) Service Canada Benefit Officer; (f) other than the ones listed in (e), what are the other job titles where the employee is responsible for reviewing eligibility for the GIS; (g) of the clients who undergo reviews and have their benefits suspended, (i) how many have their full benefits (the same amount, adjusted for any increases) reinstated after the review, (ii) how many have their benefits reduced after the review, (iii) how many have their benefits increased after the review, (iv) how many are deemed ineligible to for the GIS after the review; and (h) has the government ever studied the cost-benefit analysis in reviewing GIS eligibility, and, if so, what are the details of this study?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2324--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the government’s decision to provide former Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Gerald Butts’ lawyer with access to his email records prior to his appearance at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: why was Gerald Butts’ attorney able to get access to his emails without going to court, but Mark Norman’s attorney was forced to go to court to get access to his emails?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2325--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the testimony from the former Attorney General at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that Katie Telford, the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, said “If Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write OpEds saying that what she is doing is proper”: what is the complete list of individuals the Office of the Prime Minister was planning on lining up to write these “OpEds“?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2326--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the government’s claim that 9,000 jobs are at stake if SNC-Lavalin did not receive a Deferred Prosecution Agreement: was the 9,000 number fictitious, or was it based on specific information, and, if so, on what specific information was it based?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2327--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to Parks Canada cancelling a $66 million proposal for a biking and walking trail through Jasper National Park: (a) why did the government cancel the proposal; (b) will the funds be redistributed to infrastructure projects within the park; (c) are there plans to reallocate this money to other provinces, and, if so, how much of the funding will be redistributed outside of Alberta; (d) why were these funds diverted to another park as opposed to spending them on infrastructure repairs and upgrades that have already been identified for Jasper; (e) what is the distribution or projected distribution of the reallocated funds, including (i) recipient, (ii) location, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of funding or project description; and (f) what consultations will Parks Canada conduct with entities in or near Jasper National Park regarding the decision to cancel the proposal and reallocate the funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2328--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to the request by the Jasper Chamber of Commerce to change the designation of the Icefields Parkway so that it could stay open year-round and benefit from full highway status: (a) how many requests to change de designation were received and were they reviewed by the Minister of Transport; (b) what steps will be taken to review the current designation; (c) does Parks Canada have any specific plans to reduce the time lost to clean up the Icefields Parkway, and, if so, what are the plans; (d) will the funds from the cancelled Jasper Park’s bike trail be redistributed to the Icefields Parkway and other infrastructure projects within Jasper National Park, or will the funds be sent to other parks; and (e) if the funds are being redistributed to other parks, what compensation is being offered to the Town of Jasper and other communities that will lose out due to this cancelled funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2329--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the telephone call that the Clerk of the Privy Council accepted from Kevin Lynch, Chairman of the Board of Directors of SNC-Lavalin, in October 2018: has the current Clerk of the Privy Council met with or accepted phone calls from any other corporate board members representing companies facing criminal prosecution, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) date, (ii) individuals, (iii) companies represented, (iv) format (in-person meeting, telephone), (v) topics raised?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2330--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the telephone call that the Clerk of the Privy Council accepted from Kevin Lynch, Chairman of the Board of Directors of SNC-Lavalin, in October 2018: (a) what are the details of all communication between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of SNC-Lavalin since January 22, 2016, where any issue concerning SNC-Lavalin was raised, including (i) date, (ii) format (in-person meeting, telephone, email), (iii) issues raised; and (b) what are the details of all communication between anyone in the Privy Council Office or the Office of the Prime Minister, including the Prime Minister himself, and the Chairman of the Board of SNC-Lavalin, where any issue concerning SNC-Lavalin was raised, since January 1, 2016, and noting that such communication is not reported on the Commissioner of Lobbying’s website, including (i) date, (ii) format, (iii) issues raised, (iv) individuals involved in the communication?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2331--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to ministerial holds being issued on deportation orders since November 4, 2015: (a) how many times has a minister issued a ministerial hold; (b) broken down by Ministerial hold, on what dates were holds issued and how many individuals’ deportation order were affected by each hold; and (c) have any individuals been issued multiple ministerial holds, and, if so, (i) how many received multiple holds, (ii) how many did each individual receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2332--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members required to take mefloquine, since 1990: (a) how many were required to take mefloquine, broken down by deployment; (b) broken down by country of deployment, what were the dates of the deployment; and (c) what is the breakdown of CAF members required to take mefloquine by rank?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2333--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to contracts signed by the government in order to assist with the fallout over the SNC-Lavalin controversy: what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) duration of contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2334--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement on CBC News on March 4, 2019, that SNC-Lavalin is “entitled to a deferred prosecution arrangement”: (a) is this the position of the government, and, if so, when did it become the position of the government; and (b) are any other Canadian companies “entitled” to a deferred prosecution agreement, and, if so, which ones?