Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 109
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2478--
Mr. Brad Trost:
With regard to the total number of registered guns and licensed gun owners for each year since 2001: (a) how many Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) holders have been charged with homicide; (b) how many registered firearms were used in a homicide; and (c) how many PAL holders have been charged with using a registered firearm to commit homicide?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, RCMP systems do not capture the requested information at the level of detail requested. As a result, the information requested cannot be obtained without an extensive manual review of files. This manual review could not be completed within the established time frame.

Question No. 2479--
Mr. Brad Trost:
With regard to the total number of guns reported stolen for each year since 2001: (a) how many were registered; (b) how many were stolen from licensed gun owners; (c) how many were stolen from licensed gun dealers; and (d) of those guns stolen from licensed gun owners and dealers, how many were used in the commission of a violent offence?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, illegal or stolen handguns seized or found at crime scenes are deemed to be in the custody of the police force of jurisdiction, and kept for evidentiary purposes. Processes and/or policies may differ from one agency to another, as well as reporting requirements. Currently, there is no national repository for this type of information in Canada.
The Canadian firearms program, CFP, is a national program within the RCMP. It administers the Firearms Act and regulations, provides support to law enforcement and promotes firearms safety.
The CFP does not collect or track statistics with regard to the origin of illegal or stolen handguns.

Question No. 2481--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the impact of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, on Alberta’s economy: did the government conduct an economic analysis of the impact of Bill C-69 on Alberta’s oil and gas sector and, if so, who conducted the analysis and what were the results?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, the government has made it clear that economic prosperity and environmental protection must go hand in hand. It has also been clear that it is a core responsibility of the federal government to help get Canada’s natural resources to market. The decision in 2012 to gut environmental laws eroded public trust, put Canada’s environment and economy at risk, and made it harder, not easier, for good projects to go ahead. These changes led to polarization and paralysis.
Bill C-69 was introduced to restore public confidence by better protecting the environment, fish and waterways, while also respecting indigenous rights. In addition, it would provide greater certainty to proponents, leading to the creation of good, middle-class jobs and enhancing economic opportunities.
Canada’s investment climate remains robust. According to the most recent “Major Projects Planned or Under Construction” report, there are 418 projects, worth some $585 billion, already under construction or planned over the next 10 years. This reflects Canada’s position as a destination of choice for resource investors.
Significantly, new projects have continued to come forward in all sectors since Bill C-69 was tabled in 2017, reflecting the continued confidence of the investment community.
In developing this legislation, the government undertook extensive consultations with Canadians. The bill reflects the feedback and advice from a broad range of stakeholders, including investors and project proponents, who indicated that they wanted a clear, predictable and timely project review process.
In addition, Natural Resources Canada routinely monitors market, financial and economic indicators to gauge the competitiveness of Canada’s oil and gas sector. These data inform all of the government’s policy decisions.

Question No. 2482--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the Trans-Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project: (a) when is construction expected to resume on the pipeline; and (b) when will the expansion project be completed?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain Corporation is expected to update, publish and submit for regulatory consideration a revised construction schedule for the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, if approved. The Department of Finance anticipates the government will be in a position to make a decision on the proposed project on or before June 18, 2019.

Question No. 2484--
Ms. Lisa Raitt:
With regard to taxpayer-funded flights taken by David MacNaughton, Canadian Ambassador to the United States, since March 2, 2016: (a) what are the details of all flights, including (i) dates, (ii) city of origin, (iii) city of destination, (iv) cost; and (b) what is the total amount spent on flights by the Ambassador?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to parts (a) and (b), the information requested is publically disclosed at https://open.canada.ca/en/proactive-disclosure.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-06-17 16:02
Expand

Question No. 2458--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to Health Canada’s regulation of natural health products and non-prescription drugs: (a) what specific regulatory changes have been proposed or are currently under consideration by Health Canada; (b) for each proposed change, what is the stage, status, and timeline of the proposed change; and (c) is Health Canada proposing or considering bringing natural health products under direct regulation and, if so, what are the details, including timeline of such a proposal?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a), (b) and (c), natural health products have been regulated under the natural health products regulations since 2004, and Canadians now have access to more than 150,000 licensed natural health products. The government is committed to preserving access to a wide range of health products, while making sure that Canadians have the information they need on the product labels to make informed health choices. Health Canada is dedicated to being reasonable, thoughtful and deliberate in how it develops its policy proposals and how it implements any changes.
Since fall 2016, departmental officials have conducted extensive consultations with a diverse range of stakeholders to gain their perspectives and concerns on proposed changes to the natural health products regulations to improve the labelling of natural health products, and the food and drug regulations to modernize the oversight approach for non-prescription drugs. Health Canada has received input from over 4,500 consumers, industry, health care professionals, academia and many other interested stakeholders. This engagement will continue as proposals advance over the coming months to further seek stakeholders’ perspectives and collaboratively work with them on potential solutions.
With regard to the natural health products regulations, Health Canada is proposing changes to improve the labelling of natural health products to make labels easier to read and understand, help consumers make informed decisions about their health and the health of their families, and reduce avoidable harms associated with confusing or illegible labels. Under this new proposal, labels would require a standardized product facts table, a minimum font size and appropriate colour contrast. This proposal is targeting spring 2020 for pre-publication in the Canada Gazette, part I. To support this proposal and its implementation, Health Canada has been engaging stakeholders extensively and has been meeting individual companies representing tens of thousands of natural health products on the Canadian market, to identify any challenges with implementing the proposed labelling changes and working in collaboration with stakeholders to identify potential solutions. Furthermore, Health Canada will publish its proposed guidance on labelling changes in June 2019 to seek additional feedback on the proposed changes prior to formal consultation in Canada Gazette, part I.
In April 2019, Health Canada published its findings from public opinion research on improving self-care product labelling during in-person public consultations held across Canada in 2018: “Consulting Consumers on Self-Care Product Labelling: A Report on What We Heard”, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/topics/self-care-products/what-we-heard-product-labelling.html.
With regard to the food and drug regulations, Health Canada is proposing changes to modernize the oversight approach for non-prescription drugs, which range from cosmetic-like topical products to higher-risk products such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatories. This proposal would introduce simplified market access pathways for lower-risk products and reduce regulatory burden for industry. This proposal is targeting spring 2020 for pre-publication in Canada Gazette, part I.
The regulatory modernization proposals, as described above, are outlined in Health Canada’s “Forward Regulatory Plan 2019-2021”: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/legislation-guidelines/acts-regulations/forward-regulatory-plan/plan/self-care-framework.html.
More information on the proposed regulatory changes and how stakeholders can get involved can be found in “Next steps on the self-care products initiative”, at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/self-care-framework.html.
Health Canada remains committed to continue to engage stakeholders throughout the regulatory modernization process.

Question No. 2469--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many Canadian businesses are investing in projects in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, broken down by year; (b) how much Canadian money is spent on projects in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, broken down by year; and (c) of the projects listed in (a), how many of these businesses are operating through, either directly or indirectly, the Canadian government?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the Department of Finance has been informed that one Canadian firm, Hatch, is providing consulting services on an AIIB-financed project. In addition, the Department of Finance understands that Canadian firms and consultants are engaged with core functions of the bank. For example, TD Securities helped manage AIIB’s first bond issuance in May 2019, among other financial services firms.
The AIIB publishes details of investors who invest alongside the AIIB in a project. This information can be found on the AIIB website in project documents of both proposed and approved projects, at the following links: https://www.aiib.org/en/projects/approved/index.html and https://www.aiib.org/en/projects/proposed/index.html.
In response to part (b), Canada purchased a 0.995% shareholding in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at a cost of $199 million U.S. This amount, which is payable over a five-year period in equal proportions, starting in 2017-18, is pooled with that of other member countries and used to finance AIIB projects over multiple years.
In response to part (c), businesses win procurement contracts independently and do not operate through the Government of Canada.

Question No. 2470--
Ms. Lisa Raitt:
With regard to the 2016 compliance agreement signed by SNC-Lavalin and Elections Canada: did Elections Canada receive any communication from the government, including from any minister’s office, about SNC-Lavalin since November 4, 2015, and, if so, what are the details of all communication, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) form (email, letter, telephone, etc.), (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has not received any communication from the government, including from any minister’s office, about the 2016 compliance agreement signed by SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, CCE.
The CCE is responsible to ensure that the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act are complied with and enforced, including the negotiation of compliance agreements. In the exercise of that role, he acts independently of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2442--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the canola crisis and the request from the Premier of Saskatchewan to increase the loan limit on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Advance Payments Program from $400,000 to $1 million: (a) why has the government not yet increased the loan limit; (b) will the government be increasing the loan limit to $1 million; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, when; and (d) if the answer to (b) is negative, why not?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, in response to (a), on May 1, 2019, the government announced that it intends to amend the agricultural marketing programs regulations to temporarily increase loan limits under the advance payments program for 2019.
In response to (b), the regulatory amendment would change the 2019 loan limits to allow for advances of up to $1 million on all commodities. The first $100,000 of the advances will remain interest-free on all commodities, except canola. Canola advances will be eligible for up to $500,000 interest-free.
In response to (c), as of May 29, canola advances are eligible for up to $400,000 in interest-free loans. Producers will be able to apply for the new amounts as early as June 10, and new advances above $400,000 will be issued as of June 26.

Question No. 2445--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the government’s advertising and promotional campaign related to the Climate Action Incentive: (a) what are the various components of the campaign (postcards, partnership with H&R Block, etc.); (b) what are the total expenditures related to the campaign; and (c) what are the details of all expenditures related to the campaign, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount; (iii) date and duration of contract, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) to which campaign components is the expenditure related?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Environment and Climate Change Canada does not have any expenditures related to Q-2445.
With regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the agency does not have any expenditures related to Q-2445.
With regard to Parks Canada, Parks Canada does not have any expenditures related to Q-2445.

Question No. 2446--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what is the complete list of infrastructure projects financed by the bank to date; and (b) for each project in (a), what are the details, including (i) amount of federal financing, (ii) location of project, (iii) scheduled completion date of project, (iv) project description?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to infrastructure projects, the Canada Infrastructure Bank invested $1.283 billion in the Réseau express métropolitain, REM, project, a 67-kilometre light rail, high-frequency network with 26 stations located in greater Montreal in the province of Québec: https://rem.info/en/reseau-express-metropolitain.
In response to (a), the infrastructure project is Réseau express métropolitain, REM.
In response to (b)(i), the amount of federal financing is $1.283 billion, in the form of a 15-year senior secured loan at a rate starting at 1% and escalating to 3% over the term of the loan. The $1.283-billion investment completes the project’s $6.3-billion financing.
In response to (b)(ii), the project location is greater Montreal.
In response to (b)(iii), with regard to the scheduled completion date of the project, the REM is the largest public transit project undertaken in Québec in the last 50 years. The first trains are expected to start running in 2021 from the South Shore to Bonaventure-Central Station.
In response to (b)(iv), with regard to project description, the REM is a new, integrated 67-kilometre public transit network intended to link downtown Montréal; the South Shore; the West Island, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue; the North Shore, Laval and Deux-Montagnes; and the airport through the operation of an entirely automated and electric light rail transit, LRT, system.

