Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 143
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-06-17 15:26
Expand

Question No. 1345--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to Budget 2012: (a) how many full-time equivalent (FTE) positions has Parks Canada eliminated of the approximately 500 FTEs that existed in the Parks Canada Service Centers before the remaining positions were transferred to other parts of the Parks Canada organization; (b) how many of the FTE reductions have been charged against the Strategic and Operating Review reductions announced in Budget 2012; (c) if Budget 2012 reductions included vacant positions, what are the number, title, group and level of each of the positions that existed in Parks Canada Service Centers before reductions were announced or implemented; (d) what is the number, title, group and level of each of the positions that have been eliminated; and (e) what is the number, title, group and level of those positions that were transferred to other Parks Canada organizational units as a result of elimination of the Service Centers?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as announced in budget 2012, Parks Canada is consolidating and streamlining its service centres and national office as part of its efforts to help reduce the federal deficit. These efforts will improve internal efficiencies and reduce costs while allowing Parks Canada to continue to respect its core mandate and offer Canadians the quality services they expect. In addition to budget 2012, Parks Canada has also had to absorb increases to salaries and inflationary operational costs announced in budget 2010.
Parks Canada sites play a key economic development role in more than 400 communities across the country. National parks, national marine conservation areas and national historic sites are entering another exciting season and are looking forward to welcoming visitors from across the country and from around the world with a full complement of services to discover these special places at their best.
Parks Canada continues to tell the stories that are important to our national identity, manage species at risk, provide meaningful experiences that promote an understanding and appreciation of Canada and support communities through tourism, as it has done for the last 100 years.

Question No. 1347--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the Canadian Forces (CF), what is the number of CF members, both Regular and Reserves, which have been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD during calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012, broken down by rank and base of affectation?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the most accurate information on post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries is based on a recent study that examined the cumulative incidence of these illnesses attributable to deployment in Afghanistan. The study group included all Canadian Armed Forces members enrolled in the regular or primary reserve forces who returned from deployment of any duration in support of the mission in Afghanistan between October 1, 2001, and December 31, 2008. The Canadian Armed Forces identified 30,518 such personnel and examined the medical records of a random sample group of 2,045 personnel. Information available based on this recent study by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces indicates that 8% of the entire cohort was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder related to Afghanistan. As indicated above, this is based on a sample of Canadian Armed Forces members who deployed in Afghanistan and not a representation of the overall situation in the CAF as a whole.
The Canadian Armed Forces are currently conducting studies to further develop their understanding of the impact of operational stress injuries on their members, including those who deployed to Afghanistan, and on mental health among Canadian Armed Forces members more generally. These studies are ongoing and their results are not yet available.

Question No. 1348--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, since August 1, 2012, how many access to information requests have been received and of those, how many (i) were completed within 30 days, (ii) were extended for 30 days, (iii) were extended for 60 days, (iv) were extended for 90 days, (v) were extended for more than 90 days, (vi) missed the deadline to provide the requested information?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there were 286 access to information requests received since August 1, 2012. Please note that some requests have been extended for periods other than 30, 60 or 90 days. Others are still open or have not missed the deadline, so these numbers may not be captured in responses (i) through (vi). In addition, some requests that may have been extended by 30, 60 and 90 days may have also missed the deadline, so these would be reflected twice in the metrics.
Of the 286 access to information requests received, with respect to (i), 104 were completed within 30 days. With respect to (ii), two requests were extended for 30 days; this includes a total of 1125 pages released. With respect to (iii), 66 requests were extended for 60 days; this includes a total of 5648 pages released. With respect to (iv), 13 requests were extended for 90 days; this includes a total of 6494 pages released. With respect to (v), 20 requests were extended for more than 90 days; this includes a total of 50 717 pages released. With respect to (vi), 85 requests missed the deadlines, this could be for a number of reasons, including the volume and complexity of the requests, a requirement to conduct external consultations and the overall workload.

Question No. 1350--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND), what are the details of all contracts for consulting services or advice purchased by the department during fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, including the name of the consultant, the nature of their services, their location, the amount paid, the file or reference number of the contracts, the file or reference number of any reports prepared by the consultant, and was the consultant a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces or a former civil servant within DND?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces do not possess a central database containing all the contract data requested in this question. The authority to issue contracts resides with more than 20 organizations within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, each of which retains the contracts that it has issued. A manual search of the estimated several thousand contract records from 2010-11 and 2011-12 would be the only method to obtain the requested detailed information. Information regarding whether a consultant was a former civil servant within the Department of National Defence or a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces is in many cases not readily available even through a manual contract search, and would require some organizations to contact the consulting companies directly. It is estimated that the research required to respond to this question could take at least six months of full-time work for several officials. Therefore, a response cannot reasonably be produced for this question. However, in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s policy on contracting with former public servants, the Department of National Defence is undertaking efforts to improve, as expeditiously as possible, the data integrity of the system in place to track contracts with former public servants.

Question No. 1352--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the cost of post-secondary education paid for by the Department of National Defence, for all currently serving Deputy Judge-Advocate Generals: (a) what is the date of their nominations to the position of Deputy Judge-Advocate General; and (b) what are the direct and indirect costs paid for, including but not limited to (i) allowances of all types, (ii) travel and moving expenses for them and their families, (iii) salaries, (iv) reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials, (v) the degrees obtained, (vi) tuition and academic fees?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there are currently five serving Deputy Judge Advocates General in the regular force. To protect their privacy, their names were not included in the response. The dates of nomination for these Deputy Judge Advocates General were as follows: Deputy Judge Advocate General 1: September 4, 2009; Deputy Judge Advocate General 2: July 1, 2011; Deputy Judge Advocate General 3: August 2, 2005; Deputy Judge Advocate General 4: May 4, 2012; Deputy Judge Advocate General 5: August 13, 2010.
With regard to (b), these responses do not include post-secondary education provided at the Royal Military Colleges in Saint Jean and Kingston, as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces own these institutions and do not reimburse any of the costs associated with the degrees obtained there.
With regard to (b)(i), information concerning allowances could not be generated within the allocated time.
With regard to (b)(ii), information concerning travel and moving expenses could not be generated within the allocated time.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 1, the salary range is $62,635 - $87,710; reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials was $435; degree obtained was Master of Laws, LL.M., in legislative drafting, 1998; tuition and academic fees were $6,074.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 2, the salary range was $42,096 - $55,632; costs for academic books and materials were included in tuition and academic fees; degree obtained was Bachelor of Laws, LL.B., 1994; tuition and academic fees were $12,148. With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 2 as well, the salary range is $134,484 - $142,920; reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials was $2,827; degree obtained was Master of Law, LL.M., in international law, 2007; tuition and academic fees were $26,938.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 3, salary range was $42,096 - $55,632; information on costs for reimbursement of academic books and materials could not be generated within the allocated time; degree obtained was Bachelor of Law, LL.B., 1993; information on tuition and academic fees could not be generated within the allocated time. With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 3 as well, salary range is $131,460 - $139,704; reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials was $2,471; degree obtained was Master of Law, LL.M., in air and space Law, 2006; tuition and academic fees were $8,010.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 4, the question is not applicable.
With regard to Deputy Judge Advocate General 5, salary range is $138,552 - $147,240; reimbursement of the costs for academic books and materials was $2,024; degree obtained was Master of Law, LL.M., in international law, 2009; tuition and academic fees were $50,311.

Question No. 1355--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the latest edition of the Department of National Defence’s Investment Plan, what is contained within the current list of investments, including (i) description of the investment, (ii) expected costs, (iii) timeline for completion, (iv) current status of each investment?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the latest edition of the Department of National Defence’s investment plan is considered cabinet confidence. Neither the document nor extracts from it will be released.
Detailed information on defence investments has been reported in reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports, which can be found at the following links: for the report on plans and priorities 2013-14, http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/sites/internet-eng.aspx?page=15184; for the departmental performance report 2011-12, http://www.vcds-vcemd.forces.gc.ca/sites/internet-eng.aspx?page=14493.

Question No. 1356--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the ex gratia payments to Canadian Forces members in relation to the Home Equity Assistance (HEA) provisions: (a) how many members received a payment; (b) what is the rank of each recipient; and (c) what is the date and amount for each ex gratia payment that was made by the Department of Justice, Office of the Department of National Defence Canadian Forces Legal Authority, concerning HEA provisions, as governed by the Department of National Defence HEA, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces searched their records and found no instances of ex gratia payments to Canadian Armed Forces members in relation to the home equity assistance provisions between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013.

Question No. 1357--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the treatment of ill and injured Canadian Forces personnel, between 2000-2012, what is: (a) the total number of members who were prescribed opioid narcotics for pain management; (b) the total amount spent on opioid narcotic drugs during this time; (c) the total number of Canadian Forces members treated for opioid narcotic drug abuse; (d) the number of Canadian Forces members that have been released from the military due to opioid narcotic drug abuse; and (e) which treatment methods are used to aid in the recovery of Canadian Forces members with opioid narcotic drug addiction?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b) and (c), the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces do not maintain a central database to track information related to the prescription of opioid drugs to Canadian Armed Forces members. It is not possible to produce a response in the time available, as this would require a manual search of medical files of all Canadian Armed Forces members who have served during the time period.
With regard to (d), Canadian Armed Forces personnel are not released for drug abuse. Personnel may be released as a result of a violation of the Canadian Forces drug control program, and this may involve the use of opiates. Between 2000 and 2012, eight members were released in relation to opiates under the Canadian Forces drug control program.
With regard to (e), all Canadian Armed Forces members diagnosed with substance abuse problems will be assessed for any underlying medical conditions, such as chronic pain, etc., and offered the appropriate level of treatment, including the opportunity to undergo a residential treatment program for substance abuse.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-06-17 15:26
Expand

Question No. 1343--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund, since its creation: (a) what is the total amount awarded by all regional development agencies; (b) for each agency, how many applications were received and, of that number, how many applications were refused; (c) what was the selection criteria; and (d) for each agency, how many projects were funded and, for each project funded or refused by the Fund, what was the type of community infrastructure (based on the definitions of eligible infrastructure), the amount awarded or refused and the name and place (city, province) of the applicant organization?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1344--
Mr. Matthew Dubé:
With regard to the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit: (a) how much has this credit cost the government for each fiscal year since its introduction; and (b) how many Canadians have claimed this tax credit by household type, by income bracket and by province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1349--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, in each year since 2006 inclusive, what has been the number of: (a) harassment complaints other than that of a sexual nature; (b) sexual harassment complaints; and (c) harassment investigations, broken down by the following locations (i) Department of National Defence (DND)/Canadian Forces (CF) establishments located in the National Capital Region, including NDHQ, (ii) Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Halifax, (iii) CFB Cornwallis, (iv) CFB Gagetown, (v) CFB Valcartier, (vi) CFB Kingston (not including the Royal Military College), (vii) CFB Petawawa, (viii) CFB Borden, (ix) CFB Shilo, (x) CFB Edmonton, (xi) CFB Comox, (xii) CFB Esquimalt, (xiii) Royal Military College (Kingston), (xiv) Royal Military College (St-Jean)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1351--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND), what is the detailed breakdown of: (a) Canadian Armed Forces executives by rank (General, Lieutenant-General, Major-General and Brigadier-General); and (b) DND executives by classification (DM-4, DM-3, DM-2, DM-1, EX-5, EX-4, EX-3, EX-2 and EX-1), on December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2012?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1353--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) what are the ranks of each Canadian Armed Forces member and classification of each DND employee who, on December 31, 2012, attended post-graduate training at public expense at a Canadian or international educational institution; and (b) for each, what is (i) the actual yearly salary of the student, (ii) the program of study, (iii) the number of semesters of study paid for by the government since the start of their career, (iv) all the institutions attended, (v) the total cost of tuition paid with respect to the student’s training, (vi) whether relocation costs were paid with respect to the training and the amount of those costs, (vii) any other associated costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1354--
Mr. Yvon Godin:
With regard to the Centre of Excellence for Evaluation (CEE) of the Treasury Board Secretariat: (a) why is the 2012 Annual Report on the Health of the Evaluation Function not available online; (b) why are official languages not included in the 2011 Annual Report on the Health of the Evaluation Function; (c) how are official languages integrated into the work of the CEE; (d) does the CEE work closely with the Official Languages Centre of Excellence and, if so, how; (e) how are official languages integrated into the evaluation function as regards expenditure management in the public service as a whole; (f) why are official languages not included in the Leadership Competencies for Federal Heads of Evaluation; (g) why are official languages not included in the Policy on Evaluation; (h) how does the CEE ensure that federal institutions have access to external evaluators with official languages experience when necessary; (i) how many CEE employees work on files with an official languages component; (j) does the Framework for Professional Development for Evaluators have an official languages component and, if so, what is it; (k) why has the Audit and Evaluation Database been offline for a number of weeks, and when will it be working again; and (l) how does the CEE ensure that the tools it provides on its website take into account its official languages obligations?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 1332--
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
With regard to any funding dedicated to the promotion of Canada’s official languages that was not accounted for in the $1.1 billion dollars outlined in the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: (a) what departments or agencies contributed to the funding of official languages programs; (b) what are the names of the programs that delivered that funding listed by department or agency; and (c) what amount of money did each of those programs spend in fiscal years (i) 2007-2008, (ii) 2008-2009, (iii) 2009-2010, (iv) 2010-2011, (v) 2011-2012, (vi) 2012-2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1336--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2011: (a) what are the details of all the fonds and records held in custody by LAC that have been or are currently being de-accessioned to (i) provincial or territorial archives, (ii) university archives, (iii) regional or local archival institutions or organizations; (b) on what written policy or operational rationale were each of these de-accessions based on; (c) what are the details of all the fonds and records on deposit with LAC that have been or are currently under discussion or negotiation for referral to (i) provincial or territorial archives, (ii) university archives or libraries, (iii) regional or local archival institutions or organizations; and (d) in every case the LAC decided not to acquire archives or records being offered, what written policy or operational rationale was provided to the donor as the basis of this decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1338--
Mr. Pierre Nantel:
With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2005: (a) what sections and branches currently exist or have existed, broken down by year; (b) how many archivists work or have worked in each section and branch, broken down by year, including and specifying part-time and seasonal employees; (c) how many managers work for each section and department; (d) how many items were acquired; (e) what was the total value of items acquired; (f) how many interlibrary loans were registered; (g) what were the costs for operating interlibrary loans; and (h) how many international trips did the head of LAC take and what were the costs of those trips?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1340--
Mr. Matthew Kellway:
With regard to the issue of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario: (a) when was Health Canada approached by the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (b) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (c) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and (i) Canadian Blood Services, (ii) the province of Ontario; (d) when did these consultations take place and if no consultations took place, how did Health Canada determine that consultations were not necessary; (e) when were the locations for the proposed clinics approved; (f) what process did the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics follow to obtain approval for the location of the clinics; (g) what is Health Canada’s policy on the operation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (h) what is Health Canada’s policy with regard to following the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (“Krever report”); (i) what existing statutes, regulations, auditing processes, etc. are in place to ensure the safety of Canada’s blood supply; (j) with regard to ensuring the safety of Canada’s blood supply, what is the regulatory role of (i) Health Canada, (ii) the province, (iii) Canadian Blood Services; (k) what role does Canadian Blood Services play in the establishment or regulation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (l) what does Health Canada’s auditing process for licensing for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada involve; (m) what information is provided to Health Canada by the operators; (n) how often does Health Canada audit these clinics; and (o) what is the relationship between Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in ensuring the safety of blood plasma products purchased from the United States of America?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-06-13 10:22
Expand

Question No. 1335--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to the presence of foreign governments in Canada, specifically the operation or presence of any security, intelligence or law enforcement agencies: (a) what are the names of all law agencies operating with the permission and consent of the government within the sovereign territory of Canada, broken down by country; (b) is the government aware of any law enforcement agency present or operating without the consent and permission of the government; (c) what are the police powers of foreign law enforcement within Canada; (d) does the government allow any foreign law enforcement agency the power to act alone without the presence of a designated Canadian police or peace office present; (e) does the government grant power on a case-by-case basis to an agent of foreign law enforcement to stop any resident of Canada for questioning; (f) does the government allow agents of foreign law enforcement the power to present identification or a badge within Canada for the purpose of investigating within Canada; (g) does the government currently allow agents of foreign law enforcement agency the power to cross a Canadian border either by air, sea or land in possession of a weapon; (h) does the government intend to allow agents of a foreign law enforcement agency the power to enter, leave and operate in Canada with the power to enforce Canadian law, including the power to detain, questions and arrest a citizen or permanent resident of Canada; (i) does the government intend to extend the power to agents of a foreign government law enforcement agency the right of pre-emptive arrest or pre-emptive detention without warrant, as provided in Bill S-7; (j) does the government currently have a cap on the number of agents from a foreign law enforcement agency assigned to Canada and, if so, what is the maximum number of agents allowed; and (k) does the government allow agents of a foreign law enforcement agency the authority to operate their own police vehicles, including police boats, airplanes, or any motor vehicle, within Canada, including the use of sirens or other identifiable police markings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1339--
Mr. Matthew Kellway:
With regard to military procurement projects, since 2001: (a) how many projects have been sole-sourced as opposed to following a competitive process; (b) which of these have been sole-sourced; (c) what was the rationale for each project being sole-sourced; (d) what is the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) value for each sole-sourced procurement project; (e) does the IRB value for each sole-sourced project represent 100% of the project value (acquisition and in-service support); (f) what percentage of military procurement projects have been sole-sourced since 2001; (g) how many procurement projects have been sole-sourced each year between 2001 and the present year; and (h) which specific projects in each year have been sole-sourced between 2001 and the present?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1346--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, what was the breakdown of strength by rank for each Regular Force Unit of the Royal 22nd Regiment as of (i) January 1, 1995, (ii) January 1, 2000, (iii) January 1, 2005, (iv) January 1, 2010?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View LaVar Payne Profile
CPC (AB)
View LaVar Payne Profile
2013-06-12 14:16 [p.18169]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that in the House our Conservative government stands alone in the fight against tax evasion. The New Democrats knowingly appointed a tax delinquent to be their revenue critic, and the Liberals will not ask why one of their senators is reportedly a beneficiary of a multi-million-dollar offshore bank account. The leaders of the NDP and the Liberal Party should explain to Canadians why they continue to protect these members over hard-working, law-abiding Canadian taxpayers.
Paying taxes is a reasonable responsibility shouldered by all Canadians. Not paying their fair share is irresponsible, inconsiderate and un-Canadian. The New Democrats and Liberals should demonstrate to Canadians that they take tax evasion seriously by ejecting reported tax delinquents from the Liberal and NDP caucuses.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-06-12 16:08
Expand

Question No. 1326--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to homicides and attempted homicides among Somali-Canadian males in Canada since 2006: (a) what are the dates of each death, listed chronologically, and for each death, what is (i) the location where the death occurred, (ii) the Canadian home location if not the location of the death, (iii) the cause of death, (iv) whether the homicide was solved or not, and if unsolved, for how many years the death has remained unsolved, and how the time period compares with the average time to resolve homicides for the Canadian population as a whole, (v) whether a reward to solve the homicide was offered or not, and if a reward was offered, how much was offered, if the reward was ever claimed, (vi) whether in any given homicide case there is any on-going investigation, (vii) if this information cannot be provided, why not; (b) what are the dates of each attempted homicide, listed chronologically, and for each, what is (i) the location where the attempt occurred, (ii) the Canadian place of origin if not the location of the attempt, (iii) whether the attempted homicide was solved or not, and if unsolved, for how many years the attempt has remained unsolved, and how the time period compares with the average time to resolve homicides for the Canadian population as a whole, (iv) whether a reward was offered or not, and if a reward was offered, how much was offered, and if the reward was ever claimed, (v) whether in any given case there is any on-going investigation, (vi) if this information cannot be provided, why not; (c) for each year, what is the number of Somali-Canadian homicides that occurred by Canadian city, (i) what percentage did Somali-Canadian homicides comprise of the total homicides in the identified city by year, (ii) what percentage of Somali-Canadian homicides by city by year went unsolved compared with that of the general Canadian population, (iii) what percentage does the Somali-Canadian population comprise for each identified city, and how does this percentage compare with the percentage of Somali-Canadian homicides for the city for each year, (iv) if this information cannot be provided, why not; (d) for each year, what is the number of Somali-Canadian attempted homicides that occurred by Canadian city, (i) what percentage did Somali-Canadian attempted homicides comprise of the total attempted homicides in the identified city by year, (ii) what percentage of Somali-Canadian attempted homicides by city went unsolved compared with that of the general Canadian population in the identified city by year, (iii) what percentage does the Somali-Canadian population comprise for each identified city, and how does this percentage compare with the percentage of Somali-Canadian attempted homicides for the city, (iv) if this information cannot be provided, why not; (e) what research and investment has the government undertaken to explore these homicides and attempted homicides, and if any, what are the studies, dates, and monetary investment, and specifically (i) the total actual number of deaths and whether or not the violence is increasing, (ii) from what Canadian cities are the victims, (iii) what are the causes of the violence, and can they be reduced, (iv) what are solutions to stem the violence; (f) what, if any, research or investment has been given to consider whether (i) a federal judicial task force should investigate why so many Somali-Canadians are killed in Canada, many without corresponding charges or arrests, (ii) the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security or a special committee should investigate these deaths, and make recommendations to reduce the violence; (g) what research or investment has been given to consider whether a provincial-federal employment and opportunity program supporting Somali-Canadians might help reduce the violence, and if any, what are the studies, dates, and actual investment; (h) what research or investment has been given to support Somali-Canadians in accessing employment opportunities with the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police, and if any, what are the studies, dates, and actual investment; (i) what research or investment has been given to strengthening the witness protection program to encourage more witnesses to come forward, and if any, what are the studies, dates, and actual investment; (j) what research or investment has been given to reducing homicides and attempted homicides among the Somali-Canadian population and, if any, what are the studies, dates, and actual investment, and any recommendations to reduce the violence; and (k) what, if any, research or investment has been given to estimating (i) the direct and indirect health care costs of each attempted homicide, (ii) the costs to the mental health care and social care system to support the victim and family, (iii) how these costs compare with any federal inquiry or study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security or a special committee to study the issue and provide preventive recommendations, and what are studies, dates, and actual investment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1327--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: (a) what is the level of support the CVITP has received from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) over the past five years, broken down by fiscal year, including (i) the nature of the support offered each year, (ii) the cost to CRA to provide this support; and (b) does CRA have plans to reduce, eliminate, increase, or restore support to the CVITP in Charlottetown?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1328--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to correspondence from Parliamentarians addressed to the Minister of National Revenue, for the period September 1, 2010 to the present: (a) what is the amount of correspondence, initiated by Parliamentarians (MPs and Senators), that has gone unanswered (i) after three months, (ii) after six months; (b) what percentage of correspondence not answered after three months was from (i) Conservative MPs and Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs and Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs and Senators; (c) what percentage of correspondence not answered after six months was from (i) Conservative MPs and Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs and Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs and Senators; and (d) what is the average response time for correspondence received from (i) Conservative MPs or Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs or Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs or Senators?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1329--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to government funding specifically dedicated to ending violence against women, what was the total amount of funding, broken down by fiscal year, from fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including fiscal year 2011-2012, broken down by (i) the department or agency responsible for the funding, (ii) the program or initiative from which the funding came, (iii) the project name, (iv) the total value of the project, (v) description of the project, (vi) entity responsible for delivering the project, (vii) length of the project, (viii) geographic target of the project, if applicable, by province and federal riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1330--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the impact of Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport on the Bouchard Stream, in the City of Dorval, Quebec, that flows into Lac Saint-Louis: (a) does the government have data, obtained either through reporting to the National Pollutant Release Inventory, or by any other means, on (i) the quantity of the de-icing agent glycol used by the airport on an annual basis, (ii) the quantity of glycol that is recycled on an annual basis, (iii) the quantity that escapes into the surrounding environment near, or at, Bouchard Stream on an annual basis; (b) if the quantities in (a) are known, what are these quantities, by year, for every year since 2000; (c) does any department or agency monitor the quality of the water in the Bouchard Stream to ascertain whether it might contain deleterious substances harmful to fish that could originate from the operations of the airport or from surrounding industries; and (d) does the government work with provincial and municipal authorities in the City of Dorval and the City of Montreal to ensure that the Bouchard Stream and Lac Saint-Louis are not being polluted by deleterious substances harmful to fish?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1331--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to offenders admitted to the Correctional Service of Canada institutions since 2000: (a) by institution, how many offenders have been admitted each year; (b) by institution, how many offenders admitted each year had previously served a sentence in that, or another, federal institution; and (c) by institution, how many offenders admitted each year had previously served a sentence in a provincial correctional facility?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-06-07 12:16
Expand