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2335--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to detention benefits and the New Veterans Charter, broken down by year: (a) how many applications have been made for detention benefits since it was added to the New Veterans Charter; (b) how many applications were (i) approved, (ii) rejected; (c) in general terms, without violating the privacy of individuals involved, which detention incidents qualified for the benefit and which ones did not qualify; (d) for each detention incident which does not qualify for the benefit, what is the rationale or benefit requirement which the incident does not meet; (e) what is the (i) average, (ii) median, (iii) maximum benefit determination; (f) how is the amount of benefit determined; (g) what appeal mechanisms are available to veterans who have been denied detention benefits; (h) how many appeals mentionned in (g) has the government received, and of those, how many have been successful; and (i) how was the lump sum per-day award rate determined for each incident which qualified for the benefit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2336--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to government involvement in the potential sale or lease of aircraft by Bombardier to Iranian entities, including Iran Air, and including any involvement by Global Affairs Canada, the Trade Commissioner Service, Export Development Canada, or Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as well as any other agencies or departments which have dealt with Bombardier: (a) what are the details of all emails, memorandums, notes, or other documents related to the topic since January 1, 2017, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) form (email, memorandum, etc.); (b) what are the details of any proposed sale or lease of aircraft to Iranian entities of which the government is aware, including (i) the date when the government became aware, (ii) the number of aircraft involved, (iii) the estimated value of transaction, (iv) did a minister approve the transaction, and, if so, what are the details of any approval; and (c) has the government provided any funding or loan guarantees in relation to this potential transaction, and, if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2337--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the funding announced in the 2018 Budget in response to the opioid crisis, and specifically the funding commitments mentioned on pages 170 and 171 of the Budget Plan, broken down by funding commitment: what are the details of all funding which has actually been delivered to date, including (i) recipient, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) location, (v) project description or purpose of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2338--
Mr. David Yurdiga:
With regards to legal advice for either the Prime Minister, current staff or former members in the Office of the Prime Minister: what are all the amounts budgeted in 2017, 2018, and 2019 for outside legal advice, broken down by (i) how much each firm is charging per hour, (ii) the total expected cost, (iii) any details released in the contracts signed, (e.g. the nature of the work and other such details)?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-2291 Government operating booth ...8555-421-2291-01 Government operating bo ...8555-421-2323 Guaranteed Income Supplement8555-421-2324 Access to emails8555-421-2325 Testimony from the former ...8555-421-2326 SNC-Lavalin8555-421-2327 Jasper National Park8555-421-2328 Icefields Parkway8555-421-2329 Telephone call from Kevin Lynch8555-421-2330 Details of telephone call ...8555-421-2331 Ministerial holds ...Show all topics
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2019-04-02 11:42 [p.26565]
Madam Speaker, just as I was saying the Liberal Party had received these illegal donations from SNC-Lavalin, all of these members came scurrying in. They heard the word “donation” and, all of a sudden, they were very excited and the House went from completely empty to chock full. I am sorry to dangle that carrot in front of my Liberal friends. They can resist everything except temptation.
Just last week, the Prime Minister was at a glitzy Liberal fundraiser where some first nations protesters rose to raise the concern of mercury poisoning. He chuckled at their plight and had them thrown out aggressively by security. However, he was kind enough to thank them for their donation as they went out the door to the great roars of laughter from the $1,500 Liberal donors and glitterati who looked on in the audience.
However, I have digressed and go back to the subject at hand. Was SNC's alleged fraud in Libya an isolated incident? No, it was not. It was part of a long-standing pattern of proven corruption that has been upheld by judges and has resulted in convictions going back 20 years to the present, with convictions being issued as recently as one and a half years ago.
This is a company that had actually developed a coding system to account for bribery within it. It created its own accounting code so that it could go on bribing officials and account for it in a way that neither the tax authorities or anyone else would know what was going on. To do that, to have a special coding system, one has to be systematically focused on the objective of bribing and defrauding other people. In other words, this was not just a few bad apples that went off to Libya, did some inappropriate things and we ought to just let them take the fall and the company move on. This is systematic, rotten corruption that goes to the core of the company and has been prevalent in the heart of that enterprise for many years. In other words, the company does not qualify for a deferred prosecution agreement on the grounds that it was an isolated incident, far from it. It seems to be its modus operandi.
The director of public prosecutions carefully analyzed the facts the company put forward and determined through those facts that the deferred prosecution agreement provided for in law was not appropriate in this case. That is the end of the story, right?
Wrong. It is not end of the story. For the Prime Minister, it was the beginning of the story. The story is a very ugly and sordid tale, but one we have started to hear over the last two months. At that point in time, September 4, 2018, the director of public prosecutions accurately and properly concludes that SNC-Lavalin should go to trial and face the music for its alleged $130 million of bribery and corruption and says so in a letter to the executives, a letter that the company will not go on to reveal for more than a month, during which time its shareholders were kept in the dark. It sounds like a lot has changed over there.
However, the company did not take no for an answer. Lobbyists swarmed to Parliament Hill. The lobbyist registry shows meetings between SNC officials and top-level personnel in the Prime Minister's Office and in the finance minister's office. In fact, the finance minister himself met with the company approximately 10 days after the director of public prosecutions rendered her decision to ensure the trial would go ahead.
After that extraordinary act of lobbying and those 10 days that followed the prosecutor's decision, the political heat started to rise. The former attorney general started to face veiled threats, hounding, pressure and interference. By the way, all of those words I just used were quoted from her mouth. She experienced a September 18 meeting with the Prime Minister where he attempted to strong-arm her into granting a deferred prosecution agreement and shelving the charges. She said she looked him in the eye and asked if he was interfering with her job as the Attorney General, because she would “strongly advise against it.”