Question No. 2452--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the federal carbon tax and the Climate Action Rebate, broken down by province where the federal carbon tax is in effect: (a) what is the total amount of revenue projected to be collected from the carbon tax in each of the next five fiscal years, starting with 2019-20; and (b) what is the total amount expected to be disbursed to individuals through the Climate Action Rebate in each of the next five fiscal years, starting with 2019-20?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a plan that protects the environment while growing the economy. On October 23, 2018, the Government of Canada announced that there would be a price on carbon pollution across Canada in 2019. On the same day, the Department of Finance published a document named “Backgrounder: Ensuring Transparency”, which outlines amounts of projected fuel charge proceeds and climate action incentive payments, from 2019-20 to 2023-24. The document can be found on the Department of Finance website: https://www.fin.gc.ca/n18/data/18-097_2-eng.asp.
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-06-12 15:41
Expand

Question No. 2429--
Ms. Linda Duncan:
With regard to Canada’s Official Development Assistance (ODA): (a) what is the total ODA to gross national income (GNI) ratio arising from the 2019 budget; (b) what were Canada’s total ODA to GNI ratios for each of the last ten fiscal years; (c) what is the government’s position on delivering Canada’s outstanding commitment to deliver on the United Nations' target of 0.7% ODA to GNI; and (d) if the government is committed to delivering the 0.7% of GNI, what is the government’s timeline for delivering this commitment?
Response
Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Lib.):
In response to (a), the ratio of official development assistance, ODA, to gross national income, GNI, arising from budget 2019 is not yet available. Investments in ODA-eligible activities stemming from budget 2019 would only begin to be captured in Canada’s ODA/GNI ratio once 2019 preliminary figures are released in April 2020. In addition, budget 2019 announced commitments that may affect Canada’s ODA in the future, such as an additional $700 million in 2023-24 to the international assistance envelope. This builds upon budget 2018’s announcement of $2 billion to the international assistance envelope over a five-year period, starting in 2018-19.
The ODA/GNI ratio is calculated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, annually on a calendar year basis. Preliminary figures for the previous calendar year are usually released in April, with final figures confirmed in December. The latest preliminary OECD figures, for 2018, were released in April 2019, and Canada was identified as having an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.28% for 2018.
Canada’s 2018 preliminary ODA/GNI ratio, calculated by the Development Assistance Committee, DAC, of the OECD using a new grant equivalent methodology, was 0.28%. In 2018, the OECD-DAC began calculating ODA using a new “grant equivalent” methodology, which differs from the historical series, which was calculated on a cash basis. Canada is in the top 10 major DAC donor countries.
In response to (b), Canada’s total ODA/GNI ratios for each of the last 10 years for which final figures are available, 2008-17, are the following: for 2008, 0.33%; for 2009, 0.30%; for 2010, 0.34%; for 2011, 0.32%; for 2012, 0.32%; for 2013, 0.27%; for 2014, 0.24%; for 2015, 0.28%; for 2016, 0.26%; for 2017, 0.26%.
In response to (c) and (d), in 1970, UN member states, including Canada, agreed to UN General Assembly Resolution 2626 (XXV).

Question No. 2431--
Ms. Linda Duncan:
With regard to the Global Fund’s sixth replenishment to step up the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria: (a) is the government committing $1 billion to the Global Fund’s sixth replenishment for 2020-2022; and (b) will this funding be in addition to the total official development assistance promised in the 2018 and 2019 budgets?
Response
Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. The global effort to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria remains a priority for the Government of Canada. The Global Fund is a key partner of Canada in tackling the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The Global Fund has achieved significant results with contributions from Canada and other international donors, helping to save more than 27 million lives since 2002.
In 2016, Canada was pleased to host the Global Fund’s Fifth Replenishment Conference, where Canada’s leadership helped secure over $12 billion U.S. to support its work to end these epidemics, and where Canada pledged $804 million for the 2017-19 period, a 24% increase over the previous period, 2015-17.
Canada is collaborating with France and other donors to help ensure that the upcoming Sixth Replenishment Conference in France will also be a success. The Government of Canada is still in the process of determining the level of the next pledge and expects being able to announce this pledge in advance of the Sixth Replenishment Conference in October 2019.
The information about the source of the funding will depend on the final amount and will be made available following the announcement.

Question No. 2432--
Ms. Linda Duncan:
With regard to Canada’s commitment to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Feminist International Development Policy: (a) what portion of Canada’s official development assistance in 2019-20 will be committed to water, sanitation and hygiene as a foundation for women’s health; (b) does Canada intend to increase its investment in the global water, sanitation and hygiene sector; (c) will Canada join the 72 other countries working together to stimulate political dialogue and leadership through the Sanitation and Water for All partnership; and (d) is the Feminist International Assistance Policy now being applied to projects for global water, sanitation, and hygiene, and, if so, will there be additional funding to serve the priority needs of women and girls, and for consultation with women and girls on their needs?
Response
Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. In response to (a), funding for fiscal year 2019-20 has not yet been fully allocated at the sectoral level. For a complete listing of approved and currently operational projects related to water supply and sanitation, please refer to Project Browser: https://w05.international.gc.ca/projectbrowser-banqueprojets/?lang=eng.
In response to (b), in light of competing priorities, Canada will likely not increase its investment in the global WASH sector. However, in addition to Canada’s direct investment in water and sanitation through development assistance, Canada’s support to the delivery of maternal and child health, sexual and reproductive health services, and international humanitarian assistance often also includes the provision of WASH.
In response to (c), Canada recognizes the importance of collaboration to tackle global issues, including water supply, sanitation and hygiene. Global Affairs Canada has not participated in the Sanitation and Water for All partnership in recent years due to competing priorities and commitments. Canada will be able to reassess our ability to participate when the next Sector Ministers’ Meeting is called.
In response to (d), Canada’s feminist international assistance policy, FIAP, recognizes the importance of addressing water and sanitation issues, particularly as it relates to their disproportionate impact on women and girls. This includes investments in sustainable access to appropriate WASH systems, as well as integrated water resource management. Gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls is the core action area under the FIAP, which prioritizes gender equality for all sectors covered under the FIAP. As a result, gender equality considerations related to water and sanitation are systematically integrated into all WASH programming.
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-06-03 20:20 [p.28460]
Expand
[Member spoke in Cree as follows:]
[Cree text translated as follows:]
Mr. Speaker, to all my relations, I say hello. I am very proud to be here.
I am Robert Gauthier. I am from Red Pheasant First Nation.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am from Red Pheasant First Nation, which is a Cree community in Saskatchewan, and I am very proud of that.
I remember when I first rose in the House on December 8, 2015, for my maiden speech. I talked about child and family services because it was such an important issue to the people of Manitoba and especially the people of Winnipeg Centre. They were so upset with what was occurring in our province and in our city.
Imagine if 90,000 children in Quebec or 130,000 children in Ontario had been placed in foster care. There would have been an uprising and rioting in the streets. It would have been a huge deal if it had happened in other provinces.
This bill is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation that I believe we are going to pass, not only because it is about children and the best interests of children but also because it is about jurisdiction and giving indigenous communities control. It is important for a number of reasons. One is repairing our colonial past of residential schools, when we took away children and forcibly assimilated them into the Canadian body politic, and when we took away their languages.
I said in my maiden speech, “I think of our first prime minister, John A. Macdonald, God bless his soul, who imprisoned indigenous peoples, stole our children, and stole our languages.” I was talking about the history of this nation. That history of residential schools continued on into the 1960s, when instead of placing kids in large institutions around the country far from major urban centres, we placed them in adoption centres and sent them around the world. I meet young men and women my age who have come home to Canada who were adopted out into France or the United States. This was often called the sixties scoop.
We still have foster families today, and in Manitoba there are 11,000 kids in care, which is where the number of 90,000 comes from. If we had the same number of kids in care today as there are in Manitoba, per capita there would be 90,000 in Quebec and 130,000 in Ontario.
The child welfare system has a significant impact on real people. For example, let us look at Dwayne Gladu, who is from my riding, and his daughter Lisa.
Dwayne was placed in a foster family as a child. So was his daughter, but his daughter was placed in a foster family because her father had a mark in his file that said that he had been in foster care, which meant that he was not going to be a good parent. He was indigenous, so he was going to have problems, even though Dwayne is a man who follows what we call the “red road”. He is a good man, whom I have met many times on the powwow trail. While he may be poor, by nature he is a very good and kind person.
Lisa, Dwayne's daughter, also had a birth alert against her, and when she gave birth only a few years ago, her child was seized immediately, without giving her the opportunity of proving that she would be a good parent. She fell into despair. She no longer had access to her child. She had to prove that she would be a good parent and take parenting classes when no one else had to do that. Her only crime was having been in a foster family herself.
In her despair, she became depressed. She fell in with the wrong crowd because she was poor and living in downtown Winnipeg. She started using drugs, and eventually she died from an overdose on the streets of Winnipeg.
Dwayne still goes to visit his grandson at every opportunity. Every week he is there with his grandson, enjoying their time together. He is trying to be a good grandfather and pass along his culture.
I think about Lisa because today is also when the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released its report.
I am wearing a jacket that was given to me by the women of Winnipeg Centre. I am not sure if the cameras can come closer for a close-up of this jacket, but two women have been beaded onto the lapel. It was given to me to remind me why I am here. It is to remind me of Lisa, to never forget her name, to never forget her hopes and dreams and her desire to hold her child in her arms every day when she wakes up and to put that child to sleep. She never had that opportunity. It was taken from her by this system. That is what this legislation is supposed to change. That is what this legislation is about. That is why it is so important.
When I gave my maiden speech in this House, over 300,000 people viewed that speech by a backbencher on Facebook. That says that people were hungry for something different.
I am very proud of the work everyone on that committee did, whether it was the Conservatives, the NDP, or even the Green Party and the independents. They came together on the committee to study this legislation, because it will make a significant difference in the future. We will be able to look back at this moment in 30 or 40 years and say that this was perhaps the finest piece of legislation in this chamber. Even though it is coming at the end of this session, it does not reduce its importance or its significance.
There is also the question of jurisdiction. The Indian Act from 1876 granulated indigenous peoples and their nations into small component parts. It took what were large groupings of people from Treaty 1 territory, Treaty 3 territory and Treaty 7 territory, where hundreds of indigenous groups, tribes and nations were living in a communal way and coming together at certain times of the year, and granulated them down into these small communities that were isolated from each other. They had no agency in their lives. This is about allowing those indigenous nations to reform themselves and in one area have full supremacy. Their laws would take precedence over federal or provincial law. That is significant.
The member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital is applauding right now, because he knows how important this is in Manitoba.
I recently spoke, in a few of the questions and comments periods, about how governments cannot legislate love. Governments can never legislate love. A government cannot love people. Sir John A. Macdonald and his ghost will never be able to love our children. People, Canadians, have to do that.
Another member in this debate said that our children are a resource. Unfortunately, yes, they are a resource in the sense that we receive funds to look after them. It is easier to pay someone else to look after the children than to help a family become successful and ensure that the children remain with their parents, where they have a connection to the culture and who they are and a connection to family members and those who love them most dearly. Maybe they are going to have an imperfect love, but it will be a strong love nonetheless.
I am very proud of the work that each and every one of us has done. I see the House leader. I do not mean to mention that she is here, but I hope that when we pass this legislation and it receives royal assent, it will be done in a way that includes a ceremony with the Governor General and that indigenous people will be included. Even though Parliament is supreme in its matters, its decisions and how it legislates, we can also decide to include others. It is very important to include the indigenous world view in this legislation and to make sure that the indigenous world view is paramount.
I am now ready for questions. I would like to thank each and every member. I am so proud of all the work we have done. I will be able to look my children in the eyes and look at myself in the mirror when I go to bed at night. No matter the outcome of this election, no matter who will be in office, members can rest assured that indigenous people and all Canadians will fight for proper financing, the administration of child welfare and allowing indigenous people to do it on their own without others telling them what to do.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2379--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s desire to have SNC-Lavalin offered a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA): (a) has the government taken any steps towards providing a DPA to SNC-Lavalin; and (b) has the Director of Public Prosecutions received any instructions or advice from the government in relation to SNC-Lavalin, and, if so, what are the details including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) instructions or advice?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, with respect to part (a), deferred prosecution agreements are at the discretion of the prosecution.
With respect to part (b), any advice sought or received from any government source is privileged; no instructions can be provided to the director of public prosecutions other than a formal directive by the Attorney General, which would be published in the Canada Gazette.