Question No. 1318--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to projects funded through the Global Peace and Security Fund, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, how many projects were funded, broken down by (i) recipient of project, (ii) description of project, (iii) location of project, (iv) length of project, (v) value of project, (vi) sub-program and thematic area of project, (vii) type of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1320--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to ongoing investigation into habitat conservation in Canada, and particularly the proposed National Conservation Plan: (a) what research, including all studies, findings and recommendations, and investment has the government undertaken to assess the full potential of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), in its current form, to contribute to national habitat conservation objectives; and (b) what research, including all studies, findings and recommendations, has the government undertaken to assess what will be required to ensure that the full potential of SARA to contribute to national habitat conservation objectives is realized?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-06-05 15:46
Expand

Question No. 1317--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to Bill C-11 from the 1st session of the 38th Parliament, “An Act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings”, what are the details of all codes of conduct that have been implemented, considered, modified, or withdrawn by the government under Chapter 46, clauses 5 through 7, of the bill since it received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005, and what is the current status of each code of conduct?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2013-06-03 15:30
Expand

Question No. 1311--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to the horse meat contamination of imported goods: (a) what is the policy of the government in dealing with these products; (b) what percentage of imported meat is tested for horse meat contamination; (c) how many incidents of horse meat contamination have been discovered in the last 12 months, listed by product type, including all pertinent designations, port of discovery, date of discovery, total weight of contaminated goods, percentage of horse meat discovered in each case of contamination, all details about handling and packaging of each case of contamination, country of origin, shipper, receiver, distributor, intended destination, intended final product; (d) what action was taken upon discovery of each case of contamination; (e) how many cases of horse meat contaminated products were (i) sent back to the shipper, (ii) ordered destroyed, (iii) allowed to continue to their destination, (iv) made their way or were presumed to have made their way into the food system for human consumption; and (f) what are the brand names of products contaminated with horse meat sold to Canadians?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), unidentified mixing of meat from different species is not permitted in Canada. Under the authority of the Meat Inspection Act and Regulations, the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and Regulations, meat cuts, organs, and other carcass parts must be identified on labels with proper common names, including species names. This applies to meat from any species, including equine. The meat import program is designed to ensure imported meat products are equivalent to Canadian standards. The competent authority of the country of origin as well as any plant within that country must be CFIA approved before Canada will permit export of meat products into Canada. CFIA approval is only granted after an in depth and lengthy review to ensure that equivalency with Canadian standards can be achieved.
In addition, all types of imported meat products, including processed products, are subject to random testing to verify compliance with Canadian law. Random samples of all imported meat products are tested and, should a violation be identified, the shipment is rejected for entry into Canada. In such a case, the competent authority of the exporting country as well as the exporting plant must isolate the source of the problem, develop and implement a corrective plan and demonstrate that the appropriate corrective action has been taken. Once these steps have been satisfactorily completed, export of meat products to Canada may resume under intensified CFIA testing. Sampling and testing return to the normal frequency only once compliance with Canadian standards has been established through a series of consecutive acceptable test results.
With regard to (b), species verification testing is based upon risk and varies year to year. This testing is not carried out to ensure safety. This testing is primarily aimed at the detection of fraudulent practices. As Canada does not import a significant percentage of the meat consumed domestically, the sampling and testing is carried out in a prescriptive manner when shipments are received or when CFIA inspection staff feel there is a potential issue.
With regard to (c), (d), (e) and (f), no positive samples were identified with horsemeat in any products.

Question No. 1312--
Mr. Dennis Bevington:
With regard to Giant Mine in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, from the time the mine entered production in 1948 until ceasing operations in 2004, what was the total amount (not adjusted for inflation) paid to Canada in royalties for the over seven million ounces of gold produced by the mine?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, based on an assessment of historical documents going back into the 1940s, the total royalties paid to the Government of Canada from all of the mines located on the Giant claim block, including Giant, Lolor and Supercrest, is approximately $4 million, based on the 4%-5% royalties in effect at the time.

Question No. 1313--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Agroforestry Development Centre: (a) have any studies been conducted, either internally within the government or by external consultants or advisors, to identify the costs or benefits of the proposed divestiture of the Agroforestry Development Centre at Indian Head, Saskatchewan, including any possible continuation of any science or research activity at the existing site or elsewhere; (b) who prepared the studies; (c) when were those studies completed; and (d) what were the detailed results of any such study?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the answer is yes.
With regard to (b), the study was prepared by SEPW Architecture Inc. through a specific service agreement with Public Works and Government Services Canada on behalf of AAFC.
With regard to (c), the study was completed December 21, 2012.
With regard to (d), the report detailed options regarding the Agroforestry Development Centre.
AAFC is currently considering options for the agroforestry science and research activities at the Agroforestry Development Centre in the context of future requirements for research in agroforestry at AAFC while ensuring prudent stewardship of public funds.

Question No. 1315--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the letter sent by Service Canada concerning changes to the Employment Insurance program entitled “Changes to Employment Insurance”: (a) how many letters were sent, broken down by (i) province, (ii) date sent; (b) on what date was the decision made to issue this letter; (c) on what date was the final draft of the letter approved by the office of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development; (d) how much did it cost to write, review and mail out these letters; and (e) how many other mass mailings have been conducted over the past 15 years regarding Employment Insurance and how large were they?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the letter entitled “Changes to Employment Insurance” sent by Service Canada concerning changes to the employment insurance program and in regard to (a)(i), in Newfoundland and Labrador, there were 212,572 addressees; in Nova Scotia, 396,159 addressees; in Prince Edward Island, 60,720 addressees; in New Brunswick, 328,564 addressees; and in Quebec, 3,552,488 addressees.
With regard to (a)(ii), a total of 4,550,503 letters were sent. These letters were mailed on March 19, March 20 and March 25, 2013.
With regard to (b), the final decision to move forward with this project was taken on March 7, 2013. An assessment on cost of the mailing and discussions on the letter’s content and design took place prior to a decision being taken.
With regard to (c), the final draft was approved by the minister’s office on March 8, 2013.
With regard to (d), the letter was drafted internally by departmental staff. Therefore, there is no cost associated to the development of the letter. The total cost of mailing out the letters was $823,493.24 which includes printing and postage costs, excluding taxes.
With regard to (e), it is important that policy changes to our programs be communicated to Canadians as clearly as possible. While no other similar mailings have been conducted in the past six years on employment insurance, there have been mail-outs for other programs. An example is the future change in the age of eligibility for old age security last year. Financial records are only kept by the department for six years. Contracts or procurement conducted prior to the past six years require specific details for archive retrieval such as contractor name, contract number or financial codes.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2013-05-31 12:11
Expand

Question No. 1302--
Mr. Philip Toone:
With regard to funding in the electoral district of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, what is the total amount of federal funding allocated to the electoral district from fiscal year 2011-2012 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by year, department, agency, initiative and amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1304--
Ms. Françoise Boivin:
With regard to the distribution of jobs with federal departments and agencies in the National Capital Region (NCR): (a) how many jobs were located in the Quebec part of the NCR in 2013; (b) how many jobs were located in the Ontario part of the NCR in 2013; (c) how many jobs in the Quebec part of the NCR will be eliminated as a result of the cuts introduced in the last budget; and (d) how many jobs in the Ontario part of the NCR will be eliminated as a result of the cuts introduced in the last budget?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1305--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to Bill C-10, in the year after it received royal assent: (a) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged for offences created by the bill; (b) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted of offences created by the bill; (c) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people convicted of offences created by the bill; (d) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged under the provisions of the bill; (e) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted under the provisions of the bill; (f) broken down by offence, how many people have been sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (g) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (h) in how many of the cases in (d) was a constitutional argument raised by the offender (i) at trial, (ii) on appeal; (i) broken down by geographic jurisdiction and instance, how many cases in (d) are pending (i) at the trial level, (ii) on appeal; (j) how much money has the government spent on prosecutions under the provisions of the bill; (k) how much money has the government spent defending the constitutionality of the bill; (l) in what cases, if any, did the bill provide for punishment where none was provided for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (m) broken down by offence and length of sentence, in what cases, if any, did an offender sentenced under the provisions of the bill receive a longer sentence than what was allowed for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (n) in what ways has the bill made streets and communities safer; (o) in what ways, if any, has the government reviewed the effectiveness of the bill; (p) what were the results of any such reviews; (q) what reviews of the effectiveness of the bill, if any, are ongoing; (r) when will the results of any such reviews be made available to Parliament; (s) what factors has the government considered when evaluating the effectiveness of the bill; (t) by what standard does the government determine whether repeal of the bill for ineffectiveness is appropriate; (u) what is the prosecution rate for offences created by the bill; (v) what is the prosecution rate for offences with one or more sentencing provisions modified by the bill; (w) what was the prosecution rate for the offences in (v) prior to the coming-into-force of the bill; (x) what is the prosecution rate for offences otherwise modified by the bill; (y) what was the prosecution rate for offences in (x) prior to the coming-into-force of the bill; (z) what is the prosecution rate for all federal offences in Canada; (aa) what is the projected rate of recidivism for offenders convicted under the provisions of the bill; (bb) in what ways has the government worked with provinces and territories to inform prosecutors and police services of the provisions of the bill; (cc) broken down by province or territory, what funding has the government provided to provinces and territories to assist with the implementation of the bill; (dd) what studies, if any, have been undertaken of the impact of the bill on the number of inmates in (i) federal custody, (ii) provincial custody; (ee) what are the results of any such studies; (ff) what is the projected impact of the bill on the number of inmates in (i) federal custody, (ii) provincial custody; (gg) what evidence exists to suggest that the provisions in the bill have deterred criminal activity; (hh) broken down by province and territory, which specific communities, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (ii) in what ways have the communities in (hh) been made safer; (jj) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the communities in (hh) have been made safer; (kk) broken down by province and territory, which specific streets, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (ll) in what ways have the streets in (kk) been made safer; (mm) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the streets in (kk) have been made safer; (nn) which First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (oo) in what ways have the communities in (nn) been made safer; (pp) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the communities in (nn) have been made safer; (qq) in what ways have people traditionally marginalized by the criminal justice system, such as women, aboriginal Canadians, and low-income Canadians, been made safer by the bill; and (rr) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the people in (qq) have been made safer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1306--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to the crisis in Syria: (a) what criteria does the government use to determine (i) whether to intervene, (ii) when to intervene, (iii) the nature and scope of any intervention; (b) who makes the determination in (a) and how; (c) what sources does the government rely upon in determining (a); (d) what legal obligations are considered with respect to (a) and in what ways does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine factor into decision making under (a); (e) in what ways has the government evaluated its obligations under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine with respect to Syria; (f) when were such evaluations done, by whom, and with what outcome; (g) have the criteria by which the government determines its official policy towards the crisis in Syria changed since 2012; (h) when the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly expressed his support for an indictment of Bashar al-Assad by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2012, was this the position of the government and does it remain the position of the government that al-Assad ought to be indicted by the ICC; (j) with respect to Canada’s decision not to sign on to the request of 57 countries made in January, 2013, to ask the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC, did Canada support this request; (k) with respect to (j), when, why, how, and by whom were the determinations made in this regard, and when was Canada approached to join in this endeavor and by what means; (l) what criteria were applied in determining whether to support this effort; (m) are there any specific policies or directives within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that guide decision-making with regard to Canadian intervention in situations of humanitarian crisis; (n) was the decision not to sign the Swiss-led letter asking the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs; (o) were any other officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade involved in the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter; (p) were any other cabinet officials involved in the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter; (q) was the government made aware of this specific international initiative in advance of the official lodging of the request with the United Nations on January 14, 2013, and (i) if so, how was the government made aware of this initiative, (ii) when was the government made aware of this initiative; (r) did the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter include (i) consultations with the Minister’s counterparts from any other countries, (ii) consultations with the Minister’s counterparts in any of the 56 countries that ultimately supported the Swiss-led initiative, (iii) consultations with any international or intergovernmental organizations; (s) did the government make submissions promoting a specific policy approach with regard to the Swiss-led initiative to (i) the governments of any other countries, (ii) the governments of any of the 50-plus countries that ultimately supported the Swiss-led initiative, (iii) any international or intergovernmental organizations; (t) what steps is the government taking to bring al-Assad before the ICC; (u) has Canada raised al-Assad’s conduct as an issue before the Security Council; (v) what legal remedies has the government invoked with respect to addressing the situation in Syria; (w) what legal remedies has the government invoked with respect to al-Assad in particular; and (x) does the government support an International Criminal Tribunal for Syria?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1307--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to Canada's submission under the Convention on the Law of the Sea: (a) what is the precise extent that will be included in the claim and what scientific research supports that claim; (b) does the government anticipate that Canada's submission will overlap with claims of other nations, (i) if so, has Canada begun consultation with other nations with which its submission may overlap, (ii) which countries has Canada consulted, (iii) what were the dates of those consultations, (iv) what briefings were prepared for those consultations, (v) what briefings were prepared for the Minister responsible after the consultations; (c) which department is the lead agency on Canada’s submission and which other departments are involved; (d) who are the external researchers and institutions involved in Canada’s submission; (e) how much money has been allocated for Canada’s submission and how much of that money has been spent to date; and (f) regarding any Requests for Proposals for research in support of Canada’s submission, (i) what was the process, (ii) what are the milestones, (iii) what reporting has been done so far, (iv) what oversight is in place?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1308--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to government funding, what is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency of Vancouver East during the fiscal year 2012-2013, broken down by: (a) department or agency; and (b) for each body mentioned in (a), by initiative or project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1309--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the amalgamation of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) into the department of Foreign Affairs and International Affairs (DFAIT): (a) what is the timeline for the amalgamation; (b) which officials within CIDA, DFAIT and other government Ministries, including the Privy Council Office, will be in charge of the amalgamation; (c) what are the expected job losses among CIDA staff and in which divisions; (d) what changes will be made at the senior management level, including CIDA president; (e) will there be a deputy minister for development; (f) will employees be re-located; (g) will the respective unions be consulted; (h) will there be further cuts to funding for development programmes for the purposes of poverty reduction; (i) will CIDA’s countries of focus be changing; and (j) will the promised legislation ensure that Official Development Assistance will continue to be provided only if it (i) contributes to poverty reduction, (ii) takes into account the perspectives of the poor, (iii) is consistent with an international human rights perspective?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1310--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the Partnership with Canadians program at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), for each year from 2006 to 2010: (a) how many proposals were received, broken down by year and type of call for proposal, if applicable; and (b) how many proposals were approved, broken down by (i) year, (ii) partner, (iii) CIDA priority theme or cross cutting theme, (iv) total dollar amount contributed by CIDA, (v) total dollar amount contributed by partner, (vi) description of project, (vii) recipient country, (viii) length of days of approval, (ix) length of project, (x) grant or contribution?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-05-29 16:21
Expand

Question No. 1284--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government communications: (a) what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code number, (iv) subject matter of each press release that contains the phrase “Harper government” issued by Infrastructure Canada since February 6, 2006; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed (i) on Infrastructure Canada’s website, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which such service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using that service?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), links to all Infrastructure Canada press releases can be found by doing a search on the following websites: for Infrastructure Canada, http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/media/media-eng.html#nr; for Marketwire, http://www.marketwire.com/?lang=en-US.
With regard to (c), Infrastructure Canada has a contract with Marketwire. Marketwire rates vary depending on the distribution; however, pursuant to paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act, information regarding rates and invoicing is considered third party information. As this information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position and the integrity of future competitions of a third party, the information requested in the above question cannot be disclosed without appropriate consultation.

Question No. 1285--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government communications: (a) what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code number, (iv) subject matter of each press release that contains the phrase “Harper government” issued by Transport Canada since May 1, 2012; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed (i) on Transport Canada’s website, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which such service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using that service?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), links to all Transport Canada press releases can be found by doing a search on the following websites: for Transport Canada, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/releases-2012.htm; for Canada Newswire, http://www.newswire.ca/en/index.
With rebard to (c), Transport Canada has a contract with Canada Newswire, CNW. CNW rates vary depending on the distribution; however, pursuant to paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act, information regarding rates and invoicing is considered third party information. As this information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position and the integrity of future competitions of a third party, the information requested in the above question cannot be disclosed without appropriate consultation.

Question No. 1287--
Mr. Dany Morin:
With regard to the amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures: (a) what is the amount of funding provided by Transport Canada (TC) to First Nations organizations so they can follow through on the amendments; (b) which First Nations organizations participated in the decision-making process identifying which waterways would be protected under the Act; (c) what are the details of the commitments made by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to the First Nations and organizations consulted, namely (i) the meeting dates and times, (ii) the details of meeting minutes and agendas; (d) which First Nations groups or organizations received TC funding to analyze and comment on the bill; (e) how TC worked with First Nations organizations at the national, regional, provincial and international levels; and (f) what is the total amount of funding provided by TC to the Canadian industry so it could analyze and comment on the bill?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a),Transport Canada does not provide funding to third parties to attend consultation sessions.
With regard to (b), (c), (e), and (f), in the fall of 2012, the government introduced Bill C-45 and offered technical briefings to aboriginal and other stakeholder groups once the bill was tabled before Parliament. The parliamentary process continues to be relied upon as the formal consultation process in law-making. Modifications made to the act in fall 2012 reflect long-standing consultation started in 2009 for minor works amendments with many groups across the country, such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Canadian Construction Association, the Assembly of First Nations and provincial governments.
With regard to (d), (d) is not applicable.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-05-29 16:21
Expand

Question No. 1277--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the government’s answers to Order Paper questions in the current session of Parliament: (a) why did Transport Canada not provide the detailed response requested in Q-898 and Q-1131; (b) why did Infrastructure Canada not provide the detailed response requested in Q-654, Q-898 and Q-1131; and (c) why did the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions not provide the detailed response requested in Q-654, Q-898 and Q-1131?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1282--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to all physical assets owned by the government, since 2006, what assets have been sold, broken down by (i) date sold, (ii) market value, (iii) sale price, (iv) purchaser, (v) initial purchase price, (vi) time planned for service, (vii) time actually in service, (viii) reason for sale?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1289--
Hon. John McCallum:
With respect to any repayable portion of contributions made under the Economic Action Plan in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) what businesses received funding; (b) when did they receive the funding; (c) how much repayable funding did they receive; (d) how much of the repayable funding has been repaid as of March 27, 2013; and (e) how much of the repayable contribution is expected to never be repaid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1292--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia: (a) how many employees are currently employed and how many were employed in the fiscal year 2010-2011; (b) what are the current base salaries for each individual employee and what were the base salaries for each individual employee in the fiscal year 2011-2012; (c) broken down by month, how many overtime hours and how much overtime pay did each employee receive from 2010-present; (d) broken down by month, how many hours of overtime were paid overall since 2010; (e) broken down by month, since 2010, how many days in a row does the average employee work before receiving two consecutive days off; and (f) how many days in a row does the average employee work before receiving one day off?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1296--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to foreign fishing vessels: (a) how many foreign fishing vessels have had permission to fish inside Canada's 200-mile limit off the east coast of Canada since 2003; (b) what are the names of the foreign vessels and their home countries; (c) what species have the foreign vessels fished; (d) of the foreign vessels that have fished inside Canada's 200-mile limit since 2003, have any been cited for illegal fishing violations; and (e) what are the names of the Canadian companies that have chartered the foreign fishing vessels since 2003?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1300--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With respect to advertising paid for by the government, broken down by fiscal year, for each fiscal year from fiscal year beginning April 1, 2006 up to and including the first half of fiscal year 2012: (a) how much was spent for each type of advertising, including, but not limited to (i) television, specifying the stations, (ii) radio, specifying the stations, (iii) print, i.e. newspapers and magazines, specifying the names of the publications, (iv) the internet, specifying the names of the websites, (v) billboards, specifying the total amount of billboards and the locations of the billboards, broken down by electoral district, (vi) bus shelters, specifying the locations, (vii) advertising in all other publically-accessible places; (b) for each individual purchase of advertising, who signed the contracts; (c) for every ad, who was involved in producing it; and (d) for every ad, what were the production costs, both direct and indirect, broken down per advertisement?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2013-05-28 10:38
Expand

Question No. 1283--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to the government’s Special Federal Representative on West Coast Infrastructure: (a) what are the terms of reference for the Special Representative's mandate; and (b) what is the Special Representative's budget?
Response
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the special federal representative’s mandate can be found on the Privy Council Office’s website at http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/oic-ddc.asp?lang=eng&Page=secretariats &txtOICID=&txtFromDate=2013-03-15&txtToDate=2013-03-31&txtPrecis=Special+Federal+Representative &txtDepartment=&txtAct=&txtChapterNo=&txtChapterYear=&txtBillNo=&rdoComingIntoForce =&DoSearch=Search+%2F+List&viewattach=27554&blnDisplayFlg=1.
With regard to (b), the special federal representative on west coast energy infrastructure will be paid a per diem within the range of $1,200–$1,400. Support will be provided by Natural Resources Canada using existing resources.

Question No. 1286--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to the required public consultation process by Canada Post following the announcement of the possible closure of a post office location: (a) how many times has the public consultation process taken place with citizen input received and responded to by mail, email or attendance at a public meeting; and (b) on how many occasions, after public consultation, has action resulted in an outcome other than the closure of a location?
Response
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since the implementation of the Canadian Postal Service Charter in September 2009, the public consultation process has taken place 33 times.
With regard to (b), after public consultation, action has resulted in an outcome other than the closure of a location on zero occasions.
Canada Post regularly reviews its network of post offices to address issues such as population, housing and business development, as well as the shopping patterns of Canadians and finding ways to improve operations, enhance the customer experience, remain competitive and provide relevant postal service for all Canadians.
As part of the public consultation process, Canada Post carefully reviews all the feedback received as well as surrounding postal network coverage before making a final decision. The ultimate goal is to ensure the service Canada Post is providing is appropriate and meets its customers’ postal needs.