So much for his subsequent claim that she never once raised a concern about his personal political interference, but that meeting would only be the beginning. A cavalcade of pressure would come marching through her office again and again.
The chief of staff to the finance minister would reach out in emails and text messages. Other senior staff in the Prime Minister's Office, including the senior adviser, the principal secretary and the chief of staff would all go and meet personally with top-level staff members of the former attorney general, constantly twisting their arms. They said things such as “we don't want to debate legalities anymore” and “there is no solution here that does not involve some interference.” I am not paraphrasing. This is what they said. It is in the notes. Those notes were transmitted by text message to the former attorney general and have since been tabled with the justice committee and made available for all eyes to see.
Then we had that incredible meeting by phone between the former attorney general and the Clerk of the Privy Council in which the clerk said he wanted to talk to her about the SNC-Lavalin issue. That conversation went on for 17 minutes, during which, more than a dozen times, the Clerk of the Privy Council attempted to change the former attorney general's mind. He used terms like the Prime Minister is very “firm”. He used the word “firm” four times. The Clerk of the Privy Council indicated that the Prime Minister was in one of those moods. He said that the Prime Minister would “find a way to get it done, one way or another”.
The only way he could get it done, the only way he could get such an agreement imposed on the prosecutor, was if he removed his Attorney General. More ominously, the clerk said he was worried. “Worried about what?” asked the former attorney general. He replied he was worried because it is never good for the Attorney General and the Prime Minister to be at loggerheads. He warned of a “collision” between the Attorney General and her boss, the Prime Minister.
If someone warns us that we are about to have a collision with our boss if we do not do what we are told, what does that mean? What would we later interpret it to mean if that same boss moved us out of our job only weeks later? Would we think that collision and that removal from the job were two totally unrelated events? Or would we conclude, as the former attorney general did, and most of the rest of the country has, that the Prime Minister removed her because she refused to do his bidding and stop the trial for SNC-Lavalin.
What is interesting about the former attorney general's account is that it has never changed. She came before a committee and testified at great length. She faced aggressive questioning from Liberal members on the committee. An aggressive group of the Prime Minister's supporters in the press have attempted to discredit her. They have tried to poke holes in everything she said, but they cannot find anything.
She did an unprecedented thing on Friday. She handed over 40 pages of text messages, personal notes and diary entries, and of course audio recordings. What did the Liberals say in response? They said there was nothing new there and they are right. There was nothing there. Why? It is because her story had not changed. It upheld every claim she had made. There was not a single solitary contradiction the Liberals could find.
For judges in courtrooms and police officers conducting investigations, when they have to choose between the credibility of two competing individuals, they always gravitate toward the person whose story does not change. In this case, that person is the former attorney general. By contrast, the Prime Minister's story changes faster than his colourful socks. He always has a new story.
Let me note one twist and turn in this drama. The Prime Minister said that if anyone, including the former attorney general, had issues with anything they might have experienced in the government or didn't feel that they were living up to the high standards the government set for itself, it was their responsibility to come forward, and no one did.
However, we have that incredible recording, which was made two months before the Prime Minister made the statement that no one came forward. In it, the former attorney general says to the Prime Minister's clerk:
So we are treading on dangerous ground here—and I am going to issue my stern warning—um—because I cannot act in a manner and the prosecution cannot act in a manner that is not objective, that isn’t independent. I cannot act in a partisan way and I cannot be politically motivated. All of this screams of that.
So much for the notion that no one came forward.
That was one of seven times in that 17-minute conversation that she made similar comments. She said that it was “inappropriate”, that she felt “uncomfortable”, that she was waiting for “the other shoe to drop”, and that it reminded her of the “Saturday night massacre”, a reference to Richard Nixon's firing of justice department officials to cover up Watergate. Nevertheless, we are to believe that no one raised any concerns.
Since then, the Prime Minister's story has been that the conversation did happen but no one told him about it. He said he left on vacation right after the call was made, so no one had a chance to tell him as he was gone. The only problem with that story is that he did not leave on vacation right after the call was made. After that story came out, a few intrepid journalists looked at the publicly available schedule of the Prime Minister and found that he did not leave on vacation for another two days. Two days is a heck of a long time, and it is very easy to brief someone on a 17-minute conversation in a two-hour period.
However, the Prime Minister would have us believe that he could not be briefed because he was busy packing for his vacation. He had to pack lots of socks in order to prepare for that vacation. For two days, he was hunkered down in his closet at home, in his government-owned mansion, preparing for that exhausting vacation ahead. He was packing his bags so that he could go off and surf in Tofino, never to be distracted by a pesky phone call from his top public servant about an issue that the Prime Minister had considered of intense importance only hours before the call happened.
Furthermore, we have the testimony from the clerk, who said, when he was admonishing the former attorney general for not reaching out to the Prime Minister personally, that he was available 24-7. If he was available 24-7, how is it possible that the Clerk of the Privy Council would have no opportunity between December 19 and February 15, a two-month period, to tell the Prime Minister about this exceptional and explosive phone call he had with the former attorney general on this issue of dramatic importance?
That is just one contradiction of that particular claim. The other, of course, is that the former attorney general met with the Prime Minister on September 18 and told him of her concerns. She looked him in the eye at that time. Now we have one documented example of her raising her concerns with him personally. We have the second tape-recorded example of her raising her concerns with the Clerk of the Privy Council. Then we have a dramatic meeting between the former attorney general and the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, the puppet master of the PMO, in which she raised concerns about the inappropriate interference of the Prime Minister's Office in the case. Still, somehow the Prime Minister expects us to believe that he knew absolutely nothing about her concerns or about her decision not to grant a special deal to this company.