Question No. 2383--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the warning that the government received from Fitch Ratings about the rising debt level: (a) what specific action, if any, is the government prepared to do to ensure that Canada retains the “AAA” credit rating; (b) does the government have any projections on the effect of losing the “AAA” credit on the government’s finances and, if so, what are the projections; and (c) has the government received warnings from any other credit ratings agencies, since January 1, 2017, that it may lose its “AAA” credit rating and, if so, what are the details of any such warnings?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, with regard to part (a), ratings issued by credit ratings agencies are based on their assessment of a sovereign’s strengths and weaknesses under several categories, including economic strength, institutional strength, fiscal strength, external financing, a country’s ability to address adverse economic/financial shocks and how susceptible the country is to these risks; and a country’s performance according to environmental, social and governance, ESG, factors.
Canada fares well in overall credit ratings assessments. Canada is one of only a few countries that continues to receive AAA status, with a stable outlook, from S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. Canada has held its AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s since 2002, and from Fitch since 2004.
With budget 2019, the government is continuing to invest in people and in growing the economy for the long term while carefully managing deficits and debt. Indeed, since November 2015, targeted investments and strong economic fundamentals have contributed to creating over 900,000 new jobs, pushing the unemployment rate to around its lowest levels in over 40 years. Canada also had the strongest economic growth of all G7 countries in 2017, and was second only to the U.S. in 2018.
The government continues to manage deficits carefully while delivering real results that grow the economy, create jobs and improve the quality of life for the middle class and people working hard to join it. As projected in budget 2019, the federal government deficit is projected to decline from $19.8 billion in 2019-20 to $9.8 billion in 2023-24. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio, which is Canada’s debt in relation to the size of our economy, is also projected to fall in every year of the forecast horizon, reaching 28.6% of GDP by 2023-24. According to the IMF, Canada also has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries.
It is also important to note that while general government debt measures are useful for international comparisons, provinces and municipalities are responsible for their own fiscal and debt management.
With regard to part (b), there is a large degree of uncertainty regarding the estimated impact of a downgrade on the government’s finances, as shown by the wide range of impacts seen with recent international experiences. Australia’s downgrade warning in 2016, triggered by a persistent period of slower-than-expected growth and concerns over the government’s will to curtail budgetary deficits, saw very little market reaction. The British gilt 10-year yield increased by about 100 basis points following the downgrade in 2013. As the 2016 downgrade was due to the Brexit vote, it is impossible to disentangle the impacts of the downgrade from general market reaction. With regard to France during the period 2011 to 2015, in 2011, the spread between French and German 10-year government yields increased by about 100 basis points for approximately nine months. There was little market reaction to the 2013 and 2015 downgrades.
With regard to part (c), the most formal way for credit ratings agencies to signal concerns or issue warnings over ratings would be to assign a “negative” outlook, although ratings do change sometimes without first getting a “positive” or “negative” outlook.
Since January 2017, Canada has not received a negative outlook. Fitch, S&P and Moody’s continue to rate Canada as AAA with a stable outlook, meaning that the three major ratings agencies do not expect changes to Canada’s AAA rating. Canada has held its AAA rating, with a stable outlook, from Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s since 2002, and from Fitch since 2004.

Question No. 2390--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to the government’s ratification strategy for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty: (a) what measures has the government taken so far to comply with the Treaty; (b) what other measures does the government plan to take to comply with the Treaty; (c) what is the timeline for each of the measures in (b); (d) did legal opinions show that measures in Bill C-47 failed to comply with both the spirit and letter of the Treaty, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency; and (e) for the responses to (d), what are the file numbers of each of these legal opinions?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. With regard to parts (a) to (d), the Government of Canada is committed to promoting peace and security here at home and around the world. This includes finally acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty, ATT, which Canada failed to do in 2013 or 2014.
The ATT is the only international treaty that seeks to regulate the international trade in conventional weapons. By acceding to the ATT, Canada is supporting the multilateral efforts to address the violence caused by this unregulated and dangerous trade.
On April 13, 2017, the Minister of Foreign Affairs introduced legislation that made the necessary changes for Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs also announced $13 million over five years to allow Canada to implement the ATT and further strengthen its export control regime, and a $1-million contribution to the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation, in order to help other countries accede to the ATT.
On March 8, 2018, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced the government’s support for further legislative amendments to strengthen Canada’s arms export system. This included putting the Arms Trade Treaty assessment criteria into law. This means that all considerations of potential exports must include international human rights law, peace and security, and gender-based violence.
Through the amended legislation, which received royal assent on December 13, 2018, the government is also introducing a new legal requirement for the Canadian government to refuse permits for arms exports that would violate these criteria. This is the most significant change to Canadian arms exports in over 30 years.
The government is currently preparing the necessary regulations to enact these changes. These have been informed by public consultations from December 2018 to January 2019, which included over 190 participants from industry associations, businesses, civil society organizations, academia and legal professionals, as well as by pre-publishing in part I of the Canada Gazette from March 2019 to April 2019.
Four regulations will establish Canada’s brokering controls, and two regulations will enhance transparency and reporting by enabling the Government of Canada to collect data on the export to the U.S. of the full-system items for which the ATT requires reporting.
In addition to this work, government departments including Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence are currently updating their internal processes to ensure the Government of Canada is fully compliant with the ATT.
Global Affairs Canada’s legal division has confirmed that the steps Canada has taken to accede to the ATT comply with both the spirit and letter of the treaty.
All Canadian exporters, including those working with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, CCC, will continue to be required to comply with the Export and Import Permits Act, and with the new legislative changes. CCC is putting in place policies and procedures to address the ATT assessment criteria and to ensure that the Canadian exporters it supports do the same. All exports of controlled goods, including those facilitated by CCC, require an export permit and will be subject to the ATT assessment criteria.
Shortly after the final publication of the regulations, Canada will deposit its instrument of accession to the ATT with the United Nations and formally become a State Party of the ATT in 2019.

Question No. 2391--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to the contract to sell light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, which Canada signed in 2014 and the government approved in 2016: what meetings were held between Global Affairs Canada and General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada, as of October 2018, including (i) the date of the meeting, (ii) the location of the meeting, (iii) the participants, (iv) the purpose of the meeting?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. The Government of Canada has demonstrated its clear commitment to openness and transparency. The Government of Canada believes in evidence-based policy-making and meaningful consultation with Canadians.
Meetings with key stakeholders and experts help to inform the policy development process. For a listing of lobbyist interactions, please visit the Registry of Lobbyists, which is the central source of information about individuals, not-for-profit organizations and for-profit corporations who lobby the federal government: https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntSmmrySrch?lang=eng

Question No. 2392--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the statement in Budget 2019 that “To date, Canada’s efforts to reform fossil fuel subsidies have resulted in the phase-out or rationalization of eight tax expenditures”: (a) what are these eight tax expenditures; (b) of the tax expenditures in (a), (i) which ones have already been abolished and which ones are being phased out, (ii) which ones have been rationalized and which ones are being rationalized; (c) what is the timeline for phasing out or rationalizing each of the tax expenditures in (a); (d) how much will be saved in total by phasing out or rationalizing the tax expenditures in (a); and (e) what is the annual cost of each of the tax expenditures in (a)?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the combined response to parts (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) is as follows. The eight tax measures, and the actions that have been taken to phase out or rationalize them, are listed below. For most of the measures, an estimate of cost savings was provided when the phase-out or rationalization was announced in the budget. For reference, these estimates are summarized below. However, these estimates are not up-to-date and have a number of limitations.
First is the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for the oil sands from budget 2007, completed in 2015. No costing information was included in the budget for the period affected by the phase-out. See page 374 of the budget plan 2007, http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/pdf/bp2007e.pdf).
Second is the reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in conventional oil and gas sector from budget 2011, completed in 2016. It was estimated that this would result in cost savings of $220 million from 2011-12 to 2015-16. See page 263 of the budget plan 2011, http://www.budget.gc.ca/2011/plan/Budget2011-eng.pdf).
Third is the phase-out of the Atlantic investment tax credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors from budget 2012, completed in 2017. It was estimated that this would result in cost savings of $135 million from 2014-15 to 2016-17. See page 380 of the budget plan 2012, http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/pdf/Plan2012-eng.pdf).
Fourth is the reduction in the deduction rate for pre-production intangible mine development expenses, including coal mining, to align with the rate for the oil and gas sector from budget 2013, completed in 2018. It was estimated that this would result in cost savings of $45 million from 2015-16 to 2017-18. See page 331 of the budget plan 2013, http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/budget2013-eng.pdf).
Fifth is the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, including coal mining from budget 2013, to be completed in 2021. It was estimated that this would result in cost savings of $10 million in 2017-18. See page 331 of the budget plan 2013, http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/budget2013-eng.pdf).
Sixth is allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025 from budget 2016. No costing information was included in the budget for the phase out of this measure. However, when the measure was introduced in budget 2015, the cost was estimated as $45 million over the 2015-16 to 2019-20 period. See page 210 of the budget plan 2015, https://www.budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/plan/budget2015-eng.pdf).
Seventh is the rationalization of the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling from budget 2017, to be completed by 2021. It was estimated that this would result in cost savings of $145 million from 2019-20 to 2021-22. See page 6 of the tax measures supplement, http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/tm-mf/tax-measures-mesures-fiscales-2017-en.pdf).
Eighth is the phase-out of the tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favorably treated exploration expenses from budget 2017, to be completed in 2020. It was estimated that this would result in cost savings of $5 million from 2019-20 to 2021-22. See page 6 of the tax measures supplement, http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/tm-mf/tax-measures-mesures-fiscales-2017-en.pdf).
The department provided the above estimates of cost savings over the budget horizon at the time the phase-out or rationalization of each measure was announced. Once an announcement has been made, the department does not continue to update or track the resulting cost savings. As such, the cost savings amounts listed above are indicative only and actual savings may be different. The amounts should not be added up, as this would not accurately represent total cost savings.