Question No. 1288--
Mr. Matthew Kellway:
With regard to the section of the Economic Action Plan 2013 starting on page 106 entitled “Creating Jobs by Building Equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada” and the estimate quoted in this section from the February 2013 Jenkins report of $49 billion in Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) obligations that foreign prime contractors are expected to accumulate as a result of defence procurements by 2027: (a) does the government concur with the estimate of $49 billion in IRB obligations as a result of defence procurements by 2027; (b) if not, what is the government’s estimate of IRB obligations as a result of defence procurements by 2027; (c) what specific defence procurements does the government’s estimate of IRB obligations pertain to; (d) for each specific defence procurement included in the government’s estimate of IRB obligations, what is the estimated dollar value (i) of the acquisition, (ii) of operation and maintenance, (iii) of total life-cycle costs, (iv) of the expected IRB obligations; and (e) what documents, reports, or other relevant information were provided by the government in the drafting of the February 2013 Jenkins report with regard to the planned acquisitions?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada is committed to working with Canada’s defence-related industries to better leverage military procurements in support of Canadian jobs, economic growth and the competitiveness of these industries, particularly in regard to innovation and technology development. With this objective in mind, it has received the Jenkins report, including the industrial and regional benefits, IRB, context described therein. It is currently examining the various recommendations and supporting analyses.
The Jenkins report provides an overview of potential economic opportunities related to planned major acquisitions under the Canada First defence strategy. In support of this analysis, the report estimated that $49 billion in IRB obligations will accumulate by 2027.
As indicated in annex 3 of the Jenkins report, this estimate was calculated based on two key elements: data on planned major acquisitions and current IRB obligations, which was sourced from the Department of National Defence and Industry Canada, and assumptions that were based on observed patterns from past defence acquisitions projects.
As noted in the Jenkins report, the resulting estimate of $49 billion could only be considered as a rough estimate given substantial uncertainty on the annual rate of IRB fulfillment over the planning period of 2012-2027.
The validity of the estimate, and its interpretation, must therefore be understood within that context. At this time, and subject to the context, purposes and assumptions of the Jenkins report, this estimate is deemed to be reasonable.
With regard to (b), IRB obligations are part of contractual commitments, and for projects already under contract, specific obligations are listed on the IRB website at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/h_00017.html.
As IRB obligations apply only to contract values rather than project values and will form part of any negotiated contracts, the government cannot determine IRB obligations that will apply to planned procurements. Therefore, the government cannot provide an estimate of IRB obligations that will be accumulated by 2027.
With regard to (c), as per the response to part (b), the government cannot provide an estimate of IRB obligations that will be accumulated by 2027.
With regard to (d), as per the response to part (b), the government cannot provide an estimate of IRB obligations that will be accumulated by 2027.
With regard to (e), two lists related to planned acquisitions were provided: Capital Equipment--Future Procurement--Beyond 2016, and Capital Equipment--Potential Contract Awards--Short Term, 2013-2015 estimated.
These lists were prepared by the Department of National Defence and were valid as of October 2012.

Question No. 1291--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to fossil fuels: (a) who has overall responsibility within the government for monitoring and reporting on Canada’s progress against the G-20 commitment to rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies; and (b) what steps has the government taken to ensure that support of the fossil fuel sector is not contradicting or impeding policy objectives related to the environment and sustainable development?
Response
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Department of Finance has overall responsibility within the government for monitoring and reporting on Canada’s progress against the G20 commitment to rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
With regard to (b), first and foremost, not only has the government never introduced any tax incentive favouring the oil and gas sector, but it has also formally committed to rationalize and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies along with other G20 countries.
In support of that commitment, the government announced in 2007 and 2011 the phase-out of all tax preferences for oil sands producers relative to the conventional oil and gas sector. Indeed, due to the government’s action, the Income Tax Act does not include any tax preference specific to oil sands producers. As part of Economic Action Plan 2012, the government continued Canada’s efforts to meet our G20 commitment by phasing out the Atlantic investment tax credit for the oil and gas and mining sectors.
Moreover, the oil and gas sector faces the exact same general corporate income tax rate as all other sectors of the economy. Each year, the oil and gas sector pays billions of dollars in taxes, tax revenue used by governments to pay for health care and other social programs that Canadian families depend on. Furthermore, the oil and gas sector plays an important role in our economy, providing job opportunities for Canadians in communities across the country. The government will continually look for ways to further support global environmental commitments and eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
Beyond the government’s recent steps outlined above to remove fossil fuel subsidies available in the oil and gas industry, it is also taking action through the tax system to encourage clean energy investments. Principally, the government has extended and expanded the scope of the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment in recent years.
For instance, in 2011 the government expanded the incentive to include equipment that generates clean electricity using waste heat, while in 2012 it expanded the incentive to include a broader range of bioenergy equipment. Building on these measures, Economic Action Plan 2013 further expands eligibility for the incentive by including a broader range of biogas production equipment and equipment used to treat gases from waste.

Question No. 1294--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) how many commercial salmon licence holders remain in Newfoundland and Labrador; (b) when was the last time a buyout for commercial salmon licenses was instituted; (c) what has been the total cost to date of commercial salmon licence buyouts for the East coast of Canada by province; (d) is the department considering another buyout; and (e) what is the likelihood that the commercial salmon fishery will reopen?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there are 57 licence holders remaining in Newfoundland and Labrador whose licences were never retired.
With regard to (b), the last commercial salmon licence retirement programs were announced in 1998, for northern Labrador and Quebec.
With regard to (c), the federal government offered a series of salmon licence retirement programs for Atlantic Canada and Quebec dating back to the early 1980s. The federal government spent $53 million to retire commercial Atlantic salmon licences. The costs were as follows: Newfoundland and Labrador--$41,700,000; Nova Scotia--$3,500,000; Prince Edward Island--$52,000; New Brunswick--$4,700,000; and Quebec--$2,900,000.
With regard to (d), there are no further salmon licence retirement programs planned for any part of Atlantic Canada or Quebec.
With regard to (e), no opening of the commercial salmon fishery is planned at this time.

Question No. 1297--
Mr. Hoang Mai:
With regard to new bridges over the St. Lawrence river: (a) what is the specific purpose of the $14 million in table 3.3.2 of Budget 2013 and what is the breakdown of the costs; and (b) with respect to the $124.9 million to build a bridge-causeway between Nun's Island and the Island of Montreal in Chapter 3.3 of Budget 2013, what is the breakdown of the cost?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the $14 million identified in table 3.3.2 of budget 2013 reflects accrual costs of the temporary bridge-causeway to replace the Nuns’ Island Bridge. The total costs of the bridge-causeway construction, $124.9 million, will be amortized linearly over the expected lifespan of the bridge-causeway.
With regard to (b), the preliminary breakdown of the $124.9 million to build the temporary bridge-causeway cannot be shared at this time as the breakdown reflects the value of contracts to be awarded through public tenders. Sharing the breakdown at this point would jeopardize the upcoming competitive processes.

Question No. 1299--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to Canada’s National Parks: (a) what is each park’s specific set of policies on the use of snowmobiles and other motorised off-road vehicles within the park’s boundaries; (b) for what reason is each policy in place; and (c) what studies have been conducted on any economic, environmental, cultural, or other effects of these vehicles within the parks, when used both within and outside the bounds of the policies?
Response
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), use of snowmobiles and other motorized off-road vehicles is restricted in Canada's national parks, except in specific circumstances where use associated with law enforcement, public safety or other administrative activities may be permitted, where use is associated with traditional aboriginal harvesting activities, where there are specific provisions permitting use within a park establishment agreement, and where limited area-specific recreational use of snowmobiles may be permitted.
Use of snowmobiles and other motorized off-road vehicles is subject to the provisions of the National Parks Highway Traffic Regulations and must be conducted in accordance with legislative requirements outlined in the Canada National Parks Act and the Species at Risk Act. Additionally, use must adhere to direction within the corresponding national park’s management plan, including zoning.
With regard to (c), all use of snowmobiles and other motorized off-road vehicles within national parks is conducted in accordance with national park legislation, regulations and operational policies where, if permitted, such use is deemed to not adversely affect wildlife, vegetation or terrain. Prior to permission being granted for such use, background studies are undertaken to assess wildlife, ecosystem and cultural resources considerations to ensure that there are no adverse environmental or cultural effects associated with the proposed activity.
Collapse
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2013-05-28 10:39
Expand

Question No. 1278--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to infrastructure in Labrador: (a) has the federal government at any time since January 1, 2009, received from the government of Newfoundland and Labrador any proposals, requests, or other documentation in support of funding for the following projects or proposals, namely (i) Nain Airport, (ii) Port Hope Simpson Airport, (iii) other airports or airstrips in Labrador, specifying which airports or airstrips, (iv) a new ferry or ferries for the Strait of Belle Isle ferry service, (v) a feasibility study concerning the construction of a highway from central to northern Labrador; (b) when did the federal government receive any proposals, requests or documentation referred to in (a); (c) which department or departments have received any proposals, requests or documentation referred to in (a); (d) what federal funding share is the provincial government seeking on the part of the federal government in respect of the projects or proposals enumerated in (a); and (e) what has been the response of the relevant federal government department to each of the projects or proposals enumerated in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1295--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic Incorporated: (a) by how much has the price of a round-trip ferry crossing, both personal and commercial, increased since 1986 for both the Argentina to North Sydney and the Port-aux-Basques to North Sydney runs; (b) what were the increases on a yearly basis from 1986 to 2013 for personal and commercial crossings for both the Argentina to North Sydney and the Port-aux-Basques to North Sydney runs; (c) what other fees have been added to both commercial and personal ferry crossing fares between 1986 and 2013; and (d) how many days were the new vessels the MV Blue Puttees and MV Highlander docked due to weather during the 2011-2012 season?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1298--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the automotive and manufacturing industry in Canada, what has the government done to attract new automotive and manufacturing investments since 2006?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-05-21 18:11
Expand

Question No. 1266--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With respect to the organizations that officially requested the attendance of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism at an event since January 1, 2011: (a) what were the names of the organizations, the names of the events, the organizers, the dates, times, and locations; (b) did the Minister attend the event and, if not, what is the name of the government representative who attended the event in lieu of the Minister; and (c) what were the costs of any government advertisements in event publications or greetings, and the description and costs of any gifts to the event or organizers?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to section (a) and section (b), a comprehensive response would require an arduous and time-consuming manual search of all of CIC’s reports and is not feasible in the requested time frame.
With regard to section (c), the information requested is not readily available through CIC’s financial system.

Question No. 1274--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the costs of the July 16, 2010, press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, at which the Minister of National Defence announced the government’s intention to procure F-35s for the Royal Canadian Air Force, what were the costs incurred by the government (not including the cost of $47,313 related to the model F-35 used at the conference and described in Order Paper question Q-596) for: (a) flying in a Canadian CF-18 as part of the press conference, including fuel, maintenance, storage, Departmental personnel, and transportation; (b) all personnel, including those from Department of National Defense or other Departments involved in the press conference; (c) audio-visual support, including Departmental personnel, equipment rentals, translation, and any contracting services provided; (d) venue setup and dismantling, including costs related to seating, catering, lighting, and accommodating media; and (e) the entire press conference inclusive, including those related to the model F-35 described in Order Paper question Q-596?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the costs related to the flight of a CF-18 during the press conference on July 16, 2010, were approximately $200 for the pilot’s hotel and per diem expenses. There were no costs associated with the aircraft itself, as it was using allocated annual flying hours related to the pilot’s training activities.
With regard to (b), the cost for personnel was $13,298, based on 230.25 hours of overtime that Department of National Defence civilian staff worked in support of, or in relation to, the conference. The temporary duty expenses for Royal Canadian Air Force personnel at this event were $5,362.
With regard to (c), audiovisual support for the press conference cost $22,603.
With regard to (d), the cost of a working lunch for subject matter experts totaled $113. Other venue costs included electricity at $2,178 and water and fruit platters at $236.
With regard to (e), the entire event cost the Government of Canada $47,513.

Question No. 1279--
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:
With regard to section 347 of the Criminal Code, broken down by fiscal year for each fiscal year since 2006-2007: (a) how many investigations has the RCMP carried out into contraventions of this provision; (b) how many charges have been laid; and (c) how many successful prosecutions have been carried out?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, section 347 of the Criminal Code is not an offence that falls solely under the RCMP mandate. It is an offence that is also reported to and investigated by the local police force. The RCMP is the police of jurisdiction in many smaller communities across the country, but not usually the police of jurisdiction in the larger urban municipalities.
In the RCMP’s former records management system, called “Police Information Retrieval System”, PIRS, section 347 of the Criminal Code is mapped to a general violation code called “Other Criminal Code” along with a multitude of other offences.
A manual case-by-case analysis of all these files would be required in order to provide a complete and accurate response to all parts of this question. Such an analysis cannot be completed within the time available, as a significant amount of time and resources would be required in order to do so.

Question No. 1293--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the National Geographic television program “Border Security: Canada’s Front Line”: (a) what is the total cost to the government for any support provided by the Department of Public Safety or by the Canadian Border Services Agency in relation to the program; (b) in what form or forms has this support been provided; (c) what are the contents of any agreements signed by the government related to this program; and (d) for both the (i) Department of Public Safety and (ii) Canadian Border Services Agency, what is the total cost of all resources that have been allocated to negotiating, researching, or communicating the government’s participation in this television program?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Public Safety Canada did not incur any costs related to the National Geographic television program “Border Security: Canada’s Front Line”.
With regard to (a), the production takes place at no extra cost to the CBSA’s front-line operations. For season one of the production, the CBSA incurred an internal cost of less than $60,000, primarily for salary dollars for the required administrative support, including on-site oversight within one region. Season two will be twice the number of episodes and involve more than one region. As such, the CBSA has estimated internal costs to be approximately $160,000 for the required administrative oversight.
There is no exchange of monies between the production company and the CBSA. ¸
With regard to (b), the costs noted in part (a) relate to the CBSA providing administrative support such as regional on-site filming oversight to ensure privacy and operational security during production.
With regard to (c), there are three multimedia agreements between the CBSA and Force Four Productions related to the documentary series, one to govern the production of the demonstration reel and a separate one for each of the first and second seasons in which the CBSA has participated. The multimedia agreements detail the working relationship, responsibilities and requirements of each party and outline the precautions necessary to safeguard Canadian laws as well as CBSA employees, facilities, operations and procedures.
Further, the agreement stipulates that while editorial control rests with the production company, the CBSA will review the content of each episode before airing to verify that operational, legal and privacy considerations are met.
With regard to (d)(ii), no incremental costs were incurred by the CBSA for negotiating, researching or communicating the government’s participation in the documentary series.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-05-21 18:12
Expand

Question No. 1259--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to written questions Q-1226 to Q-1237, Q-1244 and Q-1245, what is the estimated cost to the government for each response to each question?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1267--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office, as of February 1, 2013, how many people did it employ and of those, (i) how many make a salary of $100 000 a year or more, (ii) how many make a salary of $50 000 a year or less?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1272--
Mr. Brian Jean:
With regard to Order Paper questions: (a) for questions Q-819 through Q-1259, what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1275--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With regard to the participation of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in the reality show Border Security: Canada’s Front Line: (a) what has been the total cost for the Agency’s participation in the reality show to date and what is the total cost of the production agreement between CBSA and Force Four Entertainment; (b) how many episodes did CBSA agree to and over what time period will the episodes be filmed; (c) what provisions are in place to ensure that CBSA officers and subjects are not exploited; (d) who reviewed and analyzed the show's proposal and what were their comments; (e) what is the examination and approval process for footage; (f) how are CBSA officers recruited for participation in the show; (g) how many officers have participated in the show and how many have refused to participate in the program and on what grounds; (h) how are subjects recruited for the show; (i) are subjects asked whether or not they would like to participate in the show or are they required to sign a consent form prior to being filmed; (j) are subjects given incentives to participate in the program, either monetary or otherwise, and if so what; (k) has the CBSA received any formal complaints with regards to the show and if so, what was the nature of said complaints and what was CBSA's response; (l) were any concerns raised within CBSA about its participation in the show, and if so, what was the nature of those concerns and from whom did they come; (m) what were the CBSA's stated reasons for participation in the show; (n) what are the established parameters for a case's inclusion in the program; (o) on what grounds will CBSA refuse inclusion of a case; (p) does CBSA have a veto over what footage is aired and, if so, has it been used and for what reasons; and (q) what measures are in place to ensure that the program does not violate the Privacy Act?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2013-05-10 12:22
Expand

Question No. 1268--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to the Privy Council Office, since January 1, 2008, how many Access to Information Requests have had a deadline extension because the request was deemed to “unreasonably interfere with operations”?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with subsection 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act, the Privy Council Office extended 467 access to information requests for operational reasons between January 1, 2008, and March 26, 2013.

Question No. 1269--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism’s visit to Iraq: (a) what is the complete list of everyone who accompanied the Minister; (b) what was the time, date, location and nature of all government business conducted by the Minister; and (c) what was the total cost of this trip, including but not limited to, airline tickets, accommodations, meals and security for the Minister and everyone who accompanied him?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the delegation that accompanied the Hon. Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism throughout his visit to Iraq included Christopher Mahon, minister’s office, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Canada; Dominic Roszak, minister’s office, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Canada; and John Milner, security officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
With regard to (b), the time, date, location, and nature of all government business conducted by the minister were as follows: Wednesday, March 6: 08:30, arrive at British Embassy, breakfast and informal briefing by head of mission and Iraq program manager; 10:30, installation ceremony of new Chaldean Patriarch, Louis Raphael I Sako; 12:00, depart for lunch reception at Palestine Hotel; 14:00 , depart lunch reception for meeting with Vice-President Kudhair al-Khuzaie; 14:30, call on Vice-President Kudhair al-Khuzaie; 15:10, call on Speaker of Iraqi Council of Representatives, Osama al-Nujaifi; 16:10, visit to Our Lady of Salvation Syriac Catholic Cathedral, where officials were met by Bishop Afram Yousif Abba; 17:00, delivery of Sako’s first divine liturgy at St. Joseph’s Cathedral Church; 19:15, dinner with Dindar Najman Duski, Minister of Displacement and Migration, at Rasheed Hotel.
Other meetings occurred, for which no information is available in the department about time, date, location and nature. They include meetings with Mohammed al-Doreky, Deputy Minister, Foreign Affairs, Government of Iraq, and Dr. Ali Allq, Secretary General, Council of Ministers Secretariat, Government of Iraq.
With regard to (c), we do not have the final cost. Total cost will be available via proactive disclosure as per Treasury Board guidelines.
The security officer travelled directly from Ottawa. The RCMP assumes this cost. Any additional information cannot be provided owing to security-related issues.

Question No. 1270--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and all Canadian missions since January 1, 2008: (a) has there been a gap of more than two months between the departure of an existing Ambassador and the arrival of the replacement; (b) in how many cases has the department had to send departmental officers or former officers hired on contract to fill in these gaps; (c) what has been the cost of these temporary deployments; and (d) what was the cause of each of these gaps?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with an international network of more than 171 offices in 104 countries, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade regularly manages the movement of people to best protect and promote Canada’s interests and values around the world. This includes, of course, heads of mission, or HoMs--ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general. Due to several complexities, some beyond our control, there are from time to time short-term gaps between the departure of a HoM and the arrival of his or her replacement.
During these periods, we put in place contingency plans to ensure that mission business can continue as normal. Often chargés d’affaires--people already posted at missions--assume the duties of a HoM. Since January 1, 2008, there were 31 instances in which it took two months or more for a departing HoM to be fully replaced. Of these, 18 were covered by departmental staff and 13 were filled by short-term contract officers. The total cost of these 31 temporary assignments, including travel, accommodation, per diems and contract salaries, is estimated at $857,385.77.
As mentioned, there are various complexities in posting HoMs abroad. While a detailed breakdown on the cause of each gap cannot be released for privacy reasons, some of the reasons in the above-mentioned cases include, but are not limited to, internal strife or civil war, health or other personal reasons forcing early or unforeseen departures, changes to the network of missions and delays in receiving agrément from host countries.

Question No. 1271--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the Property Value Protection Program associated with the low-level radioactive waste clean-up in the Port Hope area, as of March 15, 2013, what are the total legal costs incurred by the government for all claims that have entered into arbitration?
Response
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as of March 15, 2013, the total legal costs incurred by the Government of Canada through the Department of Justice for property value protection program claims that have entered into arbitration under the Port Hope area initiative is $170,545.

Question No. 1276--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to government communications: (a) for each news release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions since February 6, 2006, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code number, (iv) subject matter; (b) for each news release mentioned in (a), was it distributed (i) on the website of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each news release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of that service?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), links to all Canadian Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, CED-Q, press releases can be found by doing a search on the following websites: for CED-Q, http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/media-room/media.html; for Marketwire, http://www.marketwire.com/?lang=en-US.
With regard to (c), CED-Q has a contract with Marketwire. Rates vary depending on the distribution.

Question No. 1280--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to the response to Order Paper question Q-1125 in which it is stated that, “the Department of Finance has conducted a costing analysis of Bill C-463”, what details can the Department of Finance provide regarding the full version of this costing analysis, including the methodology used to conduct the costing analysis?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance Canada has estimated the cost of Bill C-463 using the public use micro-data files of Statistics Canada’s 2010 travel survey of residents of Canada. The data contain information on the number of non-business person-trips taken across three provincial boundaries by mode of transportation, as well as information on travel expenditures.
Using these data, the Department of Finance’s cost estimate for the proposal in Bill C-463 was based on the following information for bus, train and airplane modes of transportation: the estimated number of domestic travellers whose travel expenses would qualify for the deduction proposed in Bill C-463; the estimated cost of domestic travel, which was estimated for 2017 using projections of the Consumer Price Index; the average marginal federal personal income tax rate; and the percentage of expenses eligible for the deduction as proposed in Bill C-463.
As indicated in the response to Question No. Q-1125, these calculations result in an estimated cost for the proposal in Bill C-463 of about $215 million in 2017. It is unclear to what degree the proposal would induce individuals to travel more or change their travel plans, but any increase in eligible travel would increase this cost.