That is simply not believable, but if it is truly the Prime Minister's position and he really believes he can defend it, then he can agree with our singular demand today, which is to reopen the justice committee investigation and invite roughly a dozen witnesses, including those accused of interfering with the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. If they have nothing to hide, if he has nothing to hide, he will let them all appear under oath, without restriction, to answer questions. If he walks into this place and offers to do that, I will end my speech now.
In all seriousness, if the Prime Minister were to stand in his place and make the commitment that the justice committee investigation will reopen, then he has my commitment to return to my chair and allow the debate to continue with other speakers so that Canadians can get to the truth. If he has nothing to hide, why would he not do it? What could be the harm in having questions?
He says that there is nothing to learn and that we have already learned everything there is to learn. Okay, then it will just be a redundant exercise. I suppose that would be the first time in the history of Parliament that anything redundant happened or that anyone repeated themselves. I think I have done it a few times in my speech, but no one noticed.
Really, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, what harm would it do to bring people before the committee, ask them questions about their role in the scandal and get the answers in a report from the committee before the election? If the Prime Minister truly has nothing to hide, then that is exactly what he will do.
It has been brought to my attention that the Prime Minister is not only going to shut down the justice committee and ethics committee investigations into this scandal but that he has now bailed on question period for today. I have not been able to independently confirm it, but I am understanding from a note just passed to me that the Prime Minister's newly released itinerary shows that he will not be present for a second time in a row.
Of course, Parliament was out last week, so he dodged question period during that time. Yesterday he was missing in action, and today we are told that at two o'clock, when the government stands to answer for its conduct in this scandal, he will once again hide behind other ministers and refuse to appear and defend himself. That tells an awful lot about his guilty state of mind. He knows that his story has been riddled with contradictions. He does not want those contradictions queried before Canada's House of Commons.
Let us move on to the next part of the Prime Minister's story.
He claimed that the reason he was so anxious to interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin is that if he did not, 9,000 jobs would vanish. It was an odd claim, and one I found suspect from the very beginning. I have to say that everything we have learned since then proves it was false.
When Gerry Butts came to the committee and was asked what evidence he had that 9,000 jobs would vanish, he said he had nothing specific. When Michael Wernick was asked if he had any documents or briefing notes he could share with the committee to show that these 9,000 jobs he kept talking about would be gone if the prosecution proceeded, he said no. The Prime Minister was then asked at a press conference if he had any evidence he could produce to show that 9,000 jobs would vanish. Again, he failed to be forthcoming with it.
Why would they have no such evidence? It is because the claim is false.
Let me walk through it piece by piece.
First of all, the Prime Minister's claim that the headquarters of the company would leave in the fall of 2018 if the attorney general did not immediately intervene to give the company a deferred prosecution agreement is easily disprovable by publicly available facts. We know the company signed a $1.5-billion loan agreement with the Quebec pension plan that required the company's headquarters to remain in Montreal at least until the year 2024. We also know the company just signed a 20-year lease on its headquarters there and announced a multi-million-dollar renovation of that headquarters to accommodate its thousands of Montreal-area employees. Typically, companies that are renovating to accommodate their existing workforce do not get up and leave. It is kind of a waste of money. They do not sign 20-year leases and they do not sign $1.5-billion loan deals that oblige them to stay put for six or seven years. Therefore, the claim the Prime Minister made on September 18 when he met with the former attorney general—the claim that she had mere days to signal negotiations for a special deal for SNC-Lavalin or the company would leave the country altogether—was completely, utterly and demonstrably false.
His broader claim about 9,000 jobs is equally false. The company has $52 billion worth of construction projects located in Canada. It runs the five biggest construction projects in our country right now, and here is the thing about construction: Companies have to do a construction project where the project is located. It is a simple complication. They cannot build a road in Canada from far away in Beijing or in London, England. As an example, Ottawa just hired SNC for a transit project that will go from, roughly, downtown to the south end. The company cannot build 14 kilometres of rail transit in a foreign country and drop it out of the sky from a helicopter onto the nation's capital. The project is here. Therefore, the jobs are here and the jobs are not going anywhere.
The jobs that SNC has moved were moved before the company found out that it would necessarily face trial. In fact, four-fifths of the company's workforce is already outside of Canada, and that was long before the government ever signalled that the company would be required to go to trial. In other words, the movement of SNC-Lavalin jobs out of Canada has nothing to do with the prosecution, and therefore that justification itself is flawed.
Finally, the government has been telling us that if the company is forced to face trial and is ultimately convicted, the consequence would be that it would lose the ability to bid on Canadian contracts.
I am going to read directly from a report on exactly that question that the Deputy Minister of Justice Canada, Nathalie Drouin, wrote to the Clerk of the Privy Council in the matter of SNC-Lavalin. It refers to the Canadian integrity regime. This is the regime that bans corrupt businesses from doing business with the Government of Canada. It says this:
The ability of a company/supplier to contract with the federal government is affected by the Ineligibility and Suspension Policy (Policy). The Policy ensures the government does business only with ethical companies/suppliers in Canada and abroad. Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) administers the Policy on behalf of the government.