Question No. 2393--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to all legal fees paid since November 4, 2015: what are the details, including the nature of the complaints or charges, the amount, the date of payment, and the government representative that received the money, of all legal fees paid pursuant to (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) previous provisions of either of these sections?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, with regard to the policy on legal assistance and indemnification, the government is not able to produce and validate a comprehensive response in the time allotted.
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. A response to the question could disclose personal and solicitor privileged information.

Question No. 2403--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the changes made by Veterans Affairs Canada to the disability questionnaire meant to document post-traumatic stress disorder claims by former soldiers: why was the minister's mental health advisory committee left out of the development of the new questionnaire and not consulted about the changes?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, to deliver faster decisions for veterans related to their disability benefits applications, Veterans Affairs Canada shortened the medical questionnaire for psychiatric and psychological conditions. The questionnaire was simplified to allow medical professionals the ability to complete the process quicker. This provides veterans with faster decisions on their disability benefits applications, which allows faster access to treatment. The changes are designed to increase efficiency of the process and to ensure that veterans in need get access to treatments faster.
Veterans Affairs Canada consulted its service excellence advisory group. This advisory group is focused on initiatives aimed at streamlining processes for veterans and health professionals. A team of mental health professionals, including those from operational stress injury clinics who are frequent users of the questionnaire, was also consulted and requested revisions to the form. As a result, the questionnaire was modified and streamlined to improve the turnaround times for completion and get benefits out to veterans faster.
Veterans Affairs Canada has a new approach to making disability benefit decisions for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, in that the department now only requires minimal diagnostic information. Veterans Affairs Canada asks health professionals to provide a diagnosis and accepts their professional assessment.
It is important to note that 97% of first applications for post-traumatic stress disorder were approved, according to the 2018-19 statistics.
The following changes were made.
The questionnaire was modified and streamlined. It was reduced in size to ease the paperwork burden on physicians and to improve turnaround times for completion. This is expected to result in faster decisions for veterans.
Veterans Affairs Canada is no longer asking for health professionals to substantiate their diagnosis. Veterans Affairs Canada is taking them at their word. The information on the form focuses on assessing the severity of their injury.
The privacy notice was updated.
The medical diagnosis heading was renamed to “Confirmed Medical Diagnosis’. In addition, the diagnosis section has been revised. The physician/psychologist information has been moved to the last page.
A single psychiatric condition could be assessed at 100%, if the individual meets the highest ratings in each table in the table of disabilities.

Question No. 2404--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat’s YouTube video titled “Cracking the Code” released on May 30, 2018: (a) how much was spent to create the video; (b) was an actor or actress paid to do the voice-over for the video and, if so, how much was the actor or actress paid; and (c) how many full-time equivalents worked on the video from development to publication?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, in response to part (a), the video was created in-house by the TBS multimedia team, using their equipment. Sixty dollars, $60, was spent to acquire the music track.
In response to part (b), no actor or actress was paid for the voice-over. A TBS employee provided this service on a volunteer basis.
In response to part (c), seven people worked on this project part-time, for a total of 84 hours from development to publication.

Question No. 2405--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the $12 million in government funding for Loblaw Companies Limited to install new refrigeration systems, between January 1, 2019, and April 9, 2019: how much funding was provided to smaller, less-profitable independent grocery stores for new refrigeration systems and what are the details of any such funding, including (i) date of announcement, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) amount?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the over $500 million low-carbon economy challenge is part of the low-carbon economy fund, LCEF. The LCEF is designed to leverage Canadian ingenuity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support Canada’s clean growth as part of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.
The challenge has two streams. The champions stream provides funding to eligible recipients, specifically provinces and territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and organizations, large as well as small and medium-sized businesses, and not-for-profit organizations. Independent grocers were eligible to apply, but we did not receive any proposals. The project referenced is one of 54 successful champions stream projects, which are providing solutions to cut pollution and increase energy efficiency in communities across Canada. Announcements for successful champions stream projects are ongoing.
The second part of the low-carbon economy challenge, the partnerships stream, was launched in December 2018. Eligible recipients for the partnerships stream are small municipalities, indigenous communities and organizations, not-for-profit organizations, and small and medium-sized businesses, including independent grocery stores. This stream provides an additional opportunity for smaller businesses, organizations and communities to participate in the shift to a low-carbon economy. Proposals are currently under review, and results will be communicated to applicants in 2019.

Question No. 2408--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the statement in Budget 2019 that “Canada will continue to review measures that could be considered inefficient fossil fuel subsidies with a view to reforming them as necessary”: (a) how many measures that are considered inefficient are currently being reviewed; (b) what is the name of each of the measures listed in (a); (c) what is the timetable for phasing out or rationalizing each of the measures in (a); and (d) what is the estimated annual cost of each of the measures in (a)?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, here is the response of the Department of Finance to parts (a), (b), (c), and (d). As committed to in the department’s action plan following the 2017 Auditor General report on fossil fuel subsidies, the department completed a review of 13 tax measures that are specific to the fossil fuel sector. Based on evidence currently available, it is not possible to conclude that any existing tax measures are inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
The department will continue to support the government in fulfilling its commitment to phase out or rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. As part of that work, Canada and Argentina recently committed to undergoing peer reviews of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies under the G20 process. Peer reviews of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies can increase transparency, encourage international dialogue, and help develop best practices while moving toward a low-carbon economy. This voluntary process will enable both countries to compare and improve knowledge and push forward the global momentum to identify and reduce inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-05-07 13:28 [p.27466]
Expand
[Member spoke in Cree as follows:]
[Cree text translated as follows:]
Mr. Speaker, to all my relations, I say hello. I am very proud to be here.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to have the opportunity today to speak about how we must invest in the middle class and build an economy that works for everyone, an economy that provides more good, well-paying jobs for the middle class and helps those working hard to join it, an economy where everyone, no matter their age, can live and work with pride.
At the same time, people across the country want to protect their children and grandchildren from the dangers of climate change. They want to invest in technologies that will help us lower the cost of living and reduce the emissions that cause climate change.
A Canadian green deal is based on balance. Failing to invest in a cleaner more sustainable future threatens the things that Canadians rely on for their success: an affordable cost of living; good, well-paying jobs and resilient communities. It would make it harder to help those who are poor, because it would make it difficult to ensure that we have those things to pay for those services.
Climate change, as we know, is real, and we need to take action today. Budget 2019 made significant investments to protect Canada's environment while also creating new jobs and making life more affordable for Canadians. These investments go hand in hand with efforts to help more people find a home, find and keep good jobs, retire with confidence and get affordable prescription drugs when they need them. The budget also delivers on a promise of a stronger middle class, and advances the plan to protect the health of all Canadians, the health of our economy and the health of future generations.
During their 10 years, the Harper Conservatives ignored the needs of a better future for all, the needs of the environment, of the middle class, and especially the needs of those who are most poor in our society who want government to work for them. Today, more Canadians are working, more families have more money in their pockets and Canada's middle class is growing.
The current leader of the Conservative Party, as well as Ford and Harper, all spent time cutting services and are cutting services today, like local library services, day care centres and even tree planting. This is absolutely unconscionable. The priorities of Ford and the current leader of the Conservative Party are about slashing funds for city services while moving forward with a pricey campaign promise to bring beer into convenience stores. They want to make it cheaper and more affordable so that we can drink beer. “Where is the sense in that?”, said Mayor John Tory. “Cutting public health programs and daycare programs to find the extra money to pay the Beer Store to change their contract?” That is what he said.
In Manitoba, in alliance, the leader of the Conservative Party and Pallister continue to cut services, including emergency services at a hospital in my riding, the Misericordia Health Centre. They are about to cut it at the Concordia Hospital. Gone. They have been reducing services in health care right across the province.
In fact, Premier Brian Pallister is leaving money on the table, including $547 million for public transit, which is important to having a good climate change program to ensure we protect the environment. The Manitoba government left $451 million of green infrastructure dollars on the table. Where is the Canadian green deal in that, a deal based on balance? It is not with the Pallister government. It left $61 million behind for community, cultural and recreation infrastructure. We need more good programming to ensure we do not have the meth crisis we have in Winnipeg right now, and to ensure that young people do not have to join gangs in order to find something to do. The government also left $112 million of rural and northern programming on the table. It is absolutely unconscionable.
On this side of the House, we have taken action to ensure there is a price on pollution right across Canada in 2019. We have implemented a federal backstop system in jurisdictions that do not have a standard that meets that standard at the federal level. As part of this plan, the federal government will be returning the bulk of the direct proceeds from the fuel charge in the form of a climate action incentive payment directly to individuals in the provinces, meaning it is costed so that those dollars are going back to the citizens. The residents of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have a government that is looking out for them and for all citizens. Their families can claim that climate incentive on their personal income tax returns. The remainder of the direct fuel charge proceeds will be used to support small and medium-sized businesses and other particularly affected sectors in these provinces.
The Canadian green deal is about balance. It is balanced to help reward good behaviour that will have an impact in protecting the environment and stop, or even at some point reverse, climate change.
As the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed last week, most households will receive more in climate action incentive payments than their increased costs resulting from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. People are going to be better off under this plan.
We know that climate change is not just an environmental issue but also an economic and social issue.
Our government's plan will grow the Canadian economy, build a nation of innovators and create good, well-paying jobs that strengthen the middle class.
Budget 2019 proposes significant investments and, above all, enables the government to implement new measures to help Canada's middle class and all those working hard to join it.
In budget 2019, our government announced several actions that build on our plan to help Canadians and support our communities. For example, we intend to lower the energy costs of Canadians by investing $1 billion to help increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings. The budget also proposes to provide new infrastructure to help build cleaner and healthier communities through a major municipal infrastructure top-up investment of $2.2 billion. We are helping communities. This will double our government's commitment to municipalities and help communities fund their infrastructure priorities, including public transit, water and green energy projects. However, this is not all that we are doing.
We asked the wealthiest 1% of Canadians to pay a little more so that we could give the middle class a tax break. That tax break is helping over nine million Canadians.
We have also created the Canada child benefit, or the baby bonus. This baby bonus is important to the people of Winnipeg Centre. In 2018-19, every month, on average, we make 8,490 payments of the baby bonus to citizens in Winnipeg Centre, helping 15,510 children. It is helping to lift thousands of children out of poverty. It is $790 on average, which is $6,733,000 a month directly into the economy of the people of Winnipeg Centre.
This is not all that we have done. We have also helped seniors in my riding. We have made 9,580 payments under old age security, for an average of $6,520 under the guaranteed income supplement; 4,620 payments for an average of $6,490; as well as our top-up, which came in the last budget, of 2,620 new payments, for a total of $1,040 a month, to seniors in Winnipeg Centre. That is $96 million which is going to help Canadians advance in life.
In closing, I would like to say that Canadians want a plan that will enable them to prosper in a world where the climate is changing. Our government is investing in a cleaner and healthier future for all Canadians.
We have made a lot of progress since the fall of 2015, since the decade of darkness. However, we know there is more work to be done, and we are not going to lose sight of that goal. We will keep helping the middle class and those working hard to join it. Our government will work hard for Canadians to build an economy where everyone has a fair and true chance of succeeding, lifting thousands of Canadians out of poverty. We will ensure that our government works, not just for the few as under Harper, not just for those who might vote for them, but for all Canadians no matter what their political stripe, so that we ensure we are all better off in the future.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-05-06 15:14
Expand