Question No. 1281--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With respect to Bill C-463, what is the Department of Finance’s estimate of the amount of increased economic activity that would be generated if the number of eligible travellers increased by (i) 5%, (ii) 10%, (iii) 15%, (iv) 20%, (v) 25%?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance is not in a position to estimate any potential increase in economic activity that would result from this proposal.
As noted in the Department of Finance’s response to Question No. Q-1125, it is estimated that the cost of the proposal would be about $215 million in 2017. It is unclear to what degree the proposal would induce individuals to travel more or change their travel plans, but any increase in eligible travel would increase the cost of the proposal. As an example, if the number of eligible travelers would increase by 25% as a result of the proposal, the cost would increase to about $270 million.
Collapse
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2013-05-10 12:23
Expand

Question No. 1260--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to requests made by the government to Library and Archives Canada (LAC): (a) since 2006, what information and services have been requested of LAC in any way, broken down by department or Crown corporation and (i) date of inquiry, (ii) date of response, (iii) purpose of inquiry, (iv) nature of response, (v) relevant programs at LAC used to provide response; (b) for services enumerated in (a) that have been provided by LAC and that are no longer available, what alternatives is the government using or considering to fulfill those needs in their absence, broken down by department or Crown corporation and (i) date of inquiry, (ii) date of response, (iii) purpose of inquiry, (iv) nature of response, (v) service supplier, (vi) total cost; (c) what internal correspondence discussing alternative solutions or service providers exists; and (d) what contracts have been put to tender or signed relating to these alternative solutions or service providers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1263--
Mr. Ted Hsu
With regard to the Transport Canada announcement on Tanker Safety Systems on March 18, 2013 in Vancouver, British Columbia: (a) what were the costs for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, his staff and departmental staff to travel to the announcement, including air and ground transportation; (b) what were the costs for the Minister of Natural Resources, his staff and departmental staff to travel to the announcement, including air and ground transportation; and (c) which bases in British Columbia keep major oil spill response ships?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1264--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to air, highway, rail, or marine transportation in Labrador, for each fiscal year since 2000-2001, what are the details of all (i) direct expenditures, (ii) contributions to third parties, (iii) transfers to other orders of government, (iv) cost-sharing agreements with the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador, specifying the amount, source, purpose, and recipient of each such expenditure, contribution, transfer or agreement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1265--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office: (a) what is the source of its funding; (b) how much has it spent each year since 2008; (c) how much has it spent on communications each year since 2008; (d) how much has it spent on travel and hospitality each year since 2008; (e) how much has it spent on sponsorship of events each year since 2008; (f) how much has it spent on promotional materials each year since 2008; and (g) what is the annual salary of the Project Director?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1273--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With respect to the Employment Insurance Stewardship Pilot (Pilot) and information on ineligible Employment Insurance (EI) payments referred to by the government in relation to the Pilot: (a) how many regular and self-employed EI claimants have been reviewed under this Pilot, broken down by geographic location and EI region; (b) how were each of the claimants in (a) selected for inclusion in the Pilot; (c) how many of the EI claimants were in receipt of Special Benefits, broken down by type of Special Benefit; (d) how many of the claims belonging to claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase one of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (e) how many of the claims belonging to claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase two of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (f) how many of the claims belonging to the claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase three of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (g) how many of the claims belonging to the claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase four of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (h) what techniques and tools are Integrity Service Officers allowed to use in client interviews conducted under this Pilot; (i) were any techniques and tools, other than those identified in existing ISB Policy and Procedures, authorized for use in this Pilot and, if so, what were those techniques and the rationale for their use; (j) how many Direction to Report notices were provided by Integrity Service Investigators under this Pilot, broken down by (i) the date each notice was served, (ii) the time between the serving of said notice and the date of the scheduled in-person interview with the claimant, (iii) the region each notice was served in; (k) how many Reports of Investigation were prepared and sent to the Processing and Payment Services Branch; (l) what were the results and findings of the StreetSweeper Review regarding the Pilot; (m) what documents, tools, manuals, instructions, presentations, and other materials were used to conduct orientation and training for all persons employed by the federal government who have or are currently taking part in the Employment Insurance Service Review (EISR) pilot; (n) did the EISR pilot Business Expertise Consultant receive any questions or observations from those working on the pilot and, if so, what were these questions and observations; (o) what are the details of (i) EISR Working Group meeting and conference call agendas and minutes, (ii) EISR Working Group project discussion and findings, including anomalies, problems encountered during the project, additional techniques and situations encountered, potential weaknesses in investigative tools, or any other factors of concern expressed regarding the Pilot; (p) in how many cases were unannounced home visits performed by investigators in the course of the Pilot; (q) what was the rationale for unannounced home visits; (r) in how many of the cases was fraud or wrongdoing suspected prior to unannounced home visits; (s) are unannounced home visits to EI recipients department policy when there is no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing, (i) if so when did it take effect, (ii) if not, is it anticipated to become policy; (t) how many unannounced home visits were conducted by investigators to EI claimants who were not suspected of any fraud or wrongdoing in fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; (u) was a legal opinion sought prior to the implementation of the EI Stewardship Pilot regarding interview techniques with EI claimants who were not suspected of fraud or wrongdoing and, if so, what were the legal concerns and problem issues raised by the opinion; (v) under what legislative authority did investigators conduct unannounced home visits to EI claimants under no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing; (w) was a legal opinion sought to determine by what authority investigators could conduct unannounced home visits to EI claimants under no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing (i) if so, did the opinion present concerns, (ii) if so what were they; (x) on what other issues other than those raised in (u) and (w) did the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development seek a legal opinion on and why; (y) what was the cost of the EI Stewardship Pilot project; (z) what was the cost per home visit and the total cost for all home visits; (aa) what are the details of each type of ineligible EI payment that is tracked by the government; (bb) for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, what is the breakdown of ineligible EI payments by (i) number of cases, (ii) amount, (iii) EI economic region, (iv) province; (cc) in how many cases was the ineligible payment the result of a government error, (i) what is the dollar value of these types of errors for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (dd) for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, what was the amount of (i) total EI benefits paid to EI claimants, (ii) original EI fraud loss, (iii) amount of EI fraud recovered to date, (iv) amount of EI fraud expected to be recovered in future years, (v) amount of EI fraud not expected to be recovered, (vi) amount of EI fraud recovered and expected to be recovered as a percentage of EI benefits paid and (vii) amount of EI fraud not expected to be recovered as a percentage of EI benefits paid; (ee) is the automation of EI processing leading to ineligible payments by incorrectly processing a claim and, if so, how many cases of this problem were found during fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and what was the dollar amount for each case; (ff) if the answer in (ee) is yes, what studies has the government undertaken to examine this, specifying the (i) name, (ii) date completed, (iii) document reference number; (gg) how does the EI system calculate Direct EI saving and Indirect EI saving for each type of ineligible EI payment; (hh) how many cases resulted in Direct EI saving and Indirect EI saving for each type of ineligible EI payment, broken down by fiscal year for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and what is the dollar value for each case; (ii) what was the ratio of Direct EI Savings to Indirect EI Savings for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and what are the reasons for any variance in the ratio throughout this period; (jj) what was the indirect EI savings and the number of cases of EI claim disentitlements for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (kk) of the claim disentitlements referred to in question (jj), in how many cases was the disentitlement (i) subsequently rescinded, (ii) rescinded within thirty days of the original disentitlement for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (ll) what were the reasons for claim disentitlements referred to in question (kk) being subsequently rescinded; (mm) are the indirect EI savings that are calculated form a claim disentitlement subsequently reduced if the disentitlement is rescinded and if not, why not; and (nn) for claim disentitlements that were subsequently rescinded as referred to in question (kk), what was the expected indirect EI savings that was expected to not be realized as a result for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1290--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to federal tax expenditures from 2006-2012: (a) what is the government’s estimate of the annual forgone revenue for the sectors of oil and gas, mining, and where applicable, clean energy, attributed to the following federal tax expenditures, (i) accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands, (ii) transitional arrangement for the Alberta royalty tax credit, (iii) reclassification of expenses under flow-through shares, (iv) flow-through share deductions, (v) earned depletion, (vi) net impact of resource allowance, (vii) deductibility of contributions to a qualifying environmental trust, (viii) accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, (ix) canadian exploration expense, (x) canadian development expense for oil sands resource properties; and (b) if the Department of Finance is unable to provide estimates for any of the above tax expenditures, (i) what is the reason for the data gap, (ii) what steps does the Department of Finance plans on taking in future years to close the data gap?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-05-09 10:11
Expand

Question No. 1258--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to the next review of the Canadian Postal Service Charter: (a) when will the government begin work on the review of the Canadian Postal Service Charter; (b) what form will the review process take; (c) what criteria will be used to determine whether the Charter meets requirements or whether it must be revised; and (d) will there be an opportunity for public input during the review of the Canadian Postal Service Charter and, if so, how will this input be obtained?
Response
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (c) and (d), under the Canadian Postal Service Charter, the government is to review the charter every five years after its adoption to assess the need to adapt the charter to changing requirements. Since the charter was announced in September 2009, the first five-year review would not be until September 2014.

Question No. 1259--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to written questions Q-1226 to Q-1237, Q-1244 and Q-1245, what is the estimated cost to the government for each response to each question?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as these answers were tabled very recently, the government is currently compiling the cost information for producing these responses. Once all the cost information has been received, the government will provide a supplementary response.

Question No. 1261--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the recent sale of crown land owned by the Correctional Service of Canada, in the amount of 1,554.48 square metres, located on Frontenac Institution in Kingston, Ontario: (a) who was the purchaser; (b) what was the purchase price; (c) what was the closing date of the transaction; (d) what were all of the measures taken to respect the Commissioner’s Directive for Real Property for the Correctional Service of Canada, in particular the statement, under Principles, that, “acquisition and disposal of real property assets will be done in a fair and open manner, which shall include public consultation”; (e) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and the purchaser; (f) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and parties who expressed interest but ultimately did not purchase the land; and (g) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and parties other than those in (e) and (f)?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as of March 25, 2013, the sale of the Crown land owned by CSC located on Frontenac Institution in Kingston, Ontario, has yet to be finalized. Therefore, CSC is unable to respond to the question, pending the completion of the sale.

Question No. 1262--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to the the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation vessel that ran aground while traveling from its base to the Coal Harbour News conference: (a) on what date was the decision made to have a vessel travel from its base to the Coal Harbour News conference; (b) who approved the decision to have a vessel travel to the Coal Harbour News conference, (i) which Ministers and Departments were involved with the decision, (ii) who had signing authority to authorize a vessel to travel to the Coal Harbour News conference; (c) what correspondence exists regarding the decision to have a vessel available for the press conference; (d) what correspondence exists regarding the follow-up after the vessel scheduled for the press conference ran aground; (e) what was the cost of having a vessel travel to the Coal Harbour news conference for the Western Canada Response Corporation, broken down by (i) cost of personnel, (ii) cost of transport including fuel, (iii) cost of equipment; (f) what was the cost of having a vessel travel to the Coal Harbour news conference for the government, broken down by (i) cost of personnel, (ii) cost of transport including fuel, (iii) cost of equipment, (iv) cost of wear and tear; (g) what was the dollar value of the damages incurred when the vessel ran aground, and where will the funds to pay for these damages come from; (h) what are the costs of repairs to the vessel for damages incurred; (i) what are the operational impacts to the vessel and the projected days that the vessel is expected to be out of commission; and (j) how many days has the vessel been out of commission as a result of this grounding to date?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) to (j), the president of the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation was invited by Port Metro Vancouver, which was hosting the Government of Canada’s world-class tanker safety system press conference. After being invited to participate in the event, Western Canada Marine Response volunteered to send the vessel to demonstrate its capacity to the public.
The Western Canada Marine Response Corporation routinely informs the public about its activities and the organization participated in this event at no cost to taxpayers.
The vessel had a brief soft landing on an uncharted sandbar amid the silt in the mouth of the Fraser River, moved away within minutes, and continued on without any damage. As per regulations, this was reported to Canada vessel traffic and Transport Canada so that others would be aware of this uncharted sandbar.
For more information, the member may contact the Western Marine Response Corporation.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-05-09 10:11
Expand

Question No. 1254--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to access to information requests ATI 2012-005 and 2012-006 submitted by Ms. Kirsty Duncan, M.P., for which a response was sent on February 22, 2013: (a) on what date were the two submissions made and what was the timeframe for completing the response; (b) why were the two requests returned together, some parts featuring page numbers and others not; (c) how many updates have been received from the Canadian Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) Systematic Review Group to date, (i) how many studies in total have met the criteria for inclusion in the review, (ii) why does the group not identify, for each complication, the number of cases per number of people treated, (iii) why does the government not provide, for each serious complication listed, the number of cases per population treated; (d) on what date was the request for proposals for the CCSVI trials first drafted, (i) how may drafts were undertaken and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) on what date did the provincial and territorial Ministers of Health review the draft, (iv) what was the feedback provided; (e) why, on November 22, 2012, was the amount available for the CCSVI trials in the range of $3-5 million, (i) what is the significance of the expression “should we just fudge a number”; (f) how was the decision made to earmark $3 million for the CCSVI trials and on what date was the decision made; (g) on what date and at what time was the Request for Applications (RFA) announcement for clinical trials published on the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR)'s website, (i) on what date and at what time was Bill C-280, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), scheduled to be debated; (h) why was there a change by the President's office at CIHR that the commitment from the CIHR be $2 million with the balance to come from partners, i.e. the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC) and ''relevant provinces and territories'', and what were the relevant provinces and territories referred to; (i) how many versions of the Multiple Sclerosis (MS) research update deck were produced and on what dates, (i) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (ii) when was the final draft presented, and for what purpose; (j) how many government MPs has the Health Minister met with on the issue of CCSVI/MS since May 2010, and how many government MPs have the Minister's officials met with on the issue of CCSVI/MS since May 2010; (k) how many draft speeches were prepared for government MPs for Motion M-274, (i) how many versions of each speech were produced and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) how many government MPs read these prepared speeches; (l) regarding the briefing note for Dr. Alain Beaudet`s meeting with Dr. Jeffrey Turnbull, President of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) on December 21, 2010, why did a recommendation in the briefing note state “The possibility of the CMA producing a position statement regarding patient access to physicians for patients who have received the Zamboni procedure”, and “The fact that CIHR would be willing to provide the CMA with any necessary support in order to produce this statement”, when the Scientific Expert Working Group (SEWG) stated that, “media reports that have stated that Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients who experience complications after Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) treatment are not being seen by Canadian doctors are not justified”; (m) regarding the briefing note for Dr. Alain Beaudet's meeting with Paul Emile Cloutier, CEO of the CMA on January 31, 2012, which shows CMA President Haggie testified before a Senate committee on Dec 2, 2011, and a House committee on October 17, 2011, (i) did President Haggie bring up at either committee meeting CMA's lack of support for either bills C-280 or S-204, (ii) why was President Haggie unaware of the lack of follow-up care for MS patients treated for CCSVI when President Turnbull was made aware, (iii) why was there a hiatus in correspondence with the CMA, (iv) for how long was the hiatus, (v) when did the hiatus end; (n) regarding the MS-Societies' seven funded studies regarding CCSVI, why was there, at the 18-month mark, an inquiry into the training of the teams, (i) which of the teams were trained by Dr. Zamboni and which individual members of each team were trained by Dr. Zamboni, (ii) which of the teams were trained by Dr. Zivadinov and which individual members of each team were trained by Dr. Zivadinov, (iii) which teams were trained by neither or by another team; (o) how many people worked on drafts of prepared speeches for bill C-280, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers and how many government MPs read these prepared speeches; (p) how many people worked on drafts of prepared speeches for bill S-204, An Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI), for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (i) how many government Senators read these prepared speeches; (q) on what dates was the Canadian MS Monitoring System to be ready to receive data and when did the system start collecting data; (r) is the government's position regarding MS patients’ input into the Scientific Expert Working Group (SEWG) in accordance with the statement "CIHR's Scientific Expert Working Group includes researchers with expertise in different disciplines such as neurology, vascular surgery and vascular imaging who are treating MS patients and who will be bringing their patients' concerns to the table" (ATIP); (s) is it still the government's position that "Benoit's motion speaks far more to PHAC's monitoring system than anything we are doing on the trials front" (ATIP); (t) how many draft MS slide decks were prepared for Senatorial Caucus, (i) how many versions of each deck were produced and on what dates, (ii) how many people worked on these drafts, for how many hours, and at what average cost to taxpayers, (iii) who presented the deck to the Senatorial Caucus; (u) is the government's position as per the information sheet provided when Dr. Alain Beaudet wrote to the Colleges of Physicians on February 29, 2012 which says, “MS patients who have received a venous procedure abroad should be reassured that they will be continued to be cared for by their physicians and/or regular MS specialists as any other patients?” or is it that follow-up care is primarily the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments to ensure that no Canadian is denied post-treatment and follow-up care (ATIP) and what role does the federal government have if patients are being denied follow-up care by a province or territory; (v) why did the government ask the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada (MSSC) on February 7, 2012 about approved venous angioplasty; (w) is it still the government's position that the MS documentary that aired on the Nature of Things on February 9, 2012, was “balanced and fair”; (x) why does a February 16, 2012 e-mail list MS patients who are also CCSVI advocates; (y) is the government's position regarding imaging for CCSVI in accordance with the International Society for NeuroVascular Disease (ISNVD) venography statement and consensus document and, if not, why not; and (z) does the government know how many Canadians are actually impacted by MS, (i) if so, what is the number, (ii) if not, why not; and (aa) when Dr. Alain Beaudet wrote to the Colleges of Physicians on February 29, 2012, (i) why was the list of 11 recent peer-reviewed publications provided not a comprehensive list, (i) why did the list not specify what were positive and negative studies, and what imaging techniques were used, (ii) for MS patients who are denied follow-up care, what recourse and resources do they have, (iii) what is the position of the Scientific Expert Working Group concerning MS patients who have been denied follow-up care, such as Roxanne Garland?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1255--
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau:
With regard to the repeal of regulations related to container standards announced in Budget 2011: (a) when exactly will these changes be made; (b) what is the consultation process for making these changes; (c) how much time is scheduled for each step of the process; (d) in his testimony before the AGRI committee on February 28, 2013, the Minister of Agriculture said that some industries can choose not to adopt the regulatory changes, what does this mean for foreign products that do not meet Canadian sizes; (e) are there plans to set aside funds to upgrade equipment (for example, to package the previously non-standard new containers) so that manufacturing companies can remain competitive; (f) what industries were consulted to determine whether the regulations should be repealed; (g) what are the reasons for repealing regulations related to container standards; (h) what industries, groups, stakeholders or companies called for the repeal of regulations related to container standards; (i) are there studies or reports on the economic impact of repealing these regulations and, if so, what are they; (j) will there be changes for requesting and administering ministerial exemptions and, if so, what are they; (k) were analyses done to determine how repealing regulations related to container standards could improve inter-provincial trade; (l) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for Canadian food processors following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind; (m) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for consumers following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind; and (n) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for farmers following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1256--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With respect to offences related to money and other assets held offshore, for the period from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2012: (a) how many convictions were there during this period; (b) what are the details of each conviction in (a) including (i) the name of the individual(s) convicted, (ii) the name and type (i.e. civil or criminal) of offense, (iii) the amount of money or the type of asset and the value of the asset involved, (iv) the location of the money or asset involved, (v) the possible range of penalties/sentences upon conviction, (vi) the actual penalty and/or sentence received, (vii) whether the conviction was achieved through sentencing, plea bargain, settlement, or another means, (viii) the amount of time that passed between the commencement of an audit, investigation, or some other form of compliance action in respect of the offence and the date of conviction; (c) how many offences related to money and other assets held offshore were considered or referred for civil prosecution during this period but never pursued; (d) how many offences related to money and other assets held offshore were considered or referred for criminal prosecution during this period but never pursued; (e) how many offences related to money and other assets held offshore were prosecuted civilly during this period but were thrown out of court or lost in court; and (f) how many offences related to money and other assets held offshore were prosecuted criminally during this period but were thrown out of court or lost in court?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1257--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the March 18, 2013, announcement by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in Vancouver, British Columbia: (a) what flights took place in Atlantic Canada as part of the National Aerial Surveillance Program in 2011-2012 specifying (i) number of flights, (ii) date of each flight, (iii) geographic area covered, (iv) what, if any, pollution occurrences were detected; (b) how many flights are proposed for Atlantic Canada in 2013, 2014 and 2015; and (c) pertaining to Tanker Safety, and more specifically, public port designation, what is the plan for designating more ports in Newfoundland and Labrador and what are the names of these ports?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-05-06 15:17
Expand

Question No. 1230--
Mr. Ted Opitz:
With respect to survivors of Members of the Canadian Forces, the public service, judges, RCMP or Members of Parliament, what would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to allow a survivor who married or began cohabitating in a conjugal relationship after the deceased beneficiary attained the age of sixty years or became entitled to an annuity or annual allowance, to receive an annual allowance or annuity after the death of a beneficiary?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1242--
Mr. François Choquette:
With regard to the Customs Tariff: (a) how many complaints were there from March 1, 2012, to March 1, 2013, concerning agricultural products; (b) how many complaints were there concerning Chapter 63; (c) how many complaints were there concerning mesh bags under HS code 6305.32.00; (d) what measures did the government take to address the concerns raised by these complaints; (e) is the government planning to review the Customs Tariff; (f) are small businesses that do not have access to a specialized bagging machinery serial number in the Customs Tariff penalized; and (g) are small businesses that do not have the machinery required in the tax exemption forms subject to financial consequences?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1246--
Ms. Olivia Chow:
With respect to aircraft leased by Canadian airlines: (a) according to Transport Canada, the Canadian Transport Agency and, where applicable, other federal entities, what is the number of passenger aircraft leased through arrangements that include the lessor providing aircraft and crew, broken down by year from 2006 to 2013 year to date, type of aircraft, including but not limited to Boeing 737 and 767, lease duration, lessor name, lessee name, application date, approval date and justification; (b) according to Transport Canada, the Canadian Transport Agency and, where applicable, other federal entities, how many aircraft are leased through arrangements that do not include the lessor providing crew, broken down by year from 2006 to 2013 year to date, type of aircraft, including, but not limited to Boeing 737 and 767, lease duration, lessor name, lessee name, application date, approval date and justification; (c) what is the number of instances in which pilots employed as temporary foreign workers have operated aircraft leased by Canadian airlines, broken down by year from 2006 to 2013 year to date, type of aircraft, including but not limited to Boeing 737 and 767, lessor name and lessee name; (d) in instances where pilots operate aircraft leased under arrangements where the lessor provides aircraft and crew, i) what procedures and safeguards are in place to ensure that they meet Canada’s legal standards for aircraft pilots, ii) which statutes, regulations or other documents set out these procedures and safeguards, iii) which entity is tasked with enforcing these procedures and safeguards; and (e) in instances where pilots operate aircraft leased under arrangements where the lessor provides aircraft and crew, i) what procedures and safeguards are in place to ensure that they meet their country of origin’s legal standards for aircraft pilots, ii) which statutes, regulations or other documents set out these procedures and safeguards, iii) which entity is tasked with enforcing these procedures and safeguards?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1249--
Ms. Olivia Chow:
What are all applications submitted for federal infrastructure funding for transit-related projects from 2006 to 2013 year to date, broken down by (i) applicant, (ii) location of proposed project, (iii) approved, rejected or pending status, (iv) total federal funds requested, (v) total project budget, (vi) application date, (vii) response date, (viii) start and end dates of proposed project, (ix) reason for approval or rejection, (x) applicable federal fund or program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1250--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to the awarding of contracts to SNC-Lavalin by the federal government: (a) what is the financial value of the contracts that were awarded to the firm between 2003 and 2013, broken down by (i) year; (ii) type of contract; (b) what are the numbers of the contracts that were awarded to the firm between 2003 and 2013; (c) for each individual contract, who signed the contract; and (d) for each individual contract, from which budget envelope the did the contract come from?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1251--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to contract approval at Public Works and Government Services Canada: (a) what are the various monetary levels of contracts that can be approved, and by which level of employees can they be approved; (b) how many employees occupy each of the levels identified in (a); and (c) how many contracts at each approval level were approved between 2002 and 2013, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1252--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to government communications since December 11, 2012: (a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject-matter; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed (i) on the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using the service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1253--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to government expenditures on media monitoring, for every contract entered into since April 1, 2011, what search terms were required to be monitored?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-05-02 10:12
Expand

Question No. 1243--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, what is the location, nature, and cost of each Small Craft Harbours project which has been undertaken since January 1, 2005?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-04-30 10:10
Expand

Question No. 1219--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the Corporate Social Responsibility office in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, since fiscal year 2009-2010, broken down by fiscal year: (a) what was the total office budget; (b) what was the total number of employees; (c) what was the total number of cases and, for each case, (i) who were the complaints filed by, (ii) who were the complaints filed against, (iii) what was the settlement of every dispute; (d) what are the details of all travel and hospitality expenses of all employees of the office; and (e) which individuals or companies outside the government benefited from the hospitality expenses of the office?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-04-19 12:14
Expand

Question No. 1214--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to fines issued for violations of the Do Not Call List: (a) for Pecon Software Ltd. and their reported fine of $495,000, did the company seek a review of the fine and if there was a review, what was the total dollar value of the fine after it was reviewed, (i) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine and, if so, was a negotiated settlement reached and what was the total value of the negotiated settlement, (ii) what is the total dollar value of the fine that has been paid to date, (iii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement; and (b) for Avaneesh Software and their reported fine of $12,000, did the company seek a review of the fine and if there was a review, what was the total dollar value of the fine after it was reviewed, (i) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine and, if so, was a negotiated settlement reached and what was the total value of the negotiated settlement, (ii) what is the total dollar value of the fine that has been paid to date, (iii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to (a), the fine of $495,000 to Pecon Software Ltd., the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, issued a notice of violation on October 2, 2012. In order to comply with international service requirements, the CRTC filed the documents with the Indian government’s Ministry of Law and Justice, the central authority for extrajudicial service of documents. The CRTC cannot proceed with these matters legally until Pecon Software Ltd. has been legally served. According to the Convention for Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, the Indian central authority is required to provide the CRTC with an affidavit attesting to the fact that they have legally served the documents to Pecon Software Ltd. The documents were received by the central authority in India on October 5, 2012.
The CRTC is now working with the Canadian High Commission in India to facilitate communications with the ministry and ensure the service of documents. Once the Indian ministry has attested to the fact that the documents have been served, Pecon Software Ltd. will have 30 days to pay the penalty or file representations with the CRTC.
With respect to (b) and the fine of $12,000 to Avaneesh Software, the CRTC issued a notice of violation on October 2, 2012, and Avaneesh Software accepted service of the notice and accompanying documents. Avaneesh has submitted representations as per subsection 72.07(2) of the Telecommunications Act, and a violation and review panel will be held to determine if the violations set forth in the notice of violation occurred and whether or not to uphold the administrative monetary penalty. The matter has yet to be reviewed.