The Policy sets out when and how a company or supplier may be declared ineligible or suspended from doing business with the government. It provides that a company/supplier is suspended when charged with, or admits guilt to one of a number of listed offences, such as fraud and bribery of foreign public officials. The suspension from being able to contract with the federal government is for a duration of 18 months. This suspension is subject to extension pending the final disposition of the charges.
The report goes on to discuss administrative agreements. It says:
The company/supplier can enter into an Administrative Agreement with the government to stay the suspension. An Administrative Agreement is an arrangement between the company/supplier and the government where the former must adopt certain compliance measures. It is used to mitigate the risk of contracting with a particular company/supplier. For example, the government and a company/supplier may wish to enter in Administrative—
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2019-04-02 12:16 [p.26569]
Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the Prime Minister's claim that all of these jobs would up and vanish suddenly if the former attorney general did not immediately grant the company the ability to negotiate a special deal avoiding prosecution.
Before my hon. colleague rose on his question of privilege, I pointed out that the Prime Minister's claim that the headquarters of SNC-Lavalin would immediately leave if the company had to face a trial was an easily provable falsehood, one that the Prime Minister would have known, given the prodigious resources he has as the head of a G7 government.
Defenders of the Prime Minister's interference have likewise claimed that he needed to protect the company from trial because if it was convicted, it would lose the ability to bid on federal contracts, thus crippling its workforce and causing thousands of people to lose their jobs. That too is false.
I am reading a document that was written November 9, 2018, from the deputy minister of Justice and deputy attorney general of Canada, Nathalie Drouin, to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's former top public servant. In that document, she says that there is something called a Canadian integrity regime. The document is designed to tell the government what would be the economic consequences of an SNC-Lavalin conviction. It says that the ability of a company or supplier to contract with the federal government is affected by the ineligibility and suspension policy. It says that the policy ensures the government does business only with ethical companies or suppliers in Canada and abroad. It goes on to say that Public Services and Procurement Canada administers the policy on behalf of the government, that the policy sets out when and how a company or supplier may be declared ineligible or suspended from doing business with the government, and that it provides that a company or supplier is suspended with or charged with, or admits guilt to, one of a number of listed offences such as fraud and bribery of foreign public officials.
That is exactly the charge with which SNC-Lavalin is accused of right now, the bribery and fraud of foreign public officials.
The letter continues on to say that the suspension from being able to contract with the government is for a duration of 18 months, that this suspension is subject to extension, pending a final disposition of the charges. It states that there is something called administrative agreements; that the company or supplier may enter into an administrative agreement with the government to stay the suspension; that the administrative agreement is an arrangement between the company or supplier and the government where the former adopts certain compliance measures; that it is used to mitigate the risk of contracting with a particular company or supplier, for example, the government and a company or a supplier may wish to enter into an administrative agreement to stay the suspension, instead of terminating an existing contract due to determination of ineligibility or suspension.
The public works department has only concluded one administrative agreement. On December 8, 2015, it announced an agreement with who? SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., staying a suspension. According to public works that stay means that the SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. is “allowed to continue doing business with the government pursuant to the regime.”
In other words, even though the company had already been banned from doing business with the federal government because of the fraud and bribery charges it now faces, one of the first acts of the new Liberal government in late 2015 was to permit an administrative agreement exempting SNC-Lavalin from that ban. The ongoing concern is that if the company is convicted, a new band will apply. The letter goes on. The deputy attorney general addresses that too:
If convicted, pursuant to the current “interim” Policy, the convicted company/supplier would be ineligible to contract with the government. Depending on the offence for which there was a conviction, the period of ineligibility could be as long as 10 years.
This ineligibility status would remain for the entire period unless the government considered it possible and appropriate to invoke a public interest exception.
The reasons to invoke public interest exemptions are narrow: emergency, where delay could harm the public interest; company or supplier is the only person capable of performing the contract; the contract is essential to maintain sufficient emergency stocks; and not entering into the contract with a company or supplier would have a significant adverse impact on the health, national security, safety, public security or economic or financial well-being of Canadians.
This is important. The whole purpose, we are told, of granting this company a deferred prosecution agreement to avoid criminal trial is because the company would lose its ability to bid on federal projects and, therefore, its employees would suffer harm.
I have just read an excerpt from the policy which says that the government currently has the power to exempt a company from said ban if it is necessary for the economic or financial well-being of Canadians. Let us just pause on this point for a moment.
We are continuously being told that the Prime Minister desperately wanted to save the company from a bidding ban and thus needed to cancel the trial altogether by imposing on the prosecutor the obligation to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement.
We learn, in reading this policy, that if the Prime Minister's only goal in this was to protect the company's ability to continue bidding on federal work, it could have done so even after a trial and a conviction by simply invoking a public interest exemption. It says that right in the policy.
The government would have known that because it already granted a similar exemption to the very same company. Furthermore, if it was not clear enough already that the government had the ability to exempt a convicted SNC-Lavalin from a ban on federal bidding, the public works department was already working on a new policy that makes that even more clear. Public works had proposed to replace the ineligibility and suspension policy with a new policy. It undertook consultations on the revised ineligibility and suspension policy, which closed on November 13, 2018.
Under the new policy, the government would have the discretion to vary or even rescind the period of ineligibility of a convicted company or supplier. The period of ineligibility would be at the discretion of the department.