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

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

Question No. 2312--
Mr. David Tilson:
With regard to part (c) of the government's response to Q-2104, which was tabled on January 28, 2019, and states that “The client submits a completed application by mail to the Permanent Resident Card Processing Centre in Sydney, Nova Scotia. The application is verified for completeness. If it is not complete, the application is returned to the client.”: (a) what are the average wait times for the return of applications which are not complete; and (b) is there any priority given to applications that have been deemed incomplete, once they are returned back to the Permanent Resident Card Processing Centre for a second time, or are the applications subject to the same waiting and processing times as a brand new application?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, is concerned, in response to (a), as of March 5, 2019, the average processing time for IRCC to verify an application for completeness was 29 days from the day IRCC receives the original application. If it is not complete, the application is returned to the client. The return time has decreased significantly in the past year, from an average of 87 days between October and December 2018 to the current processing time of 29 days. These numbers do not include mailing time and are in calendar days.
As of March 5, 2019, the processing time to renew a permanent resident card was 32 days from the day the application is received to the day a final decision is made. The processing time does not include card printing time, which has a three-day service standard, and mailing time.
Note that the processing times are subject to change depending on available resources and volume of applications received.
In response to (b), applications previously returned as incomplete and resubmitted are subject to the normal processing times. They are not given priority processing.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-04-29 15:48
Expand

Question No. 2281--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the government’s decision to change Status of Women Canada to the Department for Women and Gender Equality on December 13, 2018: (a) did the Minister responsible for the department receive a new mandate letter which indicates the new responsibilities and, if so, when was the letter (i) sent to the Minister, (ii) made available to the public; and (b) what are the details, including total of all costs associated with changing the name of the department?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Minister for Women and Gender Equality did not receive a new mandate letter.
In response to (b), regarding the costs associated with changing the name of the department, business card rebranding cost $692.78 and an update to the department’s web encryption certificate cost $3,558.

Question No. 2282--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the new animal transport regulations announced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) why did the CFIA not wait until the research funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada into the issue was finalized prior to releasing the new regulations; (b) what is the CFIA’s reaction to the concerns by industry associations that the new regulations will likely increase stress to cattle and opportunity for injury; and (c) has either Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or the CFIA done any analysis or studies on the impact of these changes to the various livestock or transportation industries and, if so, what are the details, including results?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, recognizes the work and research pertaining to animal welfare that the beef industry has been doing and continues to do. Important research regarding animal welfare during transport is routinely under way on many fronts, both domestically and internationally. The duration of research projects is often measured in years, and outcomes are not predetermined. Such is the case with the cattle industry study funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, which is not scheduled to conclude until 2022. The amendments to the health of animals regulations have been in progress for over 10 years. They were published in the Canada Gazette, part I, in 2016, with a clear forward regulatory plan of final publication in fall 2018-winter 2019. We received an unprecedented number of comments during the public comment period: over 51,000 comments from 11,000 respondents. These comments were taken into account, along with the latest research on animal transportation and international standards. Over 400 scientific articles were examined to help develop clear and science-informed requirements that better reflect the needs of animals and improve overall animal welfare in Canada. These are balanced regulations that, given the existing infrastructure, industry trends and evolving consumer demands, are expected to work for stakeholders while protecting the well-being of animals. It is recognized that any new research will need to be considered and could inform future revisions to the regulations.
In response to (b), the maximum intervals without feed, water and rest for the different species were based on available science, international standards, consumer expectations, and industry logistics.
The CFIA consulted experts in the animal transportation field from industry and academia. Relevant scientific articles were also examined to ensure that the most current research available on the subject of animal transportation and its effects on animals was used to draft the amendments. The resulting maximum feed, water and rest intervals during animal transport were the outcome of all relevant inputs regarding the relative stress responses of rest stops versus the stress to animals of exhaustion, extreme hunger and dehydration resulting from prolonged feed, water and rest deprivation.
The amendments also contain an option for the use of fully equipped conveyances that meet specific required conditions such as temperature monitoring, adequate ventilation, and feed and water dispensing systems. These conveyances will mitigate but not eliminate the negative effects of transport. As such, those stakeholders that move animals in fully equipped conveyances are exempted from the prescribed maximum intervals for feed, water and rest. This provision will promote innovation and will provide regulated parties with additional flexibility regarding time in transport and confinement. It is important to note that all other provisions, including the animal-based outcomes relating to the effects of feed, water and rest deprivation will require full compliance.
In response to (c), the CFIA sent out two economic questionnaires to stakeholders to assess the economic impact of potential changes to the regulations and the timing of their coming into force. The second questionnaire was sent to over 1,000 recipients with a request to forward the questionnaire to any other interested party that the CFIA may have missed. CFIA economists reviewed the incoming data and provided a detailed summary of the costs and benefits to industry in the regulatory impact analysis statement, which can be found at www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2019/2019-02-20/html/sor-dors38-eng.html, immediately below the regulatory amendment.

Question No. 2285--
Ms. Sheri Benson:
With regard to Canada’s Homelessness Strategy “Reaching Home”, and the February 20, 2019 public announcement of $638 million to address urban Indigenous homelessness: (a) what are the details of the strategy, including, if available, the (i) summary of the rationale of the strategy, (ii) objectives, (iii) goals; (b) what are the specific budgetary envelopes and programs that the government will use to deliver these funds; (c) what are the criterias that will be used to evaluate applications; (d) what is the projected allocation of these funds, broken down by fiscal year; (e) what are the expected policy outcomes; and (f) what are the methods the government will use to evaluate the success or failure of this strategy and the individual projects that receive funding?
Response
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, homelessness has an economic and social impact on every community in Canada. The Government of Canada is committed to helping those who are in need and believes that one homeless Canadian is one too many. Everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to call home.
The Government of Canada’s homelessness programs have undergone various reforms and renewals over the years. In recognition of the fact that indigenous people are overrepresented in homeless populations, the programs have provided Indigenous-specific funding. The government’s current program, the homelessness partnering strategy, or HPS, is a community-based approach that aims to prevent and reduce homelessness in Canada. It includes an aboriginal homelessness funding stream.
Reaching Home, the redesigned HPS, was launched on April 1, 2019. The purpose of Reaching Home is to support Canadian communities in their efforts to prevent and reduce homelessness by mobilizing partners at the federal, provincial/territorial and community levels, as well as the private and voluntary sectors, to address barriers to well-being faced by those who are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness. The program is part of Canada’s first-ever national housing strategy, which is a 10-year, $40-billion plan to lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of housing need. The development of Reaching Home was informed by research and broad public consultations, engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and organizations, and advice from the advisory committee on homelessness, which included indigenous representation.
The engagement and advice that informed Reaching Home identified that more funding and a greater understanding of indigenous homelessness was needed. In large part due to the engagement with indigenous peoples, Reaching Home includes increased funding to be directed toward indigenous homelessness supports, and expanded flexibility for first nations, Inuit and Métis-led initiatives.
Reaching Home is providing more than $1.6 billion in funding over the next nine years for services and supports for all Canadians, including indigenous peoples, who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness. In addition to that, a total of $413 million is dedicated for addressing indigenous homelessness. The indigenous-specific funding will provide $261 million through an indigenous homelessness stream over a nine-year period to maintain the community-based approach and continue to address local priorities, and $152 million over nine years that will be invested on priorities determined in collaboration with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners, to be phased in over three years.
Reaching Home is not--with some exceptions in Quebec--a proposal or application-driven program; funding agreements are negotiated between the department and service providers. The eligibility criteria--terms and conditions, and directives are outlined in detail within the program authorities. Reaching Home supports community-based approaches by providing funding directly to municipalities and local service providers, while providing communities more flexibility to design appropriate responses to local challenges. This includes greater flexibility for culturally appropriate responses to help meet the unique needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Funding through the indigenous homelessness stream will continue to flow to Indigenous service providers, and the additional investments for identifying and establishing priorities to help meet the needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis will be determined in collaboration with indigenous partners.
In terms of outcomes, Reaching Home aims to prevent and reduce homelessness across Canada. It supports the goals of the national housing strategy, in particular to support the most vulnerable Canadians in maintaining safe, stable and affordable housing and to reduce chronic homelessness nationally by 50% by 2027–2028. It also supports the goals of “Opportunity for All – Canada’s First Poverty Reduction Strategy”.
To evaluate the effectiveness of its programs, including Reaching Home, the government will be tracking the rate of homelessness along with other socio-economic indicators. The poverty reduction strategy is developing a dashboard of indicators to track progress on the many aspects of poverty, ranging from different measures of low income to the number of Canadians in housing need. Indicators that reflect first nations, Inuit, and Métis concepts of poverty and well-being are being co-developed with indigenous partners for inclusion on the dashboard. The publicly available online dashboard will allow all Canadians to monitor progress, and it will be regularly updated as new information becomes available. Reaching Home is participating in and supports the development of the poverty reduction strategy dashboard.
The Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with indigenous peoples through a renewed relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. Reaching Home includes increased and targeted funding to help address the unique needs of first nations, Inuit, and Métis, and provisions so that the priorities and approaches will be determined in collaboration with indigenous partners. Under Reaching Home, the government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that first nations, Inuit and Métis people across Canada have a safe and affordable place to call home, where they can enjoy a bright future for themselves and their families.
Members should note that as part of the national housing strategy, the Government of Canada announced a total investment of $2.2 billion for homelessness over 10 years, building on budget 2016 funding of $111.8 million over two years. By 2021–22, this will double annual investments compared to 2015–16.

Question No. 2304--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the acquisition and construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline: (a) what was the source of funds for the $4.5 billion reportedly paid to Kinder Morgan at the closing date of August 31, 2018; (b) where is (i) that $4.5 billion accounted for in the Finance Ministry’s November 2018 Budget Update and (ii) is the NEB facility of $500 000 also accounted for in that Budget Update; (c) is the outstanding balance of $4.67 billion for the acquisition facility reported by the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV) in its 2018 third quarterly report the final acquisition figure; (d) is the project (i) in compliance with spending benchmarks identified in the Construction Facility, and (ii) if the answer to (i) is negative, what corrective actions are being or will be taken; (e) do any documents exist pertaining to contract extensions and financial costs incurred through construction delays, and, if so, what are the details; and (f) what sources of revenues is CDEV pursuing to finance construction once the credit facility expires in August 2019?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on August 31, 2018, the Trans Mountain Corporation, TMC, paid Kinder Morgan Cochin ULC $4.427 billion in order to acquire the Trans Mountain entities, these being Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC; Trans Mountain Canada Inc., which was formerly Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.; Trans Mountain Pipeline LP; and Trans Mountain Pipeline (Puget Sound) LLC. TMC financed the acquisition with loans and other funds from its parent corporation, Canada TMP Finance Ltd.
With regard to (b), the $4.427 billion TMC paid to Kinder Morgan Cochin ULC and the $500 million facility with the National Energy Board are not specifically reflected in the government’s November 2018 Fall Economic Statement. However, the loans issued by Export Development Canada to Canada TMP Finance Ltd., which were relied upon by affiliates of Canada TMP Finance Ltd. for the acquisition and for the National Energy Board facility, are reflected on pages 93-94 of the Fall Economic Statement.
With regard to (c), as the ultimate parent corporation for TMC, the Canada Development Investment Corporation, or CDEV, will report the final acquisition price for the Trans Mountain entities in its 2018 consolidated financial statements. CDEV’s Q3 financial statements contained a preliminary acquisition price of $4.427 billion.
With regard to (d), Canada TMP Finance Ltd. is in full compliance with the construction credit agreement with Export Development Canada.
With regard to (e), Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC is the applicant and proponent for the proposed Trans Mountain expansion project. The proposed project does not currently have a valid National Energy Board Act certificate or Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 decision statement. The authoritative documents on the expected schedule and costs of the proposed project are those filed by Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC with the National Energy Board as part of the board’s review of the proposed project, including its recent reconsideration. These documents are publicly available on the National Energy Board’s public registry.
With regard to (f), Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC is the applicant and proponent for the proposed Trans Mountain expansion project. The proposed project does not currently have a valid National Energy Board Act certificate or Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 decision statement. Should the Governor in Council approve the proposed project, Canada TMP Finance Ltd. would renew the construction facility for an additional year as per the credit agreement. TMP Finance Ltd. will work with its shareholder to secure long-term funding.