Question No. 1215--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to the cancellation of the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) program and the government’s existing liability under the Memorandum of Agreement with the government of the Province of Ontario for remediation of the ELA site, in the event of a transfer of the ELA facilities to a suitable new operator: (a) has the government conducted a legal analysis of the implications of retaining or transferring its existing liability responsibilities for the ELA; (b) will the government execute a transfer of the ELA facility and research program, in accordance with its liability responsibilities; (c) will the government extend its support for the ELA, both facilities and staff, in the event that a transfer agreement is not in place by March 31, 2013; (d) will the government provide transitional office and administrative support for ELA staff; (e) will the government enable those researchers with ongoing programs to prepare for and execute their on-site research in the coming field season and, if so, how; and (f) will the government retain its liability in perpetuity and delay this expenditure or, if not, will the government gradually reduce its liability over a period of 10 to 20 years in order to facilitate a successful transfer?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Fisheries and Oceans Canada has sought legal advice as appropriate.
With regard to (b), discussions are ongoing with various interested parties, including the Province of Ontario, about the future of the Experimental Lakes Area.
With regard to (c) and (e), Fisheries and Oceans Canada is not planning to undertake a research program at the Experimental Lakes Area as of March 31, 2013. However, discussions are ongoing with interested parties about the future of the facility.
With regard to (d), staffing discussions are ongoing as the department continues to work with affected staff to find other suitable positions within the department.
With regard to (f), discussions are ongoing with the Province of Ontario about the Canada-Ontario memorandum of agreement. They include issues related to liability and remediation.

Question No. 1216--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to overseas tax evasion: (a) how much money has the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) identified as being hidden in overseas tax havens by Canadian individuals and corporations; (b) how much money does the CRA estimate as being hidden in overseas tax havens by Canadian individuals and corporations; and (c) how much money does the CRA estimate as having been lost in tax revenue through the use of overseas tax havens by Canadian individuals and corporations?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) the CRA does not have information relating to the amount of money that has been hidden in offshore jurisdictions of concern by Canadian individuals and corporations. The CRA can, however, confirm that since 2006, it has conducted nearly 8,000 compliance actions and reassessed in excess of $4.5 billion in unpaid federal taxes through the aggressive international tax planning efforts.
With regard to (b), tax evasion and avoidance involving the abusive use of tax havens are major concerns for countries. By their very nature, tax evasion and tax avoidance are difficult to quantify, since they involve people or entities hiding money from the government. Accordingly, the CRA focuses its efforts in identifying and auditing abusive tax schemes and arrangements that use offshore jurisdictions to hide income. Knowing the methods people or entities are using enables the CRA to develop the tools to identify and combat aggressive tax planning, use of offshore jurisdictions or tax evasion by both Canadian individuals and corporations.
The money being hidden in overseas tax havens pertains to revenue that select taxpayers are not reporting or disclosing to the CRA. As this is revenue that is not being disclosed, the CRA cannot provide an accurate estimate. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and most OECD member nations have stated that there is no recognized or reliable methodology for such measurement.
For these reasons, the CRA therefore cannot provide the information in the manner requested.
With respect to (c), as mentioned in the response to part (b), the CRA does not have estimates of the lost tax revenue through the use of overseas tax havens that perhaps has not been declared by individuals or corporations. Due to the reasons stated above, the CRA therefore cannot provide the information in the manner requested.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-04-19 12:14
Expand

Question No. 1213--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With respect to the Community War Memorial Program and Cenotaph/Monument Restoration Fund, for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what is the total amount of funding provided by the government and how is that amount broken down by federal riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1218--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With respect to privacy breaches at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) in the matter of the Canada Student Loans Program breach, (i) how many individuals have been directly affected, broken down by province, (ii) how many individuals have been indirectly affected (including, but not limited to, loan co-signers or guarantors), broken down by province, (iii) how many individuals are known to have been affected by criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft; and (b) in the matter of the Canada Pension Plan Disability program breach, (i) how many individuals have been affected, broken down by province, (ii) how many individuals have been indirectly affected (including, but not limited to spouses, co-signers, guardians), broken down by province, (iii) how many individuals are known to have been affected by criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-04-18 10:14
Expand

Question No. 1207--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the Department of the Environment: (a) over the past six years, how many transactions involving land or buildings, works and infrastructure have been completed, broken down by (i) land, (ii) buildings, (iii) works and infrastructure, (iv) vehicles; (b) what is the total amount for (a) and for (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii), (a)(iv); (c) what are the criteria used by the department to determine whether to dispose of these non-financial assets; and (d) what are the actual savings between sale versus the government’s cost of maintaining each of these non-financial assets?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1208--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: (a) over the past six years, how many transactions involving land or buildings, works and infrastructure have been carried out, broken down by (i) land, (ii) buildings, (iii) works and infrastructure, (iv) vehicles; (b) what is the total amount for (a) and for (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii), (a)(iv); (c) what are the criteria used by the department to determine whether to dispose of these non-financial assets; and (d) what are the actual savings between sale versus the government’s cost of maintaining each of these non-financial assets?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1210--
Mr. Robert Chisholm:
With regard to the changes made to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45: (a) which First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations have attended or participated in engagement sessions to discuss the proposed amendments to the Act; (b) how much funding has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) contributed to the capacity of First Nations to engage on the proposed amendments or on policy and regulation changes in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; (c) which First Nations or Aboriginal organizations have received funding for capacity to engage on proposed amendments or on policies or regulations in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; (d) which First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations has DFO worked with to hold or facilitate engagement sessions; (e) what are the dates and locations of meetings funded by DFO and hosted or facilitated by First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations to discuss changes to the Fisheries Act or new policies and regulations in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; and (f) how will DFO work with First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations to engage on proposed amendments, policies or regulations in the 2013-2014 fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1211--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to government-purchased mobile data devices: (a) how many were in use by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) prior to January 11, 2013, broken down by type of device and HRSDC department; (b) what is the total cost paid by the government for the devices identified in (a); (c) how many of the mobile data devices identified in (a), (i) have been recalled by the department since January 11, 2013, broken down by type of device and HRSDC department, (ii) have been destroyed since January 11, 2013, broken down by type of device and HRSDC department, (iii) will be destroyed, broken down by type of device and HRSDC department; (d) how many personal mobile data devices owned by HRSDC employees have been confiscated by the department, including by senior managers, since January 11, 2013, broken down by type of device and HRSDC department; (e) how many of the devices identified in (a), (i) have been destroyed since January 11, 2013, broken down by type of device and HRSDC department, (ii) will be destroyed, broken down by type of device and HRSDC department; (f) what is the total that (i) has been paid, (ii) will be paid by the government to compensate HRSDC employees for mobile data devices confiscated by the department; and (g) has the department (i) purchased, (ii) made plans to purchase new mobile data devices to replace those recalled and destroyed, and, if so, (iii) how many new devices will be purchased, and at what cost, broken down by type of device and HRSDC department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1212--
Mr. Denis Blanchette:
With regard to the Department of National Defence: (a) over the past six years, how many transactions involving land or buildings, works and infrastructure and vehicles have been carried out, broken down by (i) land, (ii) buildings, (iii) works and infrastructure, (iv) vehicles; (b) what is the total amount for (a) and for (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii), (a)(iv); (c) what are the criteria used by the department to determine whether to dispose of these non-financial assets; and (d) what are the actual savings between sale versus the government’s cost of maintaining each of these non-financial assets?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-04-15 15:18
Expand

Question No. 1168--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the 1400-plus page report commissioned prior to Budget 2012 by Public-Private Partnerships Canada from the consulting firm Deloitte and Touche concerning the relevance and applicability of private delivery of prison design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance to the federal correctional system, and given that the government stated in Budget 2012 that it had no intention of building new prisons: (a) does the government or any of its departments plan to privatize new or existing correctional facilities in any aspect of their design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance or services going forward and, if so, (i) which aspects have been considered for privatization, (ii) what, if any, agreements or contracts have they entered into or do they plan to enter into with the private sector, (iii) which corporations, non-profit sector agencies, and other service providers are involved; and (b) how many Exchange of Service Agreements has Correctional Service Canada entered into with other jurisdictions for (i) sentences of two years plus a day, (ii) two years minus a day, (iii) do these agreements involve the privatization of any aspect of correctional and accommodation services and, if so, what is the nature of the privatization and which jurisdictions and third-party suppliers are involved?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), CSC operates 57 federal correctional institutions across Canada ranging from minimum to maximum security, 16 community correctional centres and 84 parole offices. None of these facilities are operated by the private sector. Budget 2012 was clear: the government has not built a single new prison since 2006 and has no intention of building any new prisons.
The government is committed to the idea that the work of guarding inmates should be performed by employees of the Government of Canada. CSC currently uses some privatized services for the delivery of specialized, non-correctional programs and services, e.g., medical professionals and educational services, which are provided through contracts with the private sector. In addition, CSC does contract, or enter into agreements, with not-for-profit organizations and communities, which operate community residential facilities, also known as halfway houses, or healing lodges, or which provide a service to CSC.
With regard to (a)(i) and (a)(iii), CSC had previously engaged in discussions with Public-Private Partnerships Canada, or PPP Canada, but has no plans to pursue the use of PPP.
With regard to (a)(ii), no agreements or contracts have been entered into.
With regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), court-imposed sentences of two years or more are administered within the federal correctional system, while sentences of less than two years are administered through the provincial/territorial correctional systems. However, Section 16 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides for the Minister of Public Safety, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into an exchange of services agreement, ESA, with the government of a province for the confinement of federal offenders in provincial correctional facilities or hospitals and the confinement of provincial offenders in federal penitentiaries.
CSC currently has bilateral ESAs with all 13 provincial/territorial jurisdictions.
With regard to (b)(iii), these agreements do not involve the privatization of any aspect of correctional and accommodation services.

Question No. 1171--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the response that the Minister of Public Safety gave to Q-471 (40th Parliament, 3rd session), indicating that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) would be submitting a long-term accommodation strategy and investment plan to Cabinet for consideration in March 2011, and given that the government stated in Budget 2012 that it had no intention of building new prisons: (a) how many regional complexes did CSC recommend building as part of this project plan, and how many units and prisoners did CSC recommend each complex house; (b) where did CSC recommend building these regional complexes as part of this project plan and what were the criteria for the selection of the proposed locations; (c) what were the total capital costs associated with designing, constructing, financing, operating, and maintaining these complexes per annum and over their projected life-cycle; (d) what was the date recommended by CSC to begin implementation of this project plan and when did CSC anticipate that these facilities would come online if their proposed timelines were followed; (e) does the government plan to move forward with this project plan and, if not, what are the grounds for rejecting this project plan?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, maintaining appropriate infrastructure that fits the needs of a first-class, modern correctional system is key to public safety.
On April 19, 2012, the government announced it will close operations at two sites: Kingston Penitentiary and the Regional Treatment Centre in Kingston, Ontario, and Leclerc Institution in Laval, Quebec. These are aging facilities with infrastructure that does not lend itself well to the challenges of managing the institutional routines of today's complex offender population. The decommissioning of this aging infrastructure will enable CSC to achieve cost savings while ensuring public safety.
Meanwhile, CSC has been working to add more than 2,700 beds to men's and women's facilities across Canada within existing institutions. These institutional expansions will provide a more effective, efficient and sustainable physical infrastructure.
Details on infrastructure renewal at the Correctional Service of Canada are available at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/about-us/006-0008-eng.shtml.
Budget 2012 was clear; the government has not built a single new prison since 2006 and has no intention of building any new prisons.

Question No. 1178--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement at 5:15 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2012, what was the total cost of putting on this announcement including the costs of the (i) backdrops purchased, (ii) press releases, (iii) translation services, (iv) cost of hosting a lockup for members of the media?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Prime Minister’s announcement at 5:15 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2012, the Privy Council Office, PCO, spent $683.65 for the rental of a podium and lighting and $250 for the rental of 20 flagpoles from PWGSC, for a total of $933.65.

Question No. 1182--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT): (a) who drafted the press release issued on September 22, 2012, under the title “Baird Receives Honourary 7th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo”; (b) who approved or authorized the release of that press release by or on behalf of DFAIT; (c) what was the cost of distributing it via Marketwire; (d) was the press release transmitted or distributed by any other commercial means or services and, if so, (i) which means or services, (ii) at what costs; (e) who paid or will pay the costs of using Marketwire or any other means or service; (f) was the press release published to either the national or any regional DFAIT web sites and, if so, (i) which web sites, (ii) at what time was it published, (iii) was it later removed from the web sites, (iv) if it was removed, why was it removed and when was it removed; and (g) what was the total cost of translation?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has not issued any press releases entitled “Baird Receives Honourary 7th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo.” On September 22, 2012, a photo release was issued as part of an official visit to Canada by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, South Korea, H.E. Kim Sung-hwan. Minister Kim’s bilateral visit, which coincided with the 50th anniversary of Canada-South Korean diplomatic relations, marked the first by a South Korean foreign minister in five years.
In their meetings, the ministers discussed a variety of issues of mutual concern, including food security, human rights and the nuclear program in North Korea; Burma and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; South Korea’s support for Canada’s entry to the East Asia Summit; the situation in the Middle East; economic cooperation; and negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement between the two countries. They also signed the Joint Declaration on Enhancing the Strategic Dialogue and witnessed the signing of a memorandum of understanding to strengthen the two countries’ collaboration on international development.
Minister Kim’s highly successful bilateral visit paved the way for Canada to welcome Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik of South Korea in December 2012, during which time it was announced that 2013 has been designated as the Year of Korea in Canada.
The caption for the photo release was drafted by departmental communications strategists and approved by the minister’s office, as is standard practice for all communications products involving the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The photo release was not distributed via Marketwire, nor was it transmitted or distributed by any other commercial means. It was posted on the corporate DFAIT website as well as on the Flickr channel where, to date, it has received more than 6,660 views, the highest for any photo in 2012. The photo release was posted at 21:08, and has not been removed. No translation costs were incurred, as translation was undertaken by departmental officials.

Question No. 1184--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Community Development Fund and the Grand Bank Development Corporation (GBDC): (a) how much funding in total was allocated in 1991 to the GBDC under the Community Development Fund and was the funding received in a lump sum payment; (b) what organization administers the GBDC fund; (c) has the GBDC fund been exhausted and, if not, how much is left in this fund; (d) what is the annual operational cost of the GBDC; (e) what is the current status of the GBDC; (f) are there plans to change the GBDC status in the near future and, if so, (i) what are the details of any documentation stating the rationale for the change in status and, if not, (ii) will the GBDC be allowed to continue operating, in the interest of fulfilling its mandate, until such time as the initial funding on the Corporation’s balance sheet reaches zero; (g) should the GBDC cease to operate, what will happen to the unspent fund originally allocated under the Community Development Fund and the revenues being generated by money it has invested since the fund was established; (h) what is the status of the Community Development Fund allocated to (i) Trepassey, (ii) Gaultois, (iii) Botwood, (iv) South Side St. John’s; and (i) have any of those communities exhausted their funding and, if so, (i) were they permitted to continue their mandate until their funds were exhausted and, if not, (ii) was the unused portion of their funding given to another organization or agency to administer?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is concerned, with regard to the Community Development Fund, CDF, and the Grand Bank Development Corporation, GBDC, with regard to (a), during the 1990-91 fiscal year, the Government of Canada allocated $6 million in funding as a lump sum through Employment and Immigration Canada, to be administered by the Burin Peninsula Community Business Development Corporation, CBDC, to establish a community development fund for the Town of Grand Bank. As part of the funding agreement, the CBDC worked with a subcommittee, which later became incorporated as the Grand Bank Development Corporation, GBDC.
With regard to (b), there is no GBDC fund. Rather, the CBDC administers the CDF. The CBDC and the GBDC are parties to a memorandum of understanding that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each organization and assists the CBDC in fulfilling the terms and conditions of the funding agreement of the CDF.
With regard to (c), there is no GBDC fund. In 1995-96, the amounts disbursed for the CDF were exhausted; the agency is not disclosing the amount available from the return on investment, as such information could be exempted should it be requested under the Access to Information Act.
With regard to (d), the annual operational cost of the GBDC could also be exempted should it be requested under the Access to Information Act.
With regard to (e), the GBDC is currently a party to two contribution agreements with the agency, both of which are in good standing.
With regard to (f), there are no plans to change the GBDC’s status; with regard to (f)(ii), the agency has no information available.
With regard to (g), it is the responsibility of the CBDC to determine how it will fulfill the terms and conditions of the funding agreement related to the CDF.
With regard to (h), the agency has no information available. With regard to (i), the Agency has no information available.

Question No. 1191--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to amendments to the Canada Grains Act in Budget 2012: (a) what market impact studies were completed prior to making these amendments and what were the projected impacts; and (b) what were the projected impacts on farmers from these amendments?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the government undertook several initiatives over the past decade that assessed the impacts of amendments to the Canada Grains Act, CGA, including market impacts.
The CGA required that an independent and comprehensive review of the CGA and the Canadian Grain Commission, CGC, be undertaken in 2006 in response to concerns that the CGC had not kept up with grain industry needs and to deal with long-standing funding issues. Compas Inc., contracted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, completed this review and tabled its report in the House of Commons on September 18, 2006. Compas Inc. recommended that inward inspection become optional and that the CGC’s inspection services be contracted out to reduce costs to the industry. Compas Inc. also recommended exploring alternative producer payment protection models that provide optimal security at optimal prices and clarity to producers.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, SCAAF, studied the Compas Inc. report and, in December 2006, tabled its own report outlining unanimous all-party recommendations. SCAAF recommended moving to optional inward inspection to reduce unnecessary regulations and costs. SCAAF also recommended that an alternative model for producer payment security be explored to reduce costs.
The government attempted to act on these recommendations on two occasions prior to budget 2012. Unfortunately, members of Parliament from the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois colluded to prevent the passage of this legislation.
In 2010-12 the CGC consulted with producers and industry organizations regarding changes to its user fees, using consultation documents that included service descriptions and standards as well as proposed fees. Stakeholders responded that changes to the CGA were required before its user fees were updated.
In 2011 the working group on marketing freedom, established to advise the minister on the Canadian Wheat Board, CWB, recommended that an updated CGA would complement the proposed changes to the CWB. These reforms would serve to transform the Canadian grain sector to a more competitive, market-oriented environment.
In 2012 the CGC asked for additional stakeholder feedback on possible changes to the CGA. Specifically, input was requested on the governance and mandate of the CGC, producer payment security, licensing, inspection and weighing, enforcement, and any other matter pertaining to the CGA. It was estimated that the elimination of CGC-provided inward inspection and weighing and the changes to producer payment protection would result in about $20 million in savings in CGC costs per year. Stakeholders, including producers, continued to request that the CGA be modernized to reduce costs for the sector.
In 2012 the CGC conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed user fee regulations for the CGC’s updated services, based on changes to the CGA. This included an assessment of the costs and benefits of the elimination of CGC-provided inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts. It was found that over a 15-year period, the net benefit of the changes to industry stakeholders, including producers, is a savings of $87.54 million for the elimination of CGC inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts.
Officials from the CGC and AAFC appeared at SCAAF on November 6, 2012, to discuss these changes. Members of Parliament provided valuable feedback at that time. It should be noted that the committee and both Houses of Parliament agreed with the government’s approach and passed this legislation without amendment.
With regard to (b), the studies and consultations indicated that producers ultimately pay for any CGC services since the costs of these services are passed through grain companies on to farmers. Therefore, the impact of the projected net benefit of $87.54 million over a 15-year period for the elimination of CGC inward inspection and weighing and registration and cancellation of elevator receipts will ultimately benefit producers.

Question No. 1192--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to the publication of draft updates to the sections of the Health of Animals Regulations concerning the transportation of farm animals within Canada: (a) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food provide a clear timeline for the publication of the proposed regulatory changes in the Canada Gazette; (b) will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food make the current draft of proposed regulatory changes available to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; and (c) will the Canadian Food Inspection Agency make submissions received during the initial public consultation period on this file, held in 2006, available to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CFIA continues to consider options for moving forward with these regulations and will need to conduct additional consultations prior to publishing regulations in Canada Gazette. Currently there are no draft regulations that are ready to be published.
With regard to (b), the issue of amending the Health of Animals Regulations to address humane transportation of animals is sensitive and complex. The CFIA must ensure that due diligence is exercised with respect to consulting Canadians on any regulatory proposal. These consultations are continuing, and only after they are completed will a regulatory proposal be prepared.
With regard to (c), the submissions made during the 2006 comment period may no longer be relevant to the current context for these regulations. If it is deemed that the submissions are relevant, they will be released at the appropriate time.

Question No. 1193--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With respect to domestic production, consumption, export, and import of oil: (a) has the government assessed the economic impact of increasing Canada's refining capacity on (i) the domestic added value, (ii) employment, (iii) international trade, (iv) internal trade, (v) consumer retail prices of gasoline and diesel fuel; (b) if yes, (i) what are the areas surveyed, (ii) which conclusion did they come to on this matter, (iii) what data was used to support this conclusion; (c) what external research, consultations, or reports were referenced to support these conclusions; (d) what internal research, consultations, or reports were referenced to support these conclusions; and (e) has the government conducted, or is it conducting specific studies, on the impact of a potential West-East pipeline on (i) job creation, (ii) domestic value-added, (iii) balance of trade, (iv) the number of jobs created in Canada, (v) what the effect of a rise of oil crude prices resulting from a West-East pipeline would be on the prices of retail gas paid by consumers in Western Canada, consumers in Central Canada and consumers in Eastern Canada?
Response
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (c) and (d), Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, has not done a formal study or report on the economic impact of increasing Canada's refining capacity. However, we keep developments in the refining sector under constant observation. In fact, NRCan has recently appeared before both parliamentary and Senate committees to provide insight on these matters. Canada has the second-highest refining capacity per capita among G8 countries; however, at 85% capacity utilization, it is currently experiencing significant overcapacity. This overcapacity is the result of a decline in North American demand for refined petroleum products.
In Canada we have a market-based approach that relies on market forces to signal when and where new refining capacity should be built.
With regard to (e), the Government of Canada supports the construction of a west-to-east pipeline and notes that the private sector has brought forward two possible projects. Given Canada’s market-based approach to energy policy, NRCan believes that the industry is best placed to determine how to move crude oil to markets, whether it be by rail, pipeline, ship or other mode of transport. All proposals for such pipelines are required to submit a detailed application to the National Energy Board, NEB, the independent federal regulator, which will then conduct a comprehensive regulatory review that could include public hearings and the submission of evidence on issues relating to but not limited to socio-economics, environment and public safety. Through this review process, concerns and questions regarding the economic impacts of a west-east pipeline would be addressed.
NRCan has extensive expertise and knowledge regarding the development of crude oil pipelines, oil markets, and the economics surrounding the development of oil and gas pipeline infrastructure in Canada. NRCan is able to support policy decisions concerning the development of energy infrastructure in Canada through the analysis and synthesis of information from many credible sources, including, but not limited to, internal reports and studies, publicly available reports and studies, academics, industry experts, non-governmental organizations and other governments.
NRCan continuously analyzes retail gasoline prices across Canada and publishes extensive information on gasoline prices and the factors that influence gasoline prices. This material is publicly available at www.fuelfocus.nrcan.gc.ca. The Fuel Focus report is published every two weeks, while gasoline price information is updated daily.