I know that sounds like a lot of administrative language, but it is extremely important. We keep being told that the company will lose its federal contracts if it is convicted; ergo, the Prime Minister has to take extraordinary steps to prevent that conviction from happening; ergo, he has to pressure his former attorney general to make possible a deferred prosecution agreement. That is what we keep being told.
However, we learn here that none of that was necessary, if the Prime Minister's only goal was to protect the company's ability to continue bidding on federal contracts. The proposed new policy, which the cabinet has the right to approve, without even bringing it before the House of Commons, will allow the Liberal government to exempt SNC-Lavalin from a ban on federal bidding even if a conviction goes ahead. This is more proof that this whole claim that the government was protecting jobs is a lie.
Let me read another story that will further shred the jobs' claim. It was written by the Ottawa correspondent, Abigail Bimman. It says that the Prime Minister “keeps naming this small...town as part of SNC-Lavalin defence, baffling locals.”
The article reads:
Port Elgin, Ont., is a quiet beach town on the shores of Lake Huron, home to about 8,000 people. But in his defence during the SNC-Lavalin affair, the prime minister has named the town at least three times.
“When we’re looking at potential job losses right across the country from Corner Brook to Port Elgin, Ont., to Saskatoon and Regina to Calgary, Edmonton and Grande Prairie, Alta., and Fort McMurray, we are seeing good jobs right across the country that could be at risk,” [the Prime Minister] told reporters in Iqaluit on March 8.
Never mind that most of the people who work for SNC-Lavalin in the aforementioned cities do construction work there, work that can only be done in those localities and therefore the jobs could not be moved from those places. However, let us put that aside and go back to the text of the article.
The article goes on:
He named Port Elgin in a similar context in Montreal on Feb. 28 and Charlottetown on March 4.
Of all those communities, Port Elgin is the tiniest. So Global News headed to Port Elgin to see if they’re worried about job losses—and as it turns out, the situation is just the opposite.
“I think Port Elgin's booming!” said resident Linda Barfoot.
“We're in a protected bubble here,” said another resident who stopped to watch the Global News video of [the Prime Minister] mentioning her town again and again.
That bubble refers to Bruce Power. Twenty minutes down the road from Port Elgin in Tiverton, it supplies a third of the province’s energy and employs 4,000 people full-time. It’s also on the cusp of a $13-billion refurbishment project to extend the life of six of the eight nuclear reactors.
“There aren’t potential job losses at Bruce Power—in fact, there’s a lot of job creation,” said Elizabeth Arnold, who’s lived in town for nearly 40 years. Her husband, she says, used to work for Bruce Power.
“There’s a huge influx of workers for the next two or three years so I’m not sure what [the Prime Minister is] talking about when he says Port Elgin, except that it’s a town in Ontario,” said Arnold.
She seems like a wise local from the area. The story goes on:
Local politicians tell Global News the so-called boom means new subdivisions are being built, schools are filling up and the challenge is getting enough workers to fill positions.
“We’re the fastest-growing community in our region here on Lake Huron and we’ve been ranked one of the best places to live in Canada,” said Saugeen Shores Mayor Luke Charbonneau.
But there is an SNC-Lavalin connection to Port Elgin. It’s home to one of more than 130 offices across the country, adding up to about 9,000 employees total. SNC-Lavalin tells Global News it won’t disclose how many people work in each place.
In Port Elgin, the office occupies a single unit in a small strip mall. On the Thursday afternoon when Global News stopped by, there were just a few cars in front.
And [the] Conservative MP [for Huron—Bruce]'s constituency office sits right across the street.
“The massive job losses the prime minister is predicting is right over my shoulder,” said [the member]. “It’s 10 or 12 people.”
“I think he has it wrong. SNC-Lavalin’s nuclear division is a tremendous business, they’re adding jobs.”
To start with, there are only 10 to 12 people who work there, and SNC is adding to it even though the company knows it is not getting a deferred prosecution agreement. The story goes on:
SNC Lavalin is part of the Major Component Replacement (MCR) project at Bruce Power. SNC has a 40 per cent stake in the Shoreline Power Group Consortium, along with AECOM and Aecon. Shoreline has a $475-million contract for a key part of the MCR, scheduled to begin in January 2020.
In other words, SNC-Lavalin's work there is really going to ramp up in another year. Far from leaving, it is actually going to be expanding, and it knows it will be doing this even though the trial, at this point, is going ahead.
The story goes on:
In a press release from June 2018, Bruce Power says the overall [project] will “create and sustain an average of 825 jobs annually” over the next 15 years.
Neither Bruce Power nor SNC-Lavalin would talk to Global News about whether there is any threat to the broader category of nuclear jobs. SNC would not give details about any employment numbers for specific projects and would not confirm whether previously released job numbers in news releases are still accurate today.
[The MP for Huron—Bruce] is confident that in a worst-case scenario for SNC, if they are forbidden to bid on government contracts for 10 years, nuclear jobs are protected because this isn't a government project.
“It’s a business-to-business transaction between SNC Lavalin nuclear and Bruce Power, and regardless of the outcome, it will have no impact on their nuclear division,” said [the member].
The community's mayor, however, is less certain about SNC's future....
“I don’t have a crystal ball and I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future with SNC-Lavalin, and obviously, that’s a big national issue,” said Charbonneau.