Question No. 2307--
Mr. François Choquette:
With regard to biometric data collection procedures: (a) what are the exact criteria that were used to determine that Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon would be exempt from biometric data collection before entering Canada; (b) what are the exact criteria that would constitute an exceptional situation justifying an exemption in other cases; (c) is the procedure for collecting data at the border going to be extended to other countries or territories; (d) why (i) are only Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon exempt and (ii) could the French West Indies not benefit from the same exemption, given their similar administrative status as a French overseas territory near North America; and (e) does the government plan to publish the studies that led it to say that “it is not expected to result in significant declines in demand over the medium or long-term” and that the “implications for Canada’s competitiveness in attracting visitors, business people and students are expected to be overall neutral”, as described in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 152, Number 14: “Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations” of April 7, 2018?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, is concerned, with regard to (a), the requirement to provide biometrics when applying to come to Canada depends on the document a client is applying for and is aligned with Canada’s entry document requirements. Generally, biometrics are required when applying for a visitor visa; a work or study permit, except for U.S. nationals; permanent residence; and refugee or asylum status. However, there are some exemptions. Travelers from countries that are visa-exempt are not required to provide biometrics before entering Canada.
As per section 190 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, residents of Greenland as well as St. Pierre and Miquelon who are coming to Canada as visitors are visa-exempt and therefore not subject to biometrics requirements. Those coming to Canada to study or work in Canada are required to provide biometrics in support of their applications.
For more information about Canada’s entry requirements by country/territory and requirements for providing biometrics, members may visit https://www.canada.ca/en/ immigration-refugees-citizenship/ services/ visit-canada/ entry-requirements-country.html.
With regard to (b), if the collection of biometric information is impossible or not feasible, an exemption from the biometrics requirements could be warranted. These exceptional circumstances are determined on a case-by-case basis. Some examples of the criteria that may be used to assess whether it is impossible or not feasible to collect biometric information and an exemption could therefore be justified include a situation in which the client has a temporary or permanent medical condition that prevents the operator or system from capturing the biometric information; the collection equipment or system is not operational, and it is not known how long the system will be down; or the case is exceptionally vulnerable and requires accelerated processing, but biometric information cannot be collected in a timely manner.
With regard to (c), at this time there are no plans to extend the collection of biometrics at the border to any other countries or territories.
With regard to (d)(i), in general, most people are required to make their application and comply with requirements--such as providing biometric data in support of their application--from outside Canada. This is to ensure that applicants are assessed appropriately before they arrive to Canada. On the other hand, to ensure that a balanced strategy is taken when managing the flow of people into Canada, efforts are taken to facilitate the travel of known and low-risk applicants. Residents of Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon are among the very few who may apply for a study or work permit at the port of entry. It should be noted that on average, approximately six work permits and 19 study permits are processed at the port of entry each year from these two territories. The low numbers are operationally manageable for processing at the port of entry.
With regard to (d)(ii), territories in the French West Indies that are part of France—that is, the French Republic--are visa-exempt, and as such, people there do in fact benefit from the biometric exemption when they are seeking to come to Canada as visitors. As well, if they meet the requirements set out in the regulations, they are also eligible to apply for a work permit at the port of entry. However, they are not eligible to apply for a study permit at the port of entry.
With regard to (e), these findings will be included in the program’s evaluation report, entitled “Evaluation of Biometrics (Steady State) and Canada-United States Immigration Information Sharing (IIS)”, which the government anticipates will be published by September 2019.

Question No. 2308--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to expenditures on catering at the Global Affairs Canada buildings on Sussex Drive in Ottawa : (a) what was the total catering bill in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of related event, if known?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this answer reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. Global Affairs Canada undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. Global Affairs Canada concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 2309--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the directive provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to the CRTC in February 2019, which he claimed would lower the prices of internet and cell phone services: (a) what specific evidence does the government have that the Minister’s directive will actually lead to lower prices; and (b) what are the specific projections on how much the average Canadian’s cell phone and internet services bill will be lowered as a result of this directive for each of the next 5 years?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (b) and (c), to clarify the statement in the House of Commons, the policy direction would promote competition and choice so that Canadians can have more affordable plans.
Competition is the best way to bring down prices of telecommunications services, including Internet and cellphone plans. The latest price comparisons of wireline, wireless and Internet services in Canada and with foreign jurisdictions, commissioned by ISED, highlighted the importance of new and smaller service providers in Canada. In regions with strong competition, wireless data plans are up to 32% cheaper than the national average. The same study found that average broadband Internet prices offered by smaller service providers were up to 35% lower than those of the large companies.
The proposed policy direction to the CRTC would require it to clearly consider competition, affordability, consumer policy interests and innovation in all its telecommunications regulatory decisions and to demonstrate to Canadians that it has done so. The CRTC has a number of upcoming decisions that the policy direction, if implemented, could affect, thereby leading to better outcomes for Canadians.
For example, on February 28, 2019, the CRTC launched a review of mobile wireless services in Canada. The review will focus on competition in the retail market, the wholesale regulatory framework, and the future of mobile wireless services in Canada. Specifically, the CRTC has taken the preliminary view that it would be appropriate to mandate that the national wireless carriers provide wholesale mobile virtual network operator, or MVNO, access as an outcome of the proceeding. MVNOs are a form of wireless competition that has the potential to offer more affordable wireless services.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-04-10 15:43
Expand

Question No. 2265--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to infrastructure investments through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, since its creation: (a) what are the Bank's investments, broken down by (i) province, (ii) constituency, (iii) investment partners, (iv) investment projects, (v) investment amounts; and (b) how many jobs are generated by these investments, broken down by (i) province, (ii) constituency?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part(a)(i) of the question, the Canada Infrastructure Bank invested $1.283 billion in the Réseau express métropolitain project in Montréal, a 67-kilometre, light rail, high-frequency network with 26 stations located in greater Montreal in the Province of Québec. For more information, please consult https://rem.info/en#carte.
Regarding part (a)(ii), the Réseau express métropolitain project is a 67-kilometre, light rail, high-frequency network with 26 stations. Once completed, the stations will be located in the following constituencies: Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Laval-Les Îles, Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lac-Saint-Louis, Dorval-Lachine-Lasalle, Saint-Laurent, Mount Royal, Outremont, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Westmount, Ville-Marie-Le Sud-Ouest-Île-des-Sœurs and Brossard-Saint-Lambert. For more information, please consult http://www.elections.ca/res/cir/maps2/images/atlas/Montreal.pdf.
In response to part (a)(iii), the investment partners are CDPQ Infra and the Government of Québec.
Regarding part (a)(iv), the answer is the Réseau express métropolitain.
In response to part(a)(v), the investment amount is $1.283 billion in the form of a 15-year senior secured loan at a rate starting at 1%, escalating to 3% over the term of the loan.
Regarding part (b)(i) of the question, in the province of Québec, it is expected that more than 34,000 direct and indirect jobs will be created during the construction phase and more than 1,000 permanent jobs will be created once the Réseau express métropolitain starts running. For more information, please consult https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/reseau_electrique_metropolitain.
The answer to part (b)(ii) of the question is the same as the answer to part (a)(ii).

Question No. 2271--
Mr. Erin O'Toole:
With regard to expenditures related to litigation or legal proceedings since January 1, 2016, broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) for each case where more than $25,000 has been spent to date, what are the details, including (i) amount spent, (ii) title of proceedings, (iii) parties involved, (iv) current status of case?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is unable to provide a response as the department has an active litigation inventory of more than 35,000 cases. An extensive manual search through our records would be required and is not possible within the time allotted. An aggregate amount of the expenditures related to legal services to government programs can be found online in the Department of Justice’s public accounts: https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2018/vol2/justice/index-eng.html.
The vast majority of the legal proceedings involving the Government of Canada are handled by Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals who are salaried public servants. For cost recovery purposes the Department of Justice records the number of hours of work performed on each file and multiplies the hours by differential hourly rates by level of counsel, notary or paralegal. It also records whether the work is performed by regional employees, for which the department pays rent to Public Services and Procurement Canada, or headquarters employees in client premises, for which the client bears the costs of rent. Recovery from different clients varies according to a range of reductions applied based upon, among other things, the different amounts of historical resources within the Department of Justice dedicated to each client. As well, many legal proceedings and litigation files have multiple clients who share the cost recoveries from the Department of Justice.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-04-09 10:30
Expand

Question No. 2248--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the government’s Connect to Innovate Program first announced in the 2016 Budget: what are the details of all 181 announced projects under the program, including (i) recipient of funding, (ii) name of program, (iii) municipality and province (iv) project start date, (v) projected completion date of project, (vi) amount of funding pledged, (vii) amount of funding actually provided to date?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s connect to innovate program, first announced in the 2016 budget, please visit the website at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/119.nsf/eng/00009.html.

Question No. 2251--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to statistics on boat registrations and sales held by the government for each of the last ten years: (a) what is the number of recreational boat registrations, broken down by type of boat (recreational power boats, non-motorized vessels, 12 passengers and less, etc.) for each the last ten years; and (b) what are the sales figures for boats in Canada, broken down by province and type of boat?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), for information on vessel registrations held by the government for each of the last 10 years, please refer to http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/4/vrqs-srib/eng/vessel-registrations/advanced-search.
With regard to part (b), Transport Canada does not maintain a registry of sales figures for boats in Canada.
The Wrecked, Abandoned and Hazardous Vessels Act, which received royal assent on February 28, 2019, will enable the federal government to increase its information gathering capabilities. Notably, the act enables Transport Canada to enhance the integrity of current data through information sharing provisions. Improving vessel ownership information and putting the responsibility and liability on vessel owners to properly remove and dispose of their vessels is a key component of the national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels announced as part of the oceans protection plan.