Question No. 1196--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to National Defence, how many Canadian Forces Reserve officers at the General, Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel ranks would, as of February 13, 2013, qualify for an appointment under section 165.22 of the National Defence Act, as amended by Bill C-15 in the current session of Parliament?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, clause 41 of Bill C-15, which is being debated before the current session of Parliament, would amend Section 165.22 of the National Defence Act so that it would read:
There is a Reserve Force Military Judges Panel to which the Governor in Council may name any officer of the reserve force who has been an officer for at least 10 years and who
(a) is a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years’ standing at the bar of a province;
(b) has been a military judge;
(c) has presided at a Standing Court Martial or a Special General Court Martial; or
(d) has been a judge advocate at a court martial.”
As of 27 February 2013, there were 15 Canadian Armed Forces Reserve legal officers at the General, Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel rank who met these requirements.

Question No. 1205--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to telecommunications, what is the location and owner of any cellular telephone tower which has been newly-approved, or which has been relocated from a previously-approved location to another, anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, since January 2, 2012?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this information is not available at the level of detail requested.

Question No. 1206--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to National Defence real property: (a) what are the financial terms of any agreement by which Nalcor, or contractors working on behalf of or under the auspices of Nalcor, will occupy residential quarters at 5 Wing Goose Bay; (b) what buildings at 5 Wing Goose Bay are subject to any such agreement; and (c) what are the file numbers of any such agreement or contract?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Nalcor is to pay $9,866 per day, to be paid every seven days. The authority for the lease or licence of federal real property is found under the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act, and the agreement follows the policy and procedures for provision of services by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to non-defence agencies found in the Provision of Services manual, as well as the Treasury Board policy on management of real property.
With regard to (b), the buildings subject to the agreement are Barrack Block buildings 476 and 479.
With regard to (c), the file number of the agreement is 1001-1 (W Comd) 13 February 2013.
Collapse
Agreements and contractsAllen, MalcolmAnderson, DavidAnimal healthAnimal rights and welfareBaird, JohnBrison, ScottBudget 2012 (March 29, 2012)Building and construction industryCanadian Forces Base Goose BayCanadian Forces Reserves ...Show all topics
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-04-15 15:18
Expand

Question No. 1159--
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet:
With regard to consultant contracts awarded by Public Works and Government Services Canada between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2012, broken down by date, what are the dates, amounts and contract file numbers awarded to (i) Roche Consulting Group, (ii) Louisbourg Construction, (iii) Garnier Construction, (iv) Simard-Beaudry Construction, (v) Catcan Entreprises, (vi) CIMA+, (vii) Dessau?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1172--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With respect to the Marine Atlantic, Inc. ferry operation between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and Labrador, how many sailings have taken place since 2008, broken down by (i) full date and departure time of the sailing, (ii) ship used, (iii) manifest totals, (iv) seasonal totals for each season?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1173--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to staffing at the Canada Revenue Agency, what is the number of personnel, sorted by job title and broken down by year, working on aggressive international tax planning for the years 2003-2013 inclusive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1174--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to staffing cuts at Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) how many positions at CRA have been cut as part of the government’s plan to eliminate 19,200 jobs from the federal public service as of February 1, 2013, broken down by the (i) number of actual positions cut, (ii) number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions cut, (iii) divisions where these cuts have been made, including the total number of positions and FTEs cut from each division, (iv) locations of these cuts across the country; (b) are 3,008 FTE positions still the estimated number of cuts to be made at CRA as part of the plan mentioned in (a); (c) in which divisions are the 3,008 FTE positions, or revised target number, anticipated to take place; (d) are any auditors in the Aggressive International Tax Planning (AITP) division to be cut as part of the estimate in (b); (e) how many auditor positions at CRA have been cut as of February 1, 2013; (f) how many auditor positions have been cut from the AITP division as of February 1, 2013; (g) how many auditors were working in AITP before cutbacks, if any, took place; (h) how many auditors are currently working in AITP; and (i) how many auditors were working in AITP, broken down by fiscal year, for each of the past five years, including the current fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1175--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With respect to advertising for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for the years 2003-2013 inclusive: (a) what was the advertising budget, broken down by year; (b) how many different advertising campaigns were created or used, broken down by year; (c) how many different advertisements were produced or used, broken down by year; (d) what was the total cost (design, production, airtime, printing, etc.) for the advertising campaigns in (b); (e) what was the total cost (production, airtime, printing, etc.) for the advertisements in (c); (f) what was the cost to produce the television, radio, print, or online spots, broken down individually by advertisement; (g) what companies produced the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (h) what was the cost of television airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (i) what television channels were the advertisements aired on; (j) what was the cost of online airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (k) what online platforms were the advertisements aired on, broken down by free media (i.e. posting to YouTube) and fee media (i.e. online commercials); (l) what was the cost of ad space in newspapers and other print publications, broken down individually by advertisement; and (m) what programs or divisions of CRA were responsible for (i) overseeing/coordinating production of the advertisements, (ii) financing the production of the advertisements, (iii) financing the purchase of airtime both on television and online, and print space in newspapers and other print publications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1176--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to federal properties: (a) what is the address or location, and description, of each building, facility, or other real estate property owned or leased by a department, agency or Crown corporation in Iqaluit, Nunavut; and (b) for the leased properties, what is the start date, end date and file number of the lease?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1177--
Mr. Andrew Cash:
With regard to the Canadian Museum of Civilization: (a) how many employees, permanent and contractual, were assigned for the purposes of research, including but not limited to the Research Division, broken down by (i) year since 2005-2006, (ii) position, (iii) academic field (anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc.), (iv) division; (b) for the next five years, what is the projected number of permanent employees who will be assigned to research in all museum divisions, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) academic field (anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc.), (iv) division; (c) how many meetings were held to discuss aspects of the change of name and mandate of the museum between museum officials and (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage, (iv) museum employees; (d) since 2007-2008, broken down by year, how many informal meetings and telephone calls were held between museum officials and (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (e) what is the total number of visits to the museum made by (i) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (ii) the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (iii) the Department of Canadian Heritage; (f) for all exhibits since 2006, broken down by exhibit, what was the (i) total number of visitors, (ii) percentage of local visitors, (iii) percentage of visitors from outside Canada, (iv) total amount of revenues, (v) projected budget at the beginning of the planning stages, (vi) total expenses; (g) since 2008-2009, (i) what were the annual revenues of the museum per year, (ii) what are the projected annual revenues of the museum per year for next five years, (iii) do these projections take into account the change of name and mandate; (h) what is the projected number of visitors to the museum per year (not including the Canadian War Museum), for the next five years; (i) which groups (including but not limited to associations, professional associations, groups representing First Nations) and experts (including but not limited to historians, archeologists, academics) were consulted (i) prior to the Minister’s announcement of the change of name and mandate on October 16, 2012, and (ii) since the announcement of October 16, 2012; (j) regarding the consultations held between November 9, 2012, and January 31, 2013, (i) what were the total costs, (ii) how many members of the public (other than museum employees) attended each consultation; (k) regarding the funding of 25 million dollars that will “come from within the existing budget for Canadian Heritage”, according to an October 16, 2012 press release from the Department of Canadian Heritage, (i) from which programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage has funding been diverted towards this funding, (ii) what was the funding for these programs since 2008-2009, (iii) which programs’ funding will be restored to 2011-2012 levels following the museum investment; (l) regarding costs related to changing the name of the museum (including but not limited to changes to signage, logotypes, and rebranding), (i) what is the current earmarked budget, (ii) what are the projected total costs over the next five years; (m) what is the total cost of promotional materials (including but not limited to bookmarks, temporary signage, websites and paper materials) referring to the Canadian Museum of History or the change of name and mandate, or using such terms as “History Museum” and “Museum of History”; (n) what is the total cost of advertising by the museum, broken down by year and types of advertising, including but not limited to billboards, print, radio, television and online advertising, since 2006-2007; (o) for each occasion in which external legal services were provided to the museum in the last three years (i) which firms or individuals provided legal services, including but not limited to counsel or representation, to the museum, (ii) when, (iii) for what period of time, (iv) what was the nature of these services, (v) what was the purpose of these services, (vi) what were the total costs per occasion when these services were provided to the museum; and (p) for each project, exhibition or display created for or by the museum since 2005-2006 that were not displayed on museum premises, (i) what was the subject matter, (ii) where have these been displayed, (iii) what are the total costs for each, (iv) how many employees were assigned to each, at all stages (including but not limited to design, construction, and installation) (v) what were the starting and ending dates of work on each, (vi) what were the starting and ending dates of viewing or display?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1179--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to military procurement: (a) how many Canadian Forces members or employees are assigned to procurement by the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force, and by each of the Department of National Defence, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Industry Canada, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, FedNor, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, the Secretariat of the Treasury Board, the Treasury Board, or any other department or agency, specifying which; (b) for each of the foregoing branches, departments or agencies, what is the total labour cost in respect of such employment; and (c) in relation to each of the military procurement programs found on the Industry Canada web page entitled “List of Procurements and their IRB Managers”, which is published at ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/h_00017.html, (i) how many Canadian Forces members or employees are assigned to each project, and from which branch of the armed forces or department or agency of government, (ii) what is or has been the annual budget of each program since their starting date, (iii) has any program ever been cancelled, suspended, or postponed and, if so, which and when and for each, when was it re-commenced and what was the reason for any such cancellation, suspension, or postponement, (iv) which programs have requested additional funds from Treasury Board, and for each, when was the request made, and what was the additional amount requested, (v) what is the value of each program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1180--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs program, what was the total budget for the program in each federal electoral district in each calendar year since 2005 inclusive, and what is the total budget for the program in each federal electoral district for the summer of 2013?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1181--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency, for every year since 2006, how many charities have been audited and what is the name of each charity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1187--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to First Nations policing: (a) which First Nations policing agreements will expire on March 31, 2013 or March 31, 2014, broken down by (i) community, (ii) type of agreement, (iii) population served by the agreement, (iv) number of officers funded by the agreement; (b) of these agreements that will expire on March 31, 2013 or March 31, 2014, which ones does the government plan to renew and what are the terms for each renewed agreement; (c) are any existing agreements being extended on a short-term basis only and, if so, why; (d) of those First Nations and Inuit communities with policing agreements in place, which ones have been consulted in the last 28 months about the status of their agreement, (i) where did these consultations take place, (ii) when were they held, (iii) with whom, (iv) if no such consultations were held, why not and are there currently plans to hold consultations with First Nations and Inuit communities about the status of their agreement; (e) why are most First Nation Police Services operating on short term agreements or on one or two year extensions; (f) does the government have plans to replace year-to-year agreements with longer term agreements of a five year duration or more; (g) why does the government approve extensions and funding for many First Nations Police Service agreements a short time before they expire; (h) does the government have plans to expand this program to additional First Nations and Inuit communities currently without a policing service agreement, (i) if so, which communities, (ii) if not, why not; (i) will federal funding levels for the First Nations Policing Program change overall after March 31, 2013 and if so, by how much, broken down by agreement; (j) how many communities served by a policing agreement have Community Consultative Groups in place and which communities are they, broken down by community; (k) for those communities without Community Consultative Groups in place, what is the reason for why these groups have not been put in place, broken down by community; (l) how does the Aboriginal Policing Division monitor or evaluate the performance of existing agreements in achieving program objectives and what are the findings of all monitoring and evaluation activities, broken down by community; (m) for those communities with Community Tripartite Agreements, how many officers are assigned to each community and how many of those assignments are actively filled, broken down by community; (n) for those communities with Community Tripartite Agreements, how much time do officers tasked to the community spend in the particular community, broken down by (i) agreement, (ii) year, (iii) number of officers assigned to the community; (o) how many First Nations Policing Services have received funding under the Police Officer Recruitment fund, broken down by First Nations Police Service, and by year; (p) is the government currently developing policy options to guide the future direction of the First Nations Policing Program as a result of the 2009-2010 Evaluation of the First Nations Policing Program, (i) if so, does the government plan to release these policy options in a report, (ii) if so, when, (iii) if not, why not; and (q) why is there currently no legislated funding for First Nations policing as an essential service and does the government currently have plans to develop legislation to fund First Nations policing as an essential service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1188--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to funding for First Nations students for each year from 2006-2013, broken down by year, how much of this funding: (a) went to students attending schools off reserve; (b) went towards the internal operations of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada; (c) went towards project-based funding; and (d) is discretionary funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1189--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to the Government of Canada Aboriginal Portal: (a) what was the cost of running and maintaining this portal each year, from 2006 to 2012; (b) how many people used the Portal each year between 2006 and 2012, broken down by sub-sites accessed through the Portal; (c) what services provided by, or facilitated by, the Portal are no longer available to the public since the Portal closed on February 12, 2013; and (d) what studies did the government undertake on the impact of closing the Portal and (i) what were the findings of these studies, (ii) what stakeholders were consulted by the government regarding closing the Portal, (iii) what were the comments and feedback provided by these stakeholders?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1190--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With regard to government travel, how many visits to First Nation reserves have each of the following cabinet members made between 2006 and 2013, broken down by year and by reserve: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Minister of Public Safety; (c) the Minister of Justice; (d) the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development; (e) the Minister of Finance; (f) the Minister of Canadian Heritage; (g) the Minister of the Environment; (h) the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; (i) the Minister of Natural Resources; (j) the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; and (k) the Minister of Health?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1194--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI): (a) in each year since 2005 until present, (i) how many total employees did MAI employ, (ii) how many ferry crew positions were assigned, (iii) how many dockside positions were assigned, (iv) how many front desk/customer service personnel were assigned, (v) how many management positions were assigned; (b) for each year since 2005 until present and for each employee listed in each year, (i) from where was the position located, (ii) has the position been relocated, (iii) what was the rationale for position relocation, (iv) did the employee deal directly with customers, (v) was the position considered management, (vi) what was the salary or hourly wage, (vii) was the position on a ferry or on the shore; (c) how have federal budgetary cuts affected MAI’s employment levels; (d) what was the actual cost recovery compared to the projected cost recovery for each year since 2005; (e) was there any consultation before raising fares by four percent effective April 1, 2013, and, if so, what were the results of the consultation; (g) how many ferry trips have been cancelled or rescheduled in each year since 2005; and (h) following a ferry cancellation or rescheduling, when services resume, how many times have the standby vessels been used to assist in transporting backlog passengers and vehicles?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1195--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the Canadian Forces and its grievance system: (a) what is the total number of grievances submitted by Regular Force personnel during each of the following years: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; (b) what is the total number of grievances referred to the Chief of Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority during each of the following years: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; (c) at the end of each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what was the total number of grievances which have yet to be adjudicated by the Chief of Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority; and (d) of all the grievances which were awaiting adjudication from the Chief of the Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority as of February 15, 2013, what was the (i) rank of the grievor, (ii) subject of the grievance, (iii) date of the original grievance, (iv) date of the decisions reached by the Initial Authority, (v) date on which the grievance was elevated to the Final Authority by the Grievor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1197--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG), what was the number of JAG officers serving at the end of each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 in each of the following ranks: Major-General, Brigadier-General, Colonel, Lieutenant-Colonel, major and captain, and what were the salary costs for each year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1198--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to suicides in the Canadian Forces: (a) for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what was the number of suicides of Regular Forces members, and for each instance, what was the rank, age at death, location and was a Board of Inquiry convened; and (b) for each Board of Inquiry convened in the suicide death of a Canadian Forces (Regular) member, what was the date of death and on what date did the Chief of the Defence Staff approve the findings and recommendations of the said Board?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1199--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers, for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, how many JAG officers attended post-graduate training, and what was the rank of each officer, the name and location of the educational institution attended, and the cost of tuition paid by the Crown?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1200--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to military costs, for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what were the total costs for salaries, operations and maintenance for the (i) Office of the Judge Advocate General, (ii) Office of the Chief Military Judge, (iii) Office of the Director Military Prosecutions, (iv) Office of the Defence Counsel Services, (v) Office of the Deputy Judge Advocate General-Military Justice?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1201--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Forces (CF) Public Affairs Branch, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) how many DND executives, by classification and level, and DND civilian employees were employed within DND and the CF in public affairs or related functions; (b) what was the amount paid in (i) salaries, (ii) bonuses, (iii) allowances to these civilian employees; and (c) how many CF Regular Force members, broken down by rank, were serving in the Public Affairs Branch and what amount was paid to these CF members in (i) salaries, (ii) bonuses, (iii) allowances?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1202--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Military Families Fund, broken down by fiscal year for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what was (i) the total amount received in donations from the general public, (ii) the expenditures charged to the fund, (iii) the amount paid out in benefits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1203--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Canadian Military Journal for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) what were the detailed costs for producing the Canadian Military Journal, broken down by (i) salaries, (ii) postage, (iii) printing costs, (iv) translation, (v) other costs; and (b) what were the revenues received in (i) subscription fees and advertising, (ii) the number of copies printed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1204--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Royal Military College (RMC), for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) what were the numbers of graduates and undergraduates; (b) what were the profiles of officer cadets who entered the RMC, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) first official language, (ii) province of origin; (c) what were the profiles of RMC officer cadets who graduated and are commissioned, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) first official language; and (d) what is the number of RMC undergraduates who have been exempted or otherwise unable to attain the established standard for bilingualism in each of the two official language groupings?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
8555-411-1159 Consultation contracts8555-411-1159-01 Consultation contracts8555-411-1172 Marine Atlantic, Inc.8555-411-1173 Canada Revenue Agency8555-411-1174 Canada Revenue Agency8555-411-1175 Canada Revenue Agency8555-411-1176 Federal properties8555-411-1177 Canadian Museum of Civilization8555-411-1179 Military procurement8555-411-1180 Canada Summer Jobs program8555-411-1181 Canada Revenue Agency ...Show all topics
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 1183--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House of Commons on Wednesday, January 30, 2013, when he stated that “job creation and economic prosperity are our top priorities. In fact, the Canadian economy has created more than 900,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. That is the best record of all G7 countries.”: (a) what is the statistical breakdown of the job numbers that support those claims; (b) for the period from July 1, 2009, to March 1, 2013, out of the 900,000 net new jobs the government states have been created, how many of the positions were filled by temporary foreign workers, (i) how many were part-time positions (fewer than 30 hours per week), (ii) how many were indeterminate positions (permanent, full-time), (iii) how many were specified term contracts positions (contracts of six months or less), (iv) what percentage of the positions paid above minimum wage, (v) how many jobs were lost during that period; and (c) for the period from January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2013, how many net new jobs were created, (i) how many of the positions were filled by temporary foreign workers, (ii) how many were part-time positions (fewer than 30 hours per week), (iii) how many were indeterminate positions (permanent, full-time), (iv) how many were specified term contracts positions (contracts of six months or less), (v) what percentage of the positions paid above minimum wage, (vi) how many jobs were lost during that period?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), please be advised that due to 50,700 net new jobs created in February 2013, Canada’s economy has now created over 950,000 net new jobs since July 2009. This represents the strongest job growth among G7 countries over the recovery, as the employment gain over the recovery in Canada represents an increase of 5.7%, which is above the U.S., 4.4%; Germany, 3.6%; the United Kingdom, 3.2%; Japan, 0.5%; France, 0.5%; and Italy, where employment is still declining.
With regard to (b), additionally, more than 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been in full-time positions, and close to 80% are in the private sector. Moreover, more than two-thirds of the new jobs are in industries with above-average wages, above $23.65 per hour in 2012. Less than 9% of all jobs created since July 2009, or 82,800 positions, have been in part-time positions.
With regard to (c), since January 2006, close to 1.5 million net new jobs have been created in Canada, which also represents the strongest job growth among G7 countries over that period. Of these jobs, 75% are full-time positions and 70% are in the private sector and in high-wage industries. In contrast, 25% of all jobs created since January 2006 have been in part-time positions.
The information referenced above is outlined in the publicly available labour force survey from Statistics Canada. To further familiarize themselves with the labour force survey, members may consider visiting http://www.statcan.gc.ca.
The labour force survey does not collect data related to temporary foreign workers.