“What we do know locally is that SNC-Lavalin is planning an expansion. They’re looking at adding some additional floor space to the office they currently have, they’re looking at going up to as many as 75 engineers here in Port Elgin.”
This story says that while the Prime Minister claims the company is going to be laying off all these employees in Port Elgin, it looks like the plan, even with the trial going ahead, is to expand the workforce from about 12 people to 75 people, in other words, by over 500%. This of course is in a town where the Prime Minister claims all kinds of jobs will be lost if he does not interrupt the criminal trial.
The article continues:
Mayor Luke Charbonneau tells Global News while he’s concerned about potential job losses connected to the SNC Lavalin affair, he has a lot of confidence in Port Elgin’s booming economy.
He goes on to say, “I feel good that our success is going to continue and that SNC can come along with that”.
The story goes on to state:
The Prime Minister’s Office tells Global News [the Prime Minister] was simply mentioning places across the country where SNC-Lavalin has employees, and the comments were not related to nuclear industry.
Somebody should have told him that SNC-Lavalin does work with the nuclear industry there before he put the company's operations for Port Elgin in his speech. However, these are mere details.
This is another example of the jobs lie that the government has been telling, claiming that if the Prime Minister did not take the extraordinary step of interfering with a criminal prosecution, all of these jobs would up and vanish. Again, the evidence contradicts that claim.
Why is it so important for us to examine that falsehood? The answer is this. If the Prime Minister is not protecting jobs as he claims, who is he protecting? He has gone to such extraordinary lengths to get this company off the hook. He slipped an amendment into the Criminal Code, an amendment he executed through a budget omnibus bill. Once that bill became law, he became infuriated to learn that it had not, within days of getting royal assent and taking effect, been used for SNC-Lavalin. He began an intense campaign that extended from September until January, when he shuffled his cabinet. I am not aware of a single—
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2019-03-20 15:23 [p.26185]
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will split my time with the member for Lethbridge.
Today I rise on a motion to get to the truth in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Here is a quick recap of how we got here.
A year ago, the Prime Minister had his finance minister introduce a budget amending the Criminal Code to allow powerful corporations accused of fraud, bribery and other forms of corruption to get the charges shelved by signing something called a deferred prosecution agreement. We were all wondering where this was coming from and who was advocating for such special deals. We found out in February of this year, when The Globe and Mail reported that the former attorney general faced interference, veiled threats, pressure, hounding and other inappropriate pressure from the Prime Minister and those around him to offer such a deal to SNC-Lavalin.
SNC-Lavalin is a company facing over $100 million in fraud and bribery charges. Among the charges are that the company bought prostitutes for the former Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, and that it bribed him and his officials to defraud among the poorest people in the world of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Prime Minister was acting in a manner that was highly unusual. To take direct interest in a criminal trial of any kind would be strange on any day, but to try to defend alleged corporate criminals who engaged in malfeasance on this scale was particularly unusual. Of course, the Prime Minister said he did nothing wrong, that the story was false and that his attorney general was behind him all the way. The next day, she resigned. The Prime Minister dismissed her, saying that he was disappointed and surprised. We found out later, during her testimony, that he should not have been either. The reality is that she told him that she was worried about the level of interference by his office.
That brings me to numerous unanswered questions we now need to pursue. First, the Prime Minister said that she never raised any concerns with him at all and that if she was worried about the 20 times his office and his officials contacted her about this criminal prosecution, why did she not say something? It turns out she did.
Yes, she did, despite the heckling against her, again, by Liberal members across the way. Shame on them for heckling a fellow Liberal member. That is shameful.
On September 17, she asked the Prime Minister, “Are you interfering...with my role as the Attorney General?”, because if he was, she said, “I would strongly advise against it.” The Prime Minister was stating a falsehood when he said otherwise.
Then he said that it was all about jobs. If this powerful, Liberal-linked corporation did not get its charges shelved, 9,000 jobs would vanish into thin air. When his top adviser, Gerald Butts, appeared before committee, the Green Party leader asked him if he had any evidence that 9,000 jobs would disappear. His answer was that he had nothing specific. That was after two hours of testimony during which he claimed that he was tied in knots about all the families who would lose their jobs.
Then we asked Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, who had been involved in all the meetings and proceedings leading up to this interference, what reports he had to prove that 9,000 jobs would vanish. He said that he had nothing in particular. All of this aroused suspicion that the jobs claim was a bunch of nonsense, a suspicion that is supported by a lot of evidence.
Let me lay out that evidence. First, the company has the five biggest construction projects in Canada now, worth $52 billion. I want to offer a bit of a hint about how construction jobs work, for our friends across the way. They have to be done where the construction projects are. For example, in Ottawa, SNC-Lavalin has been retained to build the north-south mass-transit project, a $600-million project. It will lay track from near downtown Ottawa all the way out to deep in the south end of the city.
Rail cannot be built in Beijing or London, England and be dropped from a helicopter onto the nation's capital. It has to be built in the city. The same is true with all construction projects SNC-Lavalin is doing in the country.
The second claim the government makes regarding jobs is that if the company is convicted, then it will lose all access to federal contracts. We now know that is not true. The public procurement minister is already making revisions to the procurement policy allowing corporate criminals to continue to bid if they get an exemption. SNC-Lavalin already earned such an exemption, or at least was granted one, early in the days of the Liberal government. In fact, it was one of the very first acts the Liberal government rushed to take.