Question No. 2252--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to income tax revenues: (a) what is the amount the federal government collected in income tax revenues from taxpayers with incomes exceeding $202,000, since 2014, broken down by year; and (b) what is the percentage of total income tax revenue that each of the amounts in (a) represent?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CRA neither captures nor compiles information in the manner described in the question.

Question No. 2253--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to gender-based analysis conducted by the government: (a) was a gender-based analysis conducted in relation to Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, and, if so, what are the details, including findings, of the analysis; and (b) was a gender-based analysis conducted in relation to the government’s handgun ban consultations and, if so, what are the details, including findings of the analysis?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), a gender-based analysis plus, GBA+, was completed for Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms.
The details included within the findings of the analysis indicated that, as of February 27, 2017, out of a total of 2,084,760 firearms licences issued to individuals, including non-restricted, restricted and prohibited, 1,830,919 were possessed by men and 253,841 by women. Of a total of 886,643 registered firearms, restricted and prohibited only, 853,680 belonged to men and 32,963 to women. This data does not include firearms registered by businesses and museums.
Suicide is a leading cause of death in both men and women from adolescence to middle age. According to Statistics Canada, between 2009 and 2013, there was an average of 549 firearm-related suicides per year in Canada, accounting for almost 14% of all suicides in Canada. Over the same period of time, males were far more likely to use firearms than females, accounting for approximately 96% of all firearms-related suicides.
A Juristat report by Statistics Canada entitled “Family Violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2014” noted differences between the severity of violence experienced by women compared with men. Women were twice as likely as men to experience being sexually assaulted, beaten, choked or threatened with a gun or a knife, at 34% versus 16%, respectively.
Although measures to strengthen controls over firearms through legislation will apply to all who possess licences and who legally own firearms, regardless of sex, more firearms licences are held by men.
With regard to part (b), gender-based considerations were discussed throughout the government’s handgun ban consultations with Canadians. Eight in-person round table sessions were held across the country in October 2018. Participants included representatives from firearms associations, women’s groups, victims’ groups and public health officials, as well as business owners, sports shooters, subject-matter experts, academics and community leaders.
In addition, Canadians were invited to provide written submissions through an online questionnaire. The questionnaire collected information regarding the residence, age and gender of the submitter. A summary report on the consultation will be released in the coming weeks.

Question No. 2254--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the usage of private, chartered or government aircraft by the Minister of Veterans Affairs between February 1, 2019, and February 19, 2019: what are the details of all flights taken by the Minister including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) purpose of trip, (vi) vendor (if not government aircraft), (vii) total cost, (viii) breakdown of costs, (ix) number of passengers?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were no expenditures related to the usage of private, chartered or government aircraft by the Minister of Veterans Affairs between February 1, 2019, and February 19, 2019.

Question No. 2258--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the government’s announced intention to merge the Oshawa Port Authority and the Hamilton Port Authority: (a) what are the projections related to how many jobs in Oshawa will be either (i) transferred to Hamilton or (ii) eliminated as a result of the merger; (b) what is the government’s official rationale for pursuing a merger; (c) what is the current number of employees or full-time equivalents (FTEs) at the (i) Oshawa Port Authority and (ii) Hamilton Port Authority; and (d) what is the projected number of FTEs following a merger?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the integration of the port authorities of Oshawa and Hamilton is being pursued with a view to supporting ongoing growth at both ports. It is anticipated that the action would unlock greater economic opportunities for working Canadians.
As such, this amalgamation is expected to result in no job losses. In an amalgamation scenario, all services, including employment contracts, would continue with the amalgamated entity. Should amalgamation proceed after consultations, the management of the amalgamated port would be responsible for determining its human resources requirements and strategy.
With regard to part (b), the Government of Canada announced its intent to amalgamate the Oshawa and Hamilton port authorities to enable both ports to remain competitive. Canada port authorities are mandated to facilitate Canadian trade and this amalgamation would enhance opportunities in the regional supply chain. An amalgamated port authority would be better positioned to enhance Canada’s global competitiveness with a greater ability to strategically plan and invest, to improve port efficiencies and leverage key investments; enhance investment opportunities in the region by attracting long-term investment more strategically, based on the ability to plan from a region-wide perspective and to improve port efficiencies; and improve the supply chain through a greater combined revenue strength allowing investment into port facilities and intermodal connections.
With regard to part (c), according to information provided by the port authorities, approximately 53 people are currently employed at these ports. The Hamilton Port Authority has 50 employees and the Oshawa Port Authority has three employees.
With regard to part (d), should a decision to amalgamate the two ports be taken, it is anticipated that this would enable growth at both ports. A new amalgamated port authority would be responsible for staffing appropriately to ensure it can deliver on its mandate to support trade, economic growth and the efficient movement of goods and people. This amalgamation is expected to result in no job losses.

Question No. 2263--
Mr. Scott Duvall:
With regard to consultations on retirement security conducted by the Minister of Seniors between July 18, 2018, and November 22, 2018: how many stakeholders were directly consulted by the Minister, broken down by (i) provinces, (ii) electoral ridings, (iii) organizations representing pensioners, (iv) organizations representing workers, (v) organizations representing employers?
Response
Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in recent years, there have been concerns about the security of employer-sponsored pension plans when the employer goes bankrupt. In response to these concerns, our government committed in budget 2018 to adopt an evidence-based, whole-of-government approach to improving retirement security for all Canadians.
We consulted workers, pensioners, businesses and the public, and received more than 4,400 submissions on this important issue.
In order to properly prepare her consultations, the minister discussed the subject with the following stakeholders: Gudrun Langolf, Council of Senior Citizens’ Organization of British Columbia on October 4, 2018; Danis Prud'homme and Maurice Dupont, FADOQ network, on October 5, 2018; Mike Powell, Canadian Federation of Pensioners, on October 25, 2018; Trevor Harris, Stelco, October 26, 2018; Gary Howe and Ron Wells, United Steelworkers, on October 26, 2018; Bill Missen, former senior VP commercial, Stelco, on October 31, 2018; and Jim Ray, VP technology, ArcelorMittal Dofasco, on October 31, 2018.
After consulting with Canadians, our government proposed, in budget 2019, new measures to further protect employer-sponsored pension plans in the event of a company's insolvency.
Among other protective measures, the proposed measure would make insolvency proceedings more fair, clear and accessible to pensioners and workers, in part by requiring all parties involved to act in good faith and by giving the courts greater ability to review payments made to executives in the days leading to insolvency.
It would also set higher expectations and better monitoring of corporate behavior. Federally incorporated public companies will be required to disclose their policies on workers and pensioners and executive compensation or explain why such policies are not in place.
Finally, it would protect hard-earned benefits for Canadians by specifying in federal pension law that if a plan ceases to operate, it must still pay pension benefits as it did when it was active.
Collapse
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Robert-Falcon Ouellette Profile
2019-04-09 12:37 [p.26861]
Expand
[Member spoke in Cree as follows:]
[Cree text translated as follows:]
Mr. Speaker, to all my relations, I say hello. I am very proud to be here.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for Bill C-88. I also acknowledge that we are here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
This important bill proposes to improve the regulatory regime that governs resource development in the Northwest Territories. Equally important, in my view, is the contribution Bill C-88 would make to reconciliation with indigenous peoples.
Throughout much of this country's history, indigenous peoples have been actively prevented from contributing fully to and benefiting equally from the social and economic prosperity that so many of us take for granted. Reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples will help create the conditions needed to close the socio-economic gap that persists between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians.
Today we have an opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past and to unlock economic growth for indigenous peoples and all Canadians. We have a chance to create an environment that supports self-determination. This will not only be good for indigenous peoples but will be good for all of Canada.
The National Indigenous Economic Development Board has estimated that engaging indigenous people in the economy at the same rate as non-indigenous people would boost Canada's GDP by 1.5% and create almost $28 billion in economic growth. Several others have suggested that the number is actually much higher.
Reconciliation is a multi-faceted undertaking that ultimately must involve and engage all people in Canada, indigenous and non-indigenous alike. At the personal level, it involves confronting and erasing all prejudice, embracing fresh ideas and throwing out those racist ideas of the past. For the Government of Canada, it involves sweeping changes to legislation, policies and how we approach policy.
Allow me to quote the Prime Minister's description of the challenge facing Canada. He stated:
Reconciliation calls upon us all to confront our past and commit to charting a brighter, more inclusive future. We must acknowledge that centuries of colonial practices have denied the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples. The recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights will chart a new way forward for our Government to work with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and to undo decades of mistrust, poverty, broken promises, and injustices.
The legislation now before us would support reconciliation in a clear and unequivocal way by re-establishing the land and water boards in a manner requested by indigenous communities themselves. The boards would enable three indigenous communities in the Northwest Territories, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho, to influence resource development in their traditional territories in a direct and meaningful way.
Four years ago, Parliament endorsed legislation to restructure the regulatory regime governing resource development in the Northwest Territories. Part of this plan involved the amalgamation of four boards into a single entity, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.
Soon after the plan became law, the Tlicho Government and the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated launched court actions against the Government of Canada. Both indigenous governments challenged Canada's authority to unilaterally eliminate boards that had been legally authorized years earlier. A 1992 comprehensive land claims agreement had established the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, which was given effect by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in 1998, for instance. In 2003, the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement had authorized the creation of the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board.
The court challenges effectively put a halt to some of the restructuring measures included in the 2014 legislation under the Harper regime. The new Government of Canada agreed to work in co-operation with northern indigenous communities, including the plaintiffs in the court actions, to resolve the impasse and to restructure the regulatory regime in a way that would meet the needs of all concerned.
Representatives of indigenous groups, the Government of Northwest Territories and industry met with federal officials. The meetings inspired the Government of Canada to draft a legislative proposal and to share the draft with all interested parties.
This collaborative effort not only exemplifies the spirit of reconciliation but also illustrates reconciliation in action. It is “reconciliaction”, and it abides by the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples established last year. For instance, principle 1 states, “The Government of Canada recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples need to be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government.”
Principle 5 states, “The Government of Canada recognizes that treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements between Indigenous peoples and the Crown have been and are intended to be acts of reconciliation based on mutual recognition and respect.”
Following this approach soon produced a negotiated solution. We sat down and we negotiated. It is a solution articulated today in Bill C-88. However, to fully appreciate the value of the solution requires an understanding of how it came into being. This was not a case of the Government of Canada imposing its will on others. In fact, the bill before us incorporates the suggestions made by the negotiators representing other groups, including indigenous governments. They were central to this.
One change to the original draft legislation proposal relates to court jurisdiction for judicial reviews of administrative monetary penalties imposed under the regulatory regime. The change ensures consistency with exclusive jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories' Supreme Court under section 32 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. A second modification to the original draft legislation aims to ensure consistency with comprehensive land claims agreements. New language was added to clarify consultation obligations related to administrative monetary penalties.
Is it not exciting to talk about administrative monetary penalties? These changes came about because the parties negotiated as equals in an atmosphere of mutual respect and mutual recognition of rights and responsibilities.
Should Bill C-88 become law, if it can make its way through this Parliament, its effects would also foster reconciliation. This is because co-management is central to the regulatory regime envisioned in the legislation now before us. Boards comprised of members nominated by northern indigenous governments and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Canada would render decisions about proposed development projects. Board decisions are legally binding on all parties, including developers. This means that northern indigenous governments would be fully able to exercise their right to self-determination.
The onus has long been on indigenous peoples to prove that their rights exist. For too long, indigenous communities have had to fight to exercise their rights. This is why reconciliation absolutely requires the Government of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, to base all of its relations with indigenous peoples on the recognition and the implementation of existing rights.
On one level, Bill C-88 would repeal the amalgamation of land and water boards in the Northwest Territories. It would also modernize the regulatory regime governing resource development in the region. On a higher level, Bill C-88 would foster reconciliation with indigenous peoples across Canada. It would demonstrate to indigenous communities across the country that the Government of Canada is committed to reconciliation.
Hon. members of this chamber, the people's House, have an opportunity to show their commitment to reconciliation, and I encourage all of them to join me in supporting Bill C-88.
[Member spoke in Cree as follows:]
[Cree text translated as follows:]
Thank you again, that is all.
[English]
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-04-08 12:06 [p.26787]
Expand
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2019, by the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook concerning the alleged breach of the confidentiality of an Ontario Liberal caucus meeting.
In his intervention, the member argued that information reported in the media about the discussions held during the Ontario Liberal caucus on March 20, 2019, violated the expectations of confidentiality and was a breach of parliamentary privilege. He underscored that it was the publication of the confidential information, rather than the leak itself, that was the catalyst for him asking the Speaker to intervene.
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that, not only do matters of caucus proceedings generally lie beyond the Speaker's purview but, also, precedents demonstrate that prima facie questions of privilege have involved the secret recording of members in caucus.
The Chair is being asked to determine if, in this instance, the evidence presented is sufficient to have the Speaker intervene in a matter that is normally outside the confines of parliamentary proceedings.
Parliamentary caucus meetings are, by definition, meant to be exclusively for members belonging to the same political party. They are closed meetings, conducted in the expectation of airtight confidentiality. As the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains at page 34:
Because they are held in camera, caucus meetings allow Members to express their views and opinions freely on any matter which concerns them. Policy positions are elaborated, along with, in the case of the government party, the government’s legislative proposals. Caucus provides a forum in which Members can debate their policy differences among themselves without compromising party unity.
While caucus meetings are obviously different from proceedings of the House, they nonetheless have an effect on, and ultimately serve, the interests of the House. The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook had good reason then to cite Speaker Milliken’s ruling of March 25, 2004, which states at page 1712 of Debates:
The concept of caucus confidentiality is central to the operations of the House and to the work of all hon. Members.
The question that the Chair must consider carefully is how far, if at all, parliamentary privilege extends to protect the deliberations of a caucus. The precedents cited by the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook are helpful. One precedent led to the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on April 26, 2004. The report is useful because it explains what could trigger a possible intervention by the Chair. Basically, it is related to House support for these caucus meetings. As the report noted:
To the extent that caucus confidentiality is breached by Members by disclosing what was said or went on to non-members of caucus, this is a matter to be dealt with by each party caucus. Any unauthorized recording of caucus meetings, however, is a matter for the House itself. Not only does this arguably impede Members in carrying out their parliamentary functions, but it also could constitute a contempt of the House of Commons.
In the present case, it is not clear that it was caused by a failure of House support. Nor did any caucus members bring this to the attention of the House. Nonetheless, this should not be construed as an endorsement for divulging caucus information, even in the most general of terms, without the caucus approval.
Absent any sufficient evidence to demonstrate that members’ privileges were breached, I must conclude that there is no question of privilege.
I thank honourable members for their attention.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2192--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund: what are the details of all grants awarded by the fund since November 4, 2015, including (i) name of the recipient, (ii) date on which the funding was received, (iii) amount received?
Response
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the requested information is available on the Government of Canada’s website at https://open.canada.ca/en/search/grants. Instructions are as follows: open the link, enter “Canada Periodical Fund, Aid to Publishers” in the search field, and select the year.