Question No. 1185--
Hon. Denis Coderre:
With regard to advertising by the government during the broadcast of the Academy Awards on February 24, 2013: (a) what was the total cost for advertising; and (b) what was the cost for each advertisement shown?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada purchased airtime during the broadcast of the 85th Academy Awards on CTV--one 30-second spot for Finance Canada’s economic action plan campaign and two 15-second spots for Canada Revenue Agency’s tax relief measures campaign. The network aired one additional 15-second tax relief ad free of charge.
With regard to (b), the Government of Canada does not disclose information about the specific amounts paid for individual ad placements or the amounts paid to specific media outlets. This information is considered third party business sensitive and is protected under subsection 20(1) of the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 1186--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to the program that has government employees visiting recipients of Employment Insurance: (a) what is the rationale for this program; (b) when was this program created; (c) what are the specific locations the program is being run from; (d) what is the process by which these locations were chosen to do the house calls; (e) what is the total cost to taxpayers of this program, including the total cost for all travel and meal expenses for each employee; (f) which program activity does the funding for this program come from; (g) was any document review, literature review, expert and key informant interview, survey, case study, qualitative or quantitative analysis, or cost-effectiveness analysis conducted to support creating the program, and if so, what are the details of these documents; and (h) what scripts, instructions or guidelines did each employee of this program use?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as part of its mandate, Service Canada’s Integrity Services branch undertakes various measures to ensure the integrity of programs, including performing random reviews of client files to validate the accuracy of client information and to ensure that clients continue to receive the right benefits, at the right time, for the intended purpose. Employment Insurance, EI, claimants have a responsibility to meet the eligibility requirements as set out in the Employment Insurance Act and Regulations. Failure to meet the said requirements may result in overpayments and penalties.
With regard to (b), for more than 40 years, Service Canada has had an integrity function, which has played an ongoing role in ensuring that clients receive the benefits to which they are entitled. A specific review, referred to as the employment insurance stewardship review, started in January 2013 and will end in March 2013.
With regard to (c), 1,200 EI claimants from across Canada were randomly selected. Integrity Services staff are assigned to work on these files throughout the country.
With regard to (d), the 1,200 EI claimants from across Canada were randomly selected.
With regard to (e), this review is considered part of the ongoing operations for Integrity Services.
With regard to (f), EI integrity operations are funded from the EI operating account.
With regard to (g), review activity conducted by the Integrity Services branch is based upon a wide range of best practices and experiences. Specific considerations for the development of the EI stewardship review include analysis of past activities internal to the department, such as the stewardship review for Canada pension plan and old age security performed in 2010; review of best practices from other countries via membership in the Six Countries Fraud International Consortium, now known as The Windsor Arrangement for Mutual Co-operation on Benefit Fraud between the Heads of Department of the Six Countries; and partnership with the Office of the Auditor General to develop and initiate measurement of payment accuracy.
With regard to (h), departmental investigative methods and materials used to conduct this work are classified Protected B and are not available for distribution.
Collapse
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 1108--
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé:
With regard to the May 29, 2012, announcement of the closure, to the public, of the visa section of the Canadian Consulate General in Buffalo: (a) how many permanent resident visa applications were transferred to Ottawa (i) in total, (ii) broken down by type of visa application, including Federal Skilled Worker, Quebec Skilled Worker, Provincial Nominee Program, Federal Investor Program, Self-employed Class, Quebec Business Class, Canadian Experience Class, Entrepreneur Class, Permanent Resident Class, Family Class, and other classes of application; (b) how many of the total permanent resident visa applications that were transferred to Ottawa have been fully processed as of (i) May 29, 2012, (ii) June 29, 2012, (iii)July 29, 2012, (iv) August 29, 2012, (v) September 29, 2012, (vi) October 29, 2012, (vii) November 29, 2012; (c) how many of the permanent resident visa applications that were transferred to Ottawa have been fully processed, broken down by type of application including Federal Skilled Worker, Quebec Skilled Worker, Provincial Nominee Program, Federal Investor Program, Self-employed Class, Quebec Business Class, Canadian Experience Class, Entrepreneur Class, Permanent Resident Class, Family Class, and other classes of application; (d) how many of the total permanent resident visa applications that were transferred to Ottawa have been fully processed as of (i) May 29, 2012, (ii) June 29, 2012, (iii)July 29, 2012, (iv) August 29, 2012, (v) September 29, 2012, (vi) October 29, 2012, (vii) November 29, 2012; (e) how many of the total permanent resident visa applications that have been transferred from Buffalo to Ottawa required medical examination results; (f) of the total permanent resident visa applications that have been transferred from Buffalo to Ottawa that required medical examination results, (i) how many more exceeded the 12-month validity period of the medical examination results, (ii) how many more can be reasonably expected to exceed the 12-month validity period of the medical examination results; (g) what kind of provisions has or will Citizenship and Immigration Canada make for permanent resident applicants that have seen the validity of their medical examination results expire as a result of the delays in processing that have arisen from the transfer of applications from the Buffalo to the Ottawa office, in particular for those applicants that already have a job waiting for them and in general for other applicants; (h) how many calls and emails has the department received regarding the delays that have resulted from the transfer of applications from the Buffalo to the Ottawa office, broken down by (i) inquiries regarding the status of an application due to delays in applications processing, (ii) complaints regarding the status of an application due to delays in applications processing; and (i) what is the value of Budget 2012 cuts reflected in the closure of the Buffalo office in (i) personnel reductions, measured in full-time equivalence, (ii) service level impacts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1170--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to overseas tax evasion for the period from February 6, 2006 to September 30, 2012: (a) how many Canadians have been identified as having undeclared overseas bank accounts; (b) how many accounts have been identified; (c) how many identified Canadians have availed themselves of the Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (d) how many identified Canadian accounts have settled with the CRA; (e) how much money has the CRA assessed as a result of investigating these secret overseas bank accounts (i) in unpaid taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (f) how much of the money in (e) has been collected; (g) how many of the cases are under appeal; (h) how many cases remain open; (i) how many more cases does the CRA anticipate will be opened; (j) how many cases have been closed (i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties has been collected); (k) how much money in (j) has been collected (i) in unpaid taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (l) how many account holders in the cases have made partial payment; (m) of the partial payments made, (i) what was the largest amount, (ii) what was the smallest amount, (iii) what was the average amount; (n) how much does the CRA anticipate it has yet to collect (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (o) of the amounts of money contained in overseas accounts declared or discovered by CRA (i) what was the largest amount, (ii) what was the smallest amount, (iii) what was the average amount; (p) how many of the identified Canadians with overseas bank accounts (i) have had their account(s) audited, (ii) have had their account(s) reassessed, (iii) have been the subject of a compliance action; (q) how many of the identified Canadians with overseas bank accounts (i) have not had their account(s) audited, (ii) have not had their account(s) reassessed, (iii) have not been the subject of a compliance action; (r) how many tax evasion charges were laid; (s) has the government made any changes to the VDP in the past 24 months; (t) how many Canadians have been convicted of tax evasion; and (u) how many Canadians have been convicted of tax evasion related to money and other assets held overseas?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1225--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the March 11, 2013, announcement regarding broadband improvements for Labrador communities, what are all the costs associated with the event, including (i) writing, translating, and transmission of press releases, (ii) printing, (iii) production of backdrops, banners, or other visual material, (iv) travel and accommodation for any participants, (v) rental of equipment or facilities, (vi) any other costs?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-03-27 15:57
Expand

Question No. 1166--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to the internal services program activity listed in the Public Accounts of Canada Volume II: (a) what was the total net expenditure on internal services for the government for each year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012; (b) what was the total gross expenditure on internal services for the government for each year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012; (c) what was the breakdown of net expenditures on internal services for each federal department and agency for each year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012; and (d) what was the breakdown of gross expenditures on internal services for each federal department and agency for each year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1169--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With regard to C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder): (a) in developing this legislation, on what (i) studies, (ii) case law, (iii) doctrinal sources did the government rely; (b) what statistics does the government track with respect to people found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder; (c) for each of the last ten years, broken down by province and territory and by type of offence, (i) how many people have been found NCR, (ii) which people found NCR have been released without conditions, (iii) which people found NCR have been released with conditions, (iv) how long has each person found NCR spent in treatment prior to release, (v) which people found NCR and released have been convicted of a subsequent offence, (vi) what was the nature of the subsequent offence, (vii) which people found NCR and released have been found NCR of a subsequent offence, (viii) what was the nature of the subsequent offence; (d) for each of the last ten years, what was the recidivism rate for all federal offenders; (e) broken down by province and territory, (i) which treatment facilities accept people found NCR, (ii) which of these facilities are privately owned, (iii) what is the capacity of each facility, (iv) how many people are currently housed in each facility; (f) what analysis has the government performed to determine whether this legislation will result in a need for increased capacity in these facilities; (g) what are the conclusions of this analysis; (h) what steps is the government taking to ensure adequate capacity in these facilities; (i) what funds are currently designated for (i) the construction of new facilities to house people found NCR, (ii) the expansion of existing such facilities; (j) what government programs exist to fund any such facilities that are privately owned; (k) what funds have been allocated to any such programs for each of the past ten years; (l) what steps is the government taking to mitigate Charter litigation with respect to people found NCR who may be unable to secure space in an appropriate facility; (m) has Bill C-54 been examined by the Department of Justice to ascertain consistency with the Charter; (n) which officials performed the examination, (i) when was the examination initiated, (ii) when was the examination completed, (iii) what were the conclusions of this examination; (o) when was the Minister of Justice presented with these conclusions; (p) was a report of inconsistency prepared; (q) was a report of inconsistency presented to Parliament; and (r) has there been an assessment of the litigation risk relative to the enactment of this legislation and, if so, what are the conclusions of this assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2013-03-22 12:15
Expand

Question No. 1161--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Government of Canada, what is its net worth: (a) as a whole for each fiscal year since 2005, broken down by (i) assets, (ii) liabilities; and (b) broken down for each fiscal year since 2005 by department, agency and crown corporation by (i) assets, (ii) liabilities?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s net worth, or accumulated deficit, broken down by assets and liabilities for each fiscal year since 2004-05 can be found in Table 1.2, Government of Canada Detailed Statement of Financial Position, on page 1.17 of volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada 2012, available on the Public Works and Government Services Canada website at http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/index-eng.html.
Supplementary information regarding the government’s assets and liabilities, including a breakdown by department, agency and crown corporation for certain categories of assets and liabilities, can be found on an annual basis in sections 4 to 10 of volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada.
In addition, departments, agencies and crown corporations publish annual financial statements which provide further details of their assets and liabilities. These financial statements are available through departments’ and agencies’ annual departmental performance reports and crown corporations’ annual reports, which are available on their respective websites.

Question No. 1164--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the $20 million Southern Ontario Fund for Investment in Innovation: (a) how many companies, which the government is aware of, have received loans; (b) what companies have received loans; and (c) what was the amount of each loan?
Response
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), two loans funded by the Southern Ontario Fund for Investment in Innovation, SOFII, have been announced, and more will be publicly announced in the future. Commencing April 30, 2013, all loans approved under SOFII will be disclosed on a quarterly basis on the websites of the organizations delivering SOFII, those being the Eastern Ontario Community Futures Development Corporation Network and the Western Ontario Community Futures Development Corporation Association. FedDev Ontario’s website will have a link to the website listings of approved SOFII loans.
With regard to (b), the projects announced include Konrad Group Inc., located in Toronto and Peterborough, which received an Eastern SOFII loan, and Voices.com, located in London, which received a Western SOFII loan.
With regard to (c), Konrad Group Inc. was provided with a repayable interest-bearing loan of $500,000; Voices.com was provided with a repayable interest-bearing loan of $500,000.

Question No. 1167--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the transportation costs incurred by Lockheed Martin to bring a F-35 model from Fort Worth, Texas, to Ottawa, Ontario, and back to Fort Worth, Texas for the purposes of a press conference held on July 16, 2010, during which the Minister of Defence announced the government's intent to procure F-35s for the Royal Canadian Air Force: (a) did the government or any of its departments, agencies, or crown corporations reimburse or pay any amount of the transportation cost to Lockheed Martin; (b) if so, what was the total amount paid or reimbursed to Lockheed Martin or the contractor responsible for transportation; (c) on what date or dates was it paid; (d) who authorized the decision to reimburse Lockheed Martin for the transportation costs; (e) on what date was this decision taken; (f) what were the terms of the agreement between Lockheed Martin and the government to share the transportation costs; and (g) on what date was it signed?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Lockheed Martin paid for all transportation costs for the F-35 model featured at the press conference held on July 16, 2010, in Ottawa. The Department of National Defence did not incur any costs for the transport of the model.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2013-03-22 12:16
Expand

Question No. 1162--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to priority employment appointments in the federal public service: (a) for the period of June 1, 2011, to January 30, 2013, how many people were hired and of these how many were (i) casual employees, (ii) term employees, (iii) indeterminate employees; (b) how many members of the Canadian Forces have been medically released and (i) how many of these qualified medically released members have applied for a priority employment appointment, (ii) how many have received a priority appointment, (iii) how many were still on the priority employment appointment list when their eligibility period expired, (iv) how many were hired by each government department; and (c) what measures are being taken to extend this program to account for the large number of temporary and contract workers employed by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1163--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in the federal riding of Random—Burin—St. George’s, broken down by year, community and totalled for the riding, from 2002 until present: (a) how many RCMP officers were there; (b) what were the total expenditures of the RCMP; (c) how many open positions went unfilled; (d) how many RCMP officers were transferred outside the riding; (e) how many RCMP officers were transferred to the riding; (f) does the government or RCMP have any plans to decrease the number of RCMP officers; (g) how many incidents requiring the RCMP occurred; and (h) what are the terms in the agreements between the RCMP and each community?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1165--
Mr. François Lapointe:
With regard to the Montmagny, Quebec, company PurGenesis, how much funding has the government provided PurGenesis since fiscal year 2008-2009, per year, up to the current fiscal year, by department or agency, initiative and amount?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-03-20 15:23
Expand

Question No. 1158--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to pre-budget roundtables held since December 1, 2012: (a) what are the total travel and accommodation costs incurred in respect to each roundtable by each participating minister, parliamentary secretary, staff member or other government employee; (b) what are the details of all other costs incurred in respect to each roundtable, including (i) room rentals, (ii) catering, (iii) advertising, (iv) printing, (v) equipment rental, (vi) other costs, specifying those other costs; (c) were any individuals or organizations specifically invited to attend each roundtable and, if so, what were the criteria for issuing such invitations; (d) what was the attendance at each roundtable; and (e) were summaries or reports prepared on the discussion at each roundtable and, if so, what is the file number of each summary or report?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1159--
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet:
With regard to consultant contracts awarded by Public Works and Government Services Canada between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2012, broken down by date, what are the dates, amounts and contract file numbers awarded to (i) Roche Consulting Group, (ii) Louisbourg Construction, (iii) Garnier Construction, (iv) Simard-Beaudry Construction, (v) Catcan Entreprises, (vi) CIMA+, (vii) Dessau?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2013-03-19 10:13
Expand

Question No. 1157--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With respect to the Gabarus Seawall, also referred to in existing federal documents and plans as a groyne or breakwater, and all other properties built and previously or currently owned or administered by the government in Gabarus, Nova Scotia: (a) as a result of a Transfer of Duties Act based on an Order-in-Council (P.C. 1979-2522) September 20, 1979, (i) what specific properties, structures or facilities did Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) acquire or become responsible for which were formerly owned or under the administration of the Department of Transport, (ii) did this specifically include a fishermen’s breakwater and two groynes and, if so, what specific structures in Gabarus did these terms refer to; (b) has there been any mechanism other than the Transfer Of Duties Act by which DFO took over ownership or administration of any other federal properties or facilities in Gabarus since 1979; (c) from 1979 to present, have there been evaluations, assessments or reports or other similar documents commissioned or received by DFO concerning these properties, structures or facilities, specifically the Gabarus Seawall and, if so, (i) what are the reference numbers and titles of said studies or assessments or other relevant documents including the dates they were performed and when they were released to DFO, (ii) under whose signature and authority; (d) have properties, facilities or structures or assets, specifically, the Gabarus Seawall, in Gabarus been divested by DFO since 1979 and, if so, (i) what asset, (ii) when did divestiture take place, (iii) to whom, (iv) by what process, regulations or Act of Parliament was it allowed, specifying all reference numbers, titles of agreements and details of maps, or other such relevant documents concerning the transfer; (e) since 1979 have there been efforts by DFO to divest itself of properties, structures, assets or facilities, specifically the Gabarus Seawall in Gabarus that have been unsuccessful and, if so, (i) what asset, (ii) when, (iii) to whom were such offers made; (f) when did the harbour in Gabarus come under the administration of DFO's Small Craft Harbours Program; (g) when was the determination made under the Small Craft Harbours Program to designate Gabarus Harbour as a non-core fishing harbour; (h) what criteria were used to make this determination; (i) what were the criteria that would have applied on January 1, 2001 to qualify a harbour for either core or non-core status under DFO's Small Craft Harbours program and (i) were these criteria applied nationally, (ii) were they applied uniformly, (iii) were variations allowed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or harbour to harbour and, (iv) if so, what were the justifications for such variations; (j) was there any process provided for appeal of DFO's assignment of non-core status to a harbour; (k) was there any formal or informal provision included in the DFO Small Craft Harbours divestiture program allowing for a reconsideration of harbour status, if relevant harbour activities changed over time; (l) was one of the specific criteria applied to Gabarus Harbour for purposes of determining its designation as a non-core fishing harbour the measurement of metre length at waterline of all commercial fishing boats that use Gabarus Harbour and, if so, (i) on what date(s) were these measurements or assessments taken, (ii) by what federal department(s), (iii) what statistics are recorded as a result of these measurements; (m) beyond those members of the Gabarus community with commercial fishing interests in the local harbour, did DFO inform the broader community of Gabarus in regard to planned divestiture actions before its divestiture of the former government wharf to the Gabarus Harbour Association in 2001; (n) what properties were transferred by DFO to the Gabarus Harbour Association and what were the terms of this divestiture; (o) what harbours in Nova Scotia determined by DFO as not being qualified to retain core harbour status chose to establish multi-harbour affiliations under a single harbour authority and, if any, (i) where are the harbours located that took advantage of this provision, (ii) what are the harbour authorities under which they operate, (iii) on what dates(s) did they begin operation in this capacity; and (p) did DFO, within the context of their Small Craft Harbours program, offer all harbours determined not to qualify for core status individually an opportunity to form a multi-harbour cooperative operating agreement under a single harbour authority in order to retain core-harbour status?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-03-18 15:29
Expand

Question No. 1137--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian embassy in Ireland: (a) what guests visited the embassy and met with the Ambassador, between December 1, 2010, and December 1, 2012, including the (i) home address of each visitor, (ii) date of the visit, (iii) purpose of the visit; and (b) what entertainment or hospitality expenses were incurred for each visit?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the mandate of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada is to manage Canada’s diplomatic and consular relations and to encourage the country’s international trade. This includes ensuring that Canada’s foreign policy reflects Canadian values; advancing Canada’s national interests; strengthening rules-based trading arrangements and expanding free and fair market access at bilateral, regional and global levels; and working with a broad range of partners inside and outside government to increase economic opportunities and enhance security for Canadians and Canadian businesses.
The Embassy of Canada to Ireland, under the leadership of the ambassador, seeks to advance these priorities by representing Canada’s interests in Ireland. Indeed, as stated on the embassy’s website: “In recent years, shared values and interests have provided the basis for a further strengthening of the Canada-Ireland relationship, particularly in meeting the challenges of domestic and global governance. There is a growing dialogue and increased co-operation and sharing of ‘best practices’ on development assistance, education, parliamentary reform, health care, and in other social and economic policies.”
With regard to part (a), on any given day, the ambassador will meet both formally and informally with a number of individuals including, but not limited to, private or official Government of Canada business, academic or trade delegations, diplomatic counterparts, tourists, or Canadians seeking consular assistance. Thus, these visits are not formally tracked to the level of detail requested. It is also important to note that the names and home addresses of guests, and possibly the purpose of their visit to the embassy, are considered personal information and is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act.
With regard to (b), as part of regular reporting requirements, a list of travel and hospitality expenses for the Embassy of Canada in Ireland can be found on the department’s website: http://w03.international.gc.ca/dthe-dfva/Year-Annee.aspx?lang=eng&dept=FAAE&prof_id=457

Question No. 1144--
Mr. Ted Hsu:
With regard to Correctional Services Canada: (a) how many inmates can currently be accommodated at the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC) in Kingston; (b) how many inmates are expected to be accommodated in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (c) how many inmates are expected to be accommodated in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (d) how many beds are currently at the RTC in Kingston and how are they broken down in terms of single occupancy units, double occupancy units, and multiple occupancy units; (e) how many beds are expected to be available in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution and how are they broken down in terms of single occupancy units, double occupancy units, and multiple occupancy units; (f) how many beds are expected to be available in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution and how are they broken down in terms of single occupancy units, double occupancy units, and multiple occupancy units; (g) how many locked pharmacies are currently established at the RTC in Kingston; (h) how many locked pharmacies are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (i) how many locked pharmacies are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (j) how many common rooms are currently at the RTC in Kingston; (k) how many common rooms are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (l) how many common rooms are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (m) how many private interview spaces are currently at the RTC in Kingston; (n) how many private interview spaces are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (o) how many private interview spaces are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (p) how many cubicles are currently at the RTC in Kingston; (q) how many cubicles are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Bath Institution; (r) how many cubicles are expected to be set up in the psychiatric facility to be established at Milhaven Institution; (s) given that corrections officers at RTC received instruction from clinical staff to ensure that they would be able to work safely and effectively with inmates with psychiatric illness, will the officers at Bath and Milhaven receive similar instruction; and (t) how many officers from RTC will be directly transferred to work exclusively at the new RTC at Bath or Millhaven?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the current Regional Treatment Centre, RTC, can accommodate 143 inmates, plus five more in observation cells if required. As of January 24, 2013, there were 121 inmates at the RTC.
With regard to (b), 96 inmates are expected to be accommodated in the new RTC at Bath Institution.
With regard to (c), 26 inmates are expected to be accommodated in the new RTC at Millhaven Institution.
With regard to (d), there are 143 beds at the current RTC; all are in single cells. As of January 24, 2013, there were 121 inmates at the RTC.
With regard to (e), there will be 96 beds at the new RTC at Bath Institution, all single cells.
With regard to (f), there will be 26 beds at the new RTC at Millhaven Institution, all single cells.
With regard to (g), there is one pharmacy and five locked medication dispensaries at the current RTC.
With regard to (h), there will be no pharmacy at the new RTC at Bath Institution; however, there will be a locked medication dispensary.
With regard to (i), there will be no pharmacy at the new RTC at Millhaven Institution; however, there will be a locked medication dispensary.
With regard to (j), there are eight common rooms at the current RTC.
With regard to (k), there will be four common rooms in the new RTC at Bath Institution to accommodate eight ranges of offenders.
With regard to (l), there will be no common rooms for the new RTC at Millhaven Institution; however there will be space available within the institution as required.
With regard to (m), it is difficult to specify the exact number at the current RTC, as offices are often used for the purpose of private interviews.
With regard to (n), there will be four multi-purpose rooms to be used for private interview rooms at the new RTC at Bath Institution as part of the new general purpose building specific to the treatment centre needs.
With regard to (o), there will be a sharing of current private interview space at Millhaven Institution that will be available for both Millhaven and RTC staff.
With regard to (p), there are currently no cubicles at the current RTC.
With regard to (q), there will be 16 cubicles for staff at the new RTC at Bath Institution.
With regard to (r), there will not be any specific cubicles for staff at the new RTC at Millhaven Institution.
With regard to (s), correctional officers at the new RTCs, at both Bath and Millhaven Institutions, will receive the exact same instruction on working with inmates with psychiatric illness.
With regard to (t), the correctional officer deployment standards for both sites have not yet been finalized.