In December of 2015, the company, which had been banned from federal bidding after being charged with fraud and bribery, was then given an exception by the government so it could continue bidding, and it plans to do exactly the same thing even if a conviction occurs. In other words, if the government is just worried about protecting bidding opportunities for federal projects, it can do that without preventing the trial from going ahead. Therefore, that is fallacious excuse is as well.
Back in September, it was said that the Prime Minister told the former attorney general that if she did not immediately shelve the charges into SNC-Lavalin's corruption, the company would move its headquarters to London, England. He made that claim twice in that meeting. The Clerk of the Privy Council also made that claim in that meeting. The chief of staff to the finance minister would go to staff members of the former attorney general and say the same thing. Ben Chin said that the announcement of the move of the headquarters could happen within days and that it needed to be prevented because there was a Quebec election going on.
That seemed mighty suspicious, because a little research on doctor Google would prove that moving the SNC headquarters is impossible. A $1.5-billion loan agreement between the company and the Quebec pension plan requires that the headquarters stay there until the year 2024, another half-decade. The company just signed a 20-year lease on its headquarters there, and is in the process of spending millions of dollars to renovate specifically for the purpose of accommodating its 2,000 employees in that city. It is not only contractually impossible, it is physically unbelievable that the company would leave.
If people do not take any of that as sufficient enough proof, today the CEO of SNC-Lavalin made clear that was not going to happen. In fact, he was asked where this came from. He said that he did not know how people got ideas like that in their heads. Only the Prime Minister knows how that idea came into his head. Today he denied ever making the headquarters claim.
When one does not tell the truth, the problem is that it becomes very difficult to keep track of one's story. Unfortunately for him, we have him on tape, claiming that SNC would leave Canada altogether if it was convicted of fraud and bribery. He said it in his famous non-apology press conference, where he repeated that false claim that he had earlier said to the former attorney general. Therefore, we know he was going around stating that falsehood.
It is bad enough that the Prime Minister of Canada faces allegations of interfering with a criminal prosecution to get charges set aside. However, this scandal reaches a whole new level of criminal culpability if the Prime Minister or anyone around him deliberately stated a falsehood to a law officer in order to shelve criminal charges. It is an offence under section 139 of the Criminal Code to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. Lying to a law officer to get her to set aside charges would obstruct, pervert and defeat the course of justice.
It is possible that during her testimony, the former attorney general did not realize that this falsehood had been stated to her and that it was not true. However, these are the questions we need answered. That is why we need to end the cover-up, let the former attorney general complete her testimony and proceed with an investigation at the ethics committee.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michelle Rempel Profile
2019-03-19 14:53 [p.26149]
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that SNC-Lavalin bought a $38-million yacht for the son of Moammar Gadhafi in exchange for contracts.
I want to go back to this issue with the OECD. The foreign affairs minister watched two of her colleagues resign on principle to stand against the Prime Minister and his role in this greasy scandal. Why is she letting herself be used on the international stage for this abrogation of Canadian democracy?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to speak for Canada, to speak for our amazing country on the international stage.
Because I was not fully heard when the member for Durham posed his astonishing question, let me just say that it is both insulting and absurd to the people of Canada, as well as to the people suffering from the dictatorships of Maduro and Putin, to make any comparison between the two.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2019-02-28 22:19 [p.25987]
Mr. Speaker, the health of our economy and the importance of jobs to this country is absolutely relevant to the issue at hand with respect to SNC-Lavalin. It is extremely important to understand the importance of SNC-Lavalin, how many jobs there are and what we are trying to do on the economy, which absolutely preoccupies this member and this government every single day. It is therefore important for Canadians to hear this.
Shifting back to why this is important for 37 million Canadians, a healthy economy is critical. Under our plan and all the initiatives our federal government has introduced, Canada is one of the best places to invest. Our corporate tax rate remains competitive. We have the lowest small business tax rate in the G7, and we have one of the strongest records of growth in the G7.
In our fall economic statement, we took further action to support business investment in Canada, drive innovation and encourage businesses to create more good, well-paying jobs for the middle class.
In the face of U.S. tax reforms, our government is taking action to support Canada's competitiveness and encourage businesses to create more good, well-paying jobs for the middle class. Our targeted, measured and fiscally responsible approach will support business investment in Canada; help make Canada the most globally connected economy in the world; make it easier for Canadian businesses to grow; help Canadian innovators add value, succeed and grow; and remove barriers to trade within Canada.
It is also important to note that given our government's focus on jobs, we have also taken a clear stance that unethical business practices should have no place in the Government of Canada's business dealings. We do not and we will not stand for it.
The fact is that corporate wrongdoing imposes significant economic and social costs. It also places barriers on our economic growth and significantly increases the cost and risk of doing business. Additionally, it undermines public and investor confidence.
I want to assure Canadians that protecting the integrity of our public programs and services is one of our highest priorities. We have a robust and effective integrity regime that is run by Public Services and Procurement Canada. It helps foster ethical business practices, ensures due process for suppliers and upholds public trust in our dealings.
By ensuring that Canadian businesses continue to compete and succeed, we are building on our proven plan to grow the economy by investing in jobs for the middle class.
Results: 1 - 15 of 52 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data