Question No. 2197--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to the statement attributed to the spokesperson for the Minister of National Revenue in the Toronto Star in January 2019 that “We have hired over 1,300 auditors”: (a) how many of these new auditors are focused solely on off-shore tax evasion; (b) how many of these new auditors are focused solely on Canadian corporate tax evasion; and (c) how many of these new auditors are focused solely on Canadian personal tax evasion?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the CRA’s compliance programs focus on size or type of non-compliance and taxpayers often use the interaction between individual and corporate entities to achieve non compliance. For this reason, rigid distinctions between corporate and personal tax evasion cannot be made.
For example, work related to the underground economy would encompass both corporations and individuals. Work related to high net-worth individuals and others involved in tax schemes would encompass individuals who use corporations, trusts and partnerships in their tax planning. In terms of work related to large businesses, the vast majority are publicly traded companies but a small number are trusts, partnerships or privately held corporations. Work related to GST/HST compliance includes a mix of corporations and sole proprietorships. Finally, for work related to small and medium-sized enterprises that have complex transactions, most but not all would be incorporated.

Question No. 2198--
Mr. Larry Miller:
With regard to the proposed Fair Wages Policy: (a) what is the anticipated cost to taxpayers for its implementation; and (b) what are the findings of any cost analysis done by government departments?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the cost of a fair wages policy will depend on the scope and requirements of the policy, including the industries affected and the level of wages prescribed, as appropriate. These have not yet been determined and are subject to a ministerial decision that has not yet been taken.

Question No. 2202--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the GST/HST: (a) does the government plan to increase the GST/HST; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increasing the GST/HST was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to increase the GST/HST, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive and functioning as intended, to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways.
One of the government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefiting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the government introduced the Canada child benefit. Compared with the previous child benefit system, the new Canada child benefit is simpler, much more generous and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle-class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, budget 2018 introduced the new Canada workers benefit, or CWB. The CWB is replacing the working income tax benefit beginning in 2019 and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students and persons with disabilities.
The government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared with 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year, savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products or creating new jobs. As the government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. In budget 2016 and budget 2017, the government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2203--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to personal income tax rates: (a) does the government plan to increase personal income tax rates; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increasing personal income tax rates was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to increase personal income tax rates, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive and functioning as intended, to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways.
One of the government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefiting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the government introduced the Canada child benefit. Compared with the previous child benefit system, the new Canada child benefit is simpler, much more generous and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle-class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, budget 2018 introduced the new Canada workers benefit, or CWB. The CWB is replacing the working income tax benefit beginning in 2019 and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students and persons with disabilities.
The government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared with 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year, savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products or creating new jobs. As the government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. In budget 2016 and budget 2017, the government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2204--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the small business tax rate: (a) does the government plan to raise or restore the small business tax rate; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of raising or restoring the small business tax rate was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to increase the small business tax rate, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive and functioning as intended, to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways.
One of the government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefiting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the government introduced the Canada child benefit. Compared with the previous child benefit system, the new Canada child benefit is simpler, much more generous and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle-class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, budget 2018 introduced the new Canada workers benefit, or CWB. The CWB is replacing the working income tax benefit beginning in 2019 and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students and persons with disabilities.
The government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared with 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year, savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products or creating new jobs. As the government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. In budget 2016 and budget 2017, the government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2205--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the small business deduction: (a) does the government plan to eliminate the small business deduction; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of eliminating the small business deduction was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to eliminate the small business deduction, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive and functioning as intended, to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways.
One of the government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefiting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the government introduced the Canada child benefit. Compared with the previous child benefit system, the new Canada child benefit is simpler, much more generous and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle-class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, budget 2018 introduced the new Canada workers benefit, or CWB. The CWB is replacing the working income tax benefit beginning in 2019 and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students and persons with disabilities.
The government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared with 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year, savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products or creating new jobs. As the government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. In budget 2016 and budget 2017, the government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2206--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to corporate tax rates: (a) does the government plan to increase corporate tax rates; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increasing corporate tax rates was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to increase corporate tax rates, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive and functioning as intended, to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways.
One of the government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefiting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the government introduced the Canada child benefit. Compared with the previous child benefit system, the new Canada child benefit is simpler, much more generous and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle-class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, budget 2018 introduced the new Canada workers benefit, or CWB. The CWB is replacing the working income tax benefit beginning in 2019 and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students and persons with disabilities.
The government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared with 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year, savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products or creating new jobs. As the government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. In budget 2016 and budget 2017, the government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2207--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) premiums: (a) does the government plan to raise EI premiums; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increasing EI premiums was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to increase EI premiums, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development), Lib.):
Madam Speaker, regarding part (a), the Government of Canada does not set the EI premium rate. The EI premium rate is set by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission according to a seven-year break-even mechanism, based on forecasts and estimates of the EI senior actuary. This rate is designed to ensure a cumulative balance of zero in the EI operating account over a seven-year time horizon.
In accordance with legislation, the EI premium rate for 2020 will be announced on or before September 14, 2019, and will take into account any new EI initiatives announced by July 22, 2019, as well as projections of key economic indicators.
Regarding part (b), the Government of Canada does not set the EI premium rate. The EI premium rate is set by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.
Employment Insurance premiums are set according to a transparent mechanism that ensures that premium rates remain stable, and that premium revenues are used only to fund EI program expenditures. To calculate the seven-year break-even rate, the actuary relies on information provided by the minister of ESDC on forecast administration costs, planned spending under EI part II, the cost of new or temporary measures, and the most recent available balance of the EI operating account. The Minister of Finance provides information that includes the current available forecast values of the economic variables relevant to the preparation of actuarial forecasts and estimates for the EI account.
Regarding part (c), the Government of Canada does not set the EI premium rate. The EI premium rate is set by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

Question No. 2208--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to Canada Pension Plan (CPP) premiums: (a) does the government plan to raise CPP premiums; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increasing CPP premiums was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to increase CPP premiums, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the government has been working with provinces and territories to enhance the Canada pension plan, or CPP, to ensure that future generations of Canadians can count on a strong public pension system in their retirement years. Canada’s finance ministers came together in Ottawa on December 21, 2015, and agreed to begin discussions on a modest, fully funded and phased-in enhancement of the CPP. These discussions included issues such as the impact on contribution rates. After months of co-operative work with provinces and territories, finance ministers met in Vancouver on June 20, 2016, and agreed in principle to an expansion of the CPP starting January 1, 2019, that would increase the income replacement from one-quarter to one-third of pensionable earnings and increase the maximum amount of income subject to CPP by 14%.
To ensure that these changes are affordable for businesses and Canadians, the agreement included three measures: introducing a long and gradual seven-year phase-in starting on January 1, 2019, that would allow more time for businesses to adjust; enhancing the Canada workers benefit to offset the impact of increased contributions on low-income workers; and providing a tax deduction, instead of a tax credit, for employee contributions associated with the CPP enhancement in order to avoid increasing the after-tax cost of savings for Canadians.
A news release provided the signed agreement by federal and provincial ministers and background on the agreement in principle to enhance the CPP.
In advance of the tabling of federal legislation implementing the agreement in principle, Bill C-26, the government released a comprehensive technical paper summarizing the economic and policy analysis and providing more details on the design of the CPP enhancement. In addition, and as required by legislation, the chief actuary of Canada prepared a report assessing the financial sustainability and other financing implications of the legislative changes in Bill C-26. The report