Question No. 1152--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s answering of Order Paper questions: (a) how many times last year did the government estimate the cost of answering an Order Paper question, and as a result of the cost, did not provide an answer to the Order Paper question; (b) for each instance identified in (a), (i) what was the question, (ii) who did the analysis, (iii) how much time did it take to do the analysis, (iv) how was the estimate calculated; (c) for each instance identified in (a), (i) were consultants hired, (ii) if so, what was their hourly rate; (d) for each instance identified in (a), if consultants were not hired, was providing answers to Order Paper questions part of the regular job duties of the individual(s) involved in preparing the answer; (e) how many times last year did government Members ask for an estimate of the cost to answer an opposition Member’s Order Paper question; and (f) for each instance identified in (e), (i) what was the question, (ii) who did the analysis, (iii) how much time did it take to do the analysis, (iv) how was the estimate calculated?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC:
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), during this Parliament the Government of Canada has answered over 1,100 order paper questions, which, combined, contained several thousand subquestions, and it would require an extensive manual search to determine the number of times when the government could not fully answer a question.
Government organizations assigned to produce responses to order paper questions must first assess whether the information requested is available and can be obtained from information systems or other types of sources. Organizations also take into account the deadline for producing the response to a particular order paper question--i.e., in almost all cases, order paper questions call for a response within 45 calendar days as specified under Standing Order 39 of the House of Commons. If no relevant and reliable information is found, the government will respond that it cannot answer. Where the research would require significant organizational resources and an extensive manual search of paper files, an organization may respond that it cannot answer the question in the time available. In these cases, the government response usually provides a reason. The estimated cost of producing the response is not the determining factor, and there is no specified limit on the cost of producing a government response. The estimated cost of a response is calculated based primarily on the time spent researching and drafting the government response.
With regard to (c) and (d), government responses to order paper questions are usually researched and drafted by officials within the organization who have expertise in the subject matter of the question. The Privy Council Office does not track the use of consultants to produce government responses.
With regard to (e), to date during the 41st Parliament, the member for Fort McMurray--Athabasca has placed three questions on the order paper requesting the estimated cost for producing government responses to a range of order paper questions.
With regard to (f)(i), the three questions were as follows:
Q-385 — December 12, 2011—For questions Q-1 through Q-376 on the order paper, what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question? Q-512 — March 8, 2012—With regard to questions Q-386 through Q-509 on the order paper, (a) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question? Q-901 — September 24, 2012—With regard to questions Q-513 through Q-818 on the order paper: (a) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?
With regard to (f)(ii), each organization estimated the cost of producing its response to the order paper questions listed in Q-385, Q-512 and Q-901.
The Privy Council Office compiled the cost estimates provided by each organization to produce the government responses to Q-385, Q-512 and Q-901.
With regard to (f)(iii), it took the Privy Council Office approximately 37.5 hours to compile the cost estimates reported in the response to Q-512 and 94.5 hours to compile the cost estimates reported in the response to Q-901. This information was not compiled for the response to Q-385.
With regard to (f)(iv), organizations use the following guideline to estimate the costs of producing government responses: the total number of hours spent by officials, generally subject-matter experts, who researched, drafted, reviewed and approved a response and the related Statement of Completeness, not including coordination activities by departmental Parliamentary Affairs staff or review by ministers’ offices; and the cost of translating the response into the second official language for tabling in the House of Commons.
The estimated salary cost of producing a government response is based on 80% of an analyst position with a PM-06 mid-range annual salary, salary cost of $89,000, plus 20% of an executive’s time with an EX-01 mid-range annual salary, salary cost of $26,880, for a total estimated annual salary of $116,160, or $60.00 per hour. These salary costs include the 20% cost of employee pension and benefits.
The total cost of producing government responses to the 624 order paper questions listed in Q-385, Q-512 and Q-901 is $2,892,744.65.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2013-03-18 15:30
Expand

Question No. 1113--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to government announcements on or around November 23, 2012, in relation to changes to the travel.gc.ca website: (a) what were the total travel and accomodation costs associated with the announcements or related meetings and events for all individuals who participated, including those of staff members or other government employees; (b) other than travel and accomodation costs, what were all other costs for (i) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario in Ottawa, (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Calgary, (iii) the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs) in Toronto, (iv) the Minister of Natural Resources in Montreal, (v) any other Minister or Parliamentary Secretary; and (c) other than travel and accomodation costs, what were all the costs for persons named in (i) through (v) in any other locations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1122--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With respect to government buildings in the National Capital Region; (a) what are the buildings in which federal employees work, specifying the municipal address; and (b) what is the number of indeterminate federal employees and of term federal employees who work in each of those buildings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1129--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to the government’s Strategic and Operating Review, broken down by department: (a) what are every initiative that saves money by transferring employees from one physical location to another and for each such initiative, what is the (i) the task or function performed by the employee, (ii) the number of employees being transferred; (b) for each of these positions, what is the: (i) the position’s current classification, (ii) the anticipated pay classification after the transfer; (c) what is the current of location of jobs; (d) what is the new location of jobs; (e) what are the expected savings; and (f) what are the expected costs to complete transfer of positions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1130--
Hon. John McCallum:
Since January 1, 2006, what are the particulars, including the nature of any claim or legal action, amount, date of payment, and government official to whom the payment was made, of all legal fees paid in accordance with (i) section 8.6.1 of the Policies for Ministers Offices, (ii) section 6.1.14 of the Policy on Legal Assistance and indemnification, (iii) predecessor provisions to either of these two sections?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1131--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to government communications: (a) for each press release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by any government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, since September 21, 2012, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject-matter; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed (i) on the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using that service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1135--
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine :
With regard to the Government Employees Compensation Act and the financial compensation provided to injured reservists by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces between 2006 and 2012: (a) how many Canadian Forces reservists were injured during service between 2006 and 2012, sorted by year and province; (b) how many Canadian Forces reservists injured during service were medically released between 2006 and 2012; (c) how many Canadian Forces reservists injured during service had their injuries declared to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) by the Canadian Forces between 2006 and 2012, sorted by year and province; (d) how many declarations of injury during service for Canadian Forces reservists were made to provincial workers’ compensation authorities by HRSDC between 2006 and 2012; and (e) of those who were medically released between 2006 and 2012, how many are receiving a disability pension?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1139--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade officials who work in the department and who met with Mr. Loyola Sullivan of Ocean Choice International between June 1, 2011, and May 10, 2012: (a) what are the names of the officials, broken down by (i) deputy ministers, (ii) associate deputy ministers, (iii) senior assistant deputy ministers, (iv) assistant deputy ministers, (v) directors, (vi) managers; (b) what is the functioning title of the officials in (a); and (c) what were the (i) date of the meetings, (ii) location of the meetings, (iii) topics discussed, (iv) details of any briefing notes or materials prepared or used for the meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1140--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to federal grants and contributions, what were the amounts paid out in the riding of Avalon between April 1, 2011, and December 10, 2012, broken down by the (i) identity and address of each recipient, (ii) start date for the funding, (iii) end date for the funding, (iv) amount allocated, (v) name of the program under which the funding was allocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1141--
Hon. John McKay
With regard to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy: (a) what are the details of the winning bids submitted by Seaspan and Irving Shipbuilding; (b) why were the winning bids not asked to submit cost estimates for any of the vessels; (c) where did the government’s original $33 billion estimate come from and how was it calculated; (d) have cost estimates been discussed with the winning bidders subsequent to the awarding of the contracts; (e) which companies, if any, has the government contacted or been contacted by, regarding contracts relating to the winning bids; (f) does the government have any other cost estimates produced by either a government department or independent source regarding the winning bids; (g) with respect to the Seaspan bid, is $2.6 billion the only cost estimate that the government is in possession of; (h) with respect to the Irving bid, is $3.1 billion the only cost estimate that the government is in possession of; (i) with respect to the Armed Arctic Patrol vessels, what is the operational and service cost estimate for both the Arctic Patrol Ships and Replenishment ships and over what period of time; (j) has the government created an estimate of the operational and sustainment costs for a period greater than a 25 year lifespan for the vessels; (k) does the Navy currently have adequate personnel to man and operate the ships once they enter service without compromising current operational capabilities and readiness; (l) by what date does the government expect to take delivery of the first Arctic Patrol Ship and the first Replenishment Ship; and (m) by what date does the government expect to take delivery of the full fleet of both the Arctic Patrol Ships and Replenishment Ships?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1142--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy for combat ships (destroyers and frigates, as per the Canada First Defence Strategy which states that Canada will be procuring 15 combat ships): (a) to date, what bids has the government received; (b) what is the government’s current cost estimate to procure the 15 combat ships and does the government still plan on procuring 15 of these ships; (c) is the government in possession of any other cost estimates for combat ships, other than the ones they have made public; (d) will the bidders for the combat ships be asked to submit cost estimates; and (e) what are the estimated costs for the combat ships?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1143--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the procurement of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): (a) how much money has the government spent on project development; (b) how much money has the government spent on communications material including, but not limited to, (i) website services, (ii) printed material, (iii) media releases, (iv) staff and consultants, (v) other advertising material; (c) how many press conferences or announcements involving either a Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or member of the government have been (i) held, (ii) where were they held, (iii) at what cost; and (d) what is the cost of travel for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to and from announcements regarding the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1149--
Mr. Kennedy Stewart:
With regard to the emigration of skilled Canadian workers: (a) how does the government measure the emigration of Canadian workers skilled in fields related to science and technology; (b) how does the government measure the number of Canadian-educated post-graduates in fields related to science and technology that take up employment outside of Canada; (c) what programs are in place to retain Canadian-educated post-graduates in fields related to science and technology and how is the effectiveness of these programs measured and publicly reported; (d) what measures are used to support government claims that the “brain drain” in science and technology fields is being reversed; (e) what consultation has taken place within the past year with those in the science and technology communities to address concerns about emigration of skilled Canadian workers; (f) how many research labs and facilities undertaking basic research are currently receiving tri-council funding; and (g) how many facilities currently receiving tri-council funding, barring the application and approval for new sources of tri-council funding, will no longer be receiving any tri-council funding once their current term for existing grants has expired?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1150--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System on the Canadian Pacific Railway line in the City of Windsor, Ontario: (a) how much money has this unit cost Canadian taxpayers to date; (b) how many inspections have taken place annually since it began operating; and (c) how many inspections have led to detainment, charges and convictions in each of those years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1153--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s answering of access to information requests: (a) how many times last year did the government fail to answer an access to information request within (i) 45 days, (ii) 90 days, (iii) 135 days, (iv) 180 days, (v) 225 days, (vi) 270-plus days; and (b) for each question which took over 180 days to answer as identified in (a)(iv), (a)(v) and (a)(vi), (i) what was the question, (ii) how much time did it take to provide an answer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1154--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to medications used in federal prisons: (a) what prescription drugs are listed on the national drug formulary for Canadian federal prisons; (b) how frequently are each of the drugs on this national formulary prescribed to prisoners; and (c) how many prisoners were prescribed the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel (Quetiapine)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1155--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the Process Working Group (PWG) (formerly the Consultative Steering Committee) for the government’s greenhouse gas regulation development for the oil and gas sector: (a) is the PWG still in operation and, if not, when did it cease to operate; (b) what is/was the membership of the PWG, including the name and the affiliation of each member; (c) what specific framework elements of a regulatory approach are/were being considered; (d) what principles under which the performance standards will be developed are/were being considered; (e) what scope and stringency of the performance standards are/were being considered; (f) what compliance mechanisms are/were being considered; (g) what architectural approaches in the development of sub-sector performance standards are/were being considered; (h) is/was carbon pricing being considered and, if so, what are/were the specific considerations; (i) how many meetings have taken place to date and for each meeting, (i) what was the date, (ii) who was in attendance, (iii) where did the meeting occur, (iv) what was the agenda; (j) when will oil and gas sector greenhouse gas regulations be ready to publish in Canada Gazette 1, and why were they delayed from the end of 2012; and (k) when (month and year) are oil and gas regulations scheduled to come into force?
Response
(Return tabled)
Collapse
8555-411-1113 Government announcements8555-411-1122 Government buildings8555-411-1129 Strategic and Operating Review8555-411-1130 Legal fees8555-411-1131 Government communications8555-411-1135 Government Employees Compe ...8555-411-1139 Department of Foreign Affa ...8555-411-1140 Federal grants and contrib ...8555-411-1141 National Shipbuilding Proc ...8555-411-1142 National Shipbuilding Proc ...8555-411-1143 Joint Strike Fighter ...Show all topics
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 1115--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to Employment Insurance, since January 1, 2008: (a) has any department conducted (i) any job market study to determine the impact on the availability of skilled workers for seasonally-dependent industries as a result of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act, (ii) any feasibility study on the workload that will be required by each member of the new Tribunal; and (b) if so, what are the titles and file numbers of any such studies?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), as with any policy change, analysis is prepared as part of the cabinet decision-making process. These records are considered cabinet confidences. This is in addition to consultations conducted by the minister and parliamentary secretary. The overall effectiveness of employment insurance income benefits and active employment measures are assessed in the Canada Employment Insurance Commission’s employment insurance monitoring and assessment report, which is tabled annually in Parliament. As with any other EI measures, HRSDC will evaluate the connecting Canadians with available jobs initiative, introduced as part of Canada’s economic action plan 2012, and results will be reported in the monitoring and assessment report.
With regard to (a)(ii), it is projected that the social security tribunal, general division, employment insurance section, will be required to hear approximately 22,000 appeals each year and that the appeals division will be required to hear approximately 1,800 employment insurance-related appeals.
An approved HRSDC approach for human resources determination was used to arrive at the number of members required. This methodology takes into consideration the projected annual volume, as noted above; current caseloads and outputs by part-time member panels; working days in a year for a full-time member; and a productivity factor that allows for non-productive time for professional development, leave and other activities.
With regard to (b), as per the responses to (a)(i) and (a)(ii), this is not applicable.

Question No. 1120--
Ms. Manon Perreault:
With regard to funding from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada for disability organizations: (a) which programs have had criteria changes for applications over the past few years; (b) how many applications were received; and (c) how many accepted?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the disability component of the social development partnerships program, SDPP-D, supports projects intended to improve the participation and integration of people with disabilities in all aspects of Canadian society. More specifically, the program supports not-for-profit organizations across Canada in tackling barriers faced by people with disabilities with respect to social inclusion.
When the terms and conditions of the program were updated in 2010, a change was made to the category of eligible organizations to include registered charities and social enterprises as not-for-profit organizations.
The SDPP-D is currently being transformed by moving towards a more competitive model with leveraging requirements. The current recipients of directed grants and community inclusion initiative funding, which is $8 million of the total $11 million in SDPP-D funding, will see the funding move to a competitive funding model over the next three years. The government will continue to invest in Canadians with disabilities to support their full participation in Canadian society. These changes are being made to ensure that every taxpayer dollar has the greatest positive effect for Canadians with disabilities. The amount of funding available through SDPP-D remains the same at $11 million annually, but the funds currently awarded on a non-competitive basis will be awarded mainly on a competitive basis. To assist current recipients of directed grants and community inclusion funding, the government has launched a competitive and merit-based call for proposals targeting these organizations to help them implement transitional measures to enable them to adapt to a competitive funding environment. The call for proposals, CFP, will provide funding over two years.
With regard to (b) and the SDPP-D program, since 2011 there have been two open calls for proposals. In the first call in 2011, 47 applications were received; in the second call in 2012, 391 applications were received. The department does not have detailed information on the number of applications that were received prior to 2010. In targeted calls for proposals for transition measures, the applicants have until March 21, 2013, to submit their proposals; 3,810 applications were received.
With regard to (c), exclusive of the 14 community inclusion initiative recipients and the 18 national disability organizations that received directed annual funding since 2006–2007 prior to the change announced in 2011, 125 projects received funding between 2006–2007 and 2011–2012.
With regard to the 2012 call for proposals, the assessment of the applications for the 2012 competitive CFP is in process; therefore, the number accepted for approval is not available at this time. With regard to the targeted call for proposals for transition measures, the applicants have until March 21, 2013, to submit their proposals; 2,395 applications were accepted.

Question No. 1124--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' Policy for Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada's Atlantic Fisheries (PIIFCAF): (a) does the government agree with this policy's statement that the strength of the independence of the inshore fleet is achieved through the termination of controlling agreements; (b) does the government have plans to amend or terminante the PIIFCAF and when will the amendments or termination take place; (c) is the government committed to the independence of the inshore fleet; and (d) does the government plan to maintain the controlling agreements beyond their March 2014 deadline?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the policy on the preservation of the independence of the inshore fleet in Canada’s Atlantic fisheries, or PIIFCAF, was introduced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, on April 12, 2007, after extensive consultations with stakeholders. This policy aims to strengthen the owner-operator and fleet separation policies by addressing issues concerning controlling agreements and ensuring that those who are licence holders are the ones making important decisions regarding their fishing licence and any quotas attached to it. The implementation of the PIIFCAF is a step taken by DFO to ensure that inshore fishermen remain accountable to any decision with regard to the licence.
With regard to (b), the policy on the preservation of the independence of the inshore fleet in Canada’s Atlantic fisheries, PIIFCAF, was put in place to eliminate controlling agreements by April 12, 2014. This deadline was established to allow sufficient time for those in controlling agreements to make alternative arrangements for accessing capital and to terminate or replace their existing controlling agreements. In order to facilitate this, DFO has developed tools that focus on helping fishers to improve access to capital, i.e., notice and acknowledgement system, DFO’s response to the Saulnier decision. These tools provide fish harvesters with options that support their independence. The PIIFCAF policy and deadlines are still in place.
With regard to (c), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has announced on September 21, 2012, that the fleet separation and owner-operator policies will remain intact in the Atlantic Canada inshore fisheries.
With regard to (d), as per the PIIFCAF policy, where an inshore licence holder declared that on April 12, 2007, he or she was a party to a controlling agreement, the licence holder has until April 12, 2014, to either terminate the controlling agreement or amend the agreement to bring it into compliance with the PIIFCAF Policy in order to be eligible to continue to hold the licence beyond this date.

Question No. 1125--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to Bill C-463, Discover Your Canada Act, has the Department of Finance or any other department conducted a costing analysis of the bill and, if so, what are the results of this costing analysis?
Response
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance has conducted a costing analysis of Bill C-463. Based on Statistics Canada data on existing travel patterns in Canada, it is estimated that the cost of the measure proposed in Bill C-463 would be about $215 million in 2017, the year in which the proposed travel deduction would come into effect. It is unclear to what degree the proposal would induce individuals to travel more or change their travel plans, but any increase in eligible travel would increase this cost.
We are not aware of any costing done by other government departments.

Question No. 1126--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band and the contracted engagement of Mr. Fred Caron by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: (a) what does this contract say; (b) what are the terms of reference associated with this contract; (c) what are the objectives and the intended consequences arising from work conducted through this contract; (d) what is contained within the approved workplan for the conduct of this contract; (e) on what date did Fred Caron sign this contract; (f) on what date did the contracting authority of the government sign this contract; (g) how long is the engagement anticipated to last; (h) what is the contractor's rate of pay; (i) how much money has been budgeted for his remuneration; (j) how much money has been budgeted for expenses including support services and has any specific mandate been given to this contractor to consult on potential chances to the 2007 Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Agreement-in-Principle which was ratified and brought into effect on September 26, 2011?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the contract contains standard general and supplementary conditions; provisions regarding the terms of payment; a statement of work; appendices regarding intellectual property and travel expense Information; and an annex regarding security requirements.
With regard to (b), the contractor is to perform the following core roles to the satisfaction of the departmental representative: lead specific interventions and federal consultations with third parties when issues arise; provide strategic advice; attend engagement activity meetings; resolve deal-breaker issues within mandate; and act as the federal spokesperson for enquiries from the media, when so mandated.
With regard to (c), the contract’s stated objective is to engage with the Chief and Council of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation to amend the agreement for the recognition or, if necessary, negotiate a new agreement; to tighten the current enrolment process; and to adopt a new process and criteria in light of the surge in the number of applications for membership and the concerns regarding how the criteria have been applied.
With regard to (d), the outputs and deliverables of the contract include the following: barring circumstances beyond the control of the parties to the agreement, delivery of amendments to the Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq Band, or the conclusion of a new agreement, addressing Canada’s concerns with respect to the enrolment process; submission of short written reports on activities, meetings, briefings, media interviews and inquiries from key stakeholders, upon request; provision of proposed key accomplishments and plans for the next month in the written monthly activity report, upon request; provision of monthly invoices; and completion and submission of a Federal Negotiator or Representative Performance Report--Part 1, Contractor’s Self-Evaluation on Results to Date, as part of the Annual review of negotiation tables process, upon request.
With regard to (e), Mr. Fred Caron signed the contract on December 3, 2012.
With regard to (f), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada signed the contract on December 3, 2012.
With regard to (g), the contract is in effect to March 31, 2013. With regard to (h), (i) and (j), all contracts are subject to the application of the Treasury Board contracting policy.
For information on the mandate, members may refer to (c) above.

Question No. 1128--
Hon. Gerry Byrne:
With regard to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band and the enrollment process of individual applicants into the Band that were received by the Enrollment Committee of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band prior to the November 30, 2012, deadline for such submissions: (a) what provisions have been made for the consideration of any such applications after the Enrollment Committee's mandate expires as per the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Agreement; and (b) does Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada intend that all such applications will be assessed by federal representatives on the Enrollment Committee in the same manner and using the same precedents for decision-making as those applications for enrollment that were received by the Enrollment Committee prior to December 31, 2009?
Response
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the agreement provided for the enrolment committee to cease reviewing applications at the end of December 2012. Owing to the initial objectives of the agreement, the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians have agreed to work together to discuss next steps regarding the consideration of applications and the appropriate implementation of the Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq Band. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has asked Mr. Fred Caron to work with the leadership of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation on an approach to address the situation.
With regard to (b), the assessment of applications after the end of December 2012 will be guided by the outcome of the ongoing discussions between the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians.

Question No. 1136--
Mr. Yvon Godin:
With regard to the decision to make all members of the Canadian fishing industry responsible for obtaining and paying for any gear tags or tabs used in commercial fisheries, which will begin after March 31, 2013: (a) prior to this decision, what was the cost per tag or tab (i) for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), (ii) for a harvester; (b) after this decision, what will be the cost per tag or tab (i) for DFO, (ii) for a harvester; (c) how much will DFO save as a result of this decision; (d) what are the advantages and disadvantages of this decision; (e) how many studies did DFO conduct in this regard, (i) what are their titles, (ii) where are they are available; and (f) how many consultations took place prior to this decision and with whom?
Response
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), prior to the decision to make industry responsible for paying for gear tags in commercial fisheries, with the exception of tuna tags, the cost to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, per tag in the Atlantic lobster and crab fisheries ranged from 12¢ to 15 ¢, for a total of $518,000 per year for purchase and shipping. This is the cost DFO paid for each tag, shipped to a harvester where that applied, and does not include salary or administrative costs incurred by the department to manage the program. DFO also supplied vessel validation and gillnet tabs in the Pacific region, at an average per unit cost of $3.19.
With regard to (b), after March 31, 2013, there will be no cost to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for tags or validation tabs. There will be no cost to Pacific harvesters, as validation tabs are being eliminated. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not been provided prices for tag suppliers, as pricing arrangements are negotiated between tag manufacturers, tag suppliers and harvesters and constitute business arrangements to which the department is not privy.
With regard to (c), as a result of the decision, DFO projects savings of approximately $518,000 per year for the purchase and shipping of tags.
With regard to (d), the advantages of this decision are that it saves taxpayers approximately $500,000 in fisheries management costs and it will also ensure that all harvesters are treated equally in accordance with DFO’s position that industry should pay for the fishing gear conservation requirements for the fishery from which it benefits and that business participants should be responsible for supplying the equipment needed to carry out their business. The decision also reduces the administrative burden on Pacific fish harvesters by removing the requirement to obtain and display validation tabs. The department has not identified any disadvantages of this decision.
With regard to (e), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertook two studies on tagging that were incorporated in the regulatory impact analysis that was published on November 10, 2012, in the Canada Gazette, part I. These unpublished studies were titled “The Way Forward for Fishing Tags and Logbooks” and “Cost-Benefit Analysis: Regulations amending the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations, 1985 and the Pacific Fishery Regulations, 1993 to remove requirements for the departmental issuance of fishing tags and validation tabs”. These studies are available on request from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
With regard to (f), there were no consultations with industry prior to this decision; however, meetings did take place with industry representatives following the decision to discuss whether tags were needed for various fisheries and what kind of system industry could put in place to supply tags that meet specific management requirements.

Question No. 1138--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and officials who worked in the Minister's office between May 8, 2010, and December 1, 2012, for all meetings concerning any aspect of the Muskrat Falls project, (i) what are the names and titles or positions of all officials who held or attended each meeting, (ii) who were the other attendees at each meeting, (iii) what were the dates of each meeting, (iv) what were the locations of each meeting, (v) what were the topics discussed at each meeting?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office has no records related to this request.

Question No. 1146--
Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle:
With regard to implementation of Division 54 of Part IV of An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures (formerly Bill C-38), which amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (a) of the 280,000 permanent residency applications made before February 27, 2008, and whose processing will be cancelled, how many were made by applicants (i) for whom French is the language spoken at home, (ii) who speak French at home, (iii) who speak French fluently; and (b) in which receiving province or region were these residency applications placed?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is concerned, with regard to (a), CIC systems do not capture the categories (i) “for whom French is the language spoken at home”, (ii) “who speak French at home” or (iii) “who speak French fluently”.
With regard to (b), the vast majority of federal skilled worker, or FSW, applications are not placed in a province but rather the appropriate visa office overseas. Only 15 applications representing 50 individuals placed their applications in Canada, at CPP in Ottawa. Please note that the FSW category does not include applicants who intend on residing in Quebec. These applications are submitted into the Quebec skilled worker category, which was not affected by measures contained in Bill C-38.

Question No. 1148--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to the response provided by the Minister of International Cooperation to written question Q-972 on the Order Paper in which the Minister states that: “The Financial Risk Assessment Unit uses a risk-based approach to monitor the financial viability of entities in receipt of CIDA funding prior to entering into an agreement and during the life-cycle of the CIDA project. Mitigation actions are immediately put in place if a recipient is under legal protection from creditors.”: (a) what are all the “mitigation actions” referred to in the response; and (b) were the “mitigation actions” put in place when the entity referred to Minister's response to Q-972 was under legal protection and, if so, what were all the “mitigation actions” taken by the Canadian International Development Agency in specific cases involving the entity referred to in the Minister's response to Q-972?
Response
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), mitigation actions and measures taken to protect the interests of the Crown when an organization in receipt of the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, funding is under legal protection from creditors include conducting an internal, or contracting an external, review and assessment of potential program, legal, fiduciary and political/reputational risks that may arise; alerting the recipient country ministry or partner institution of potential project impacts; reviewing the contractual and performance terms and conditions of the agreement or agreements signed; based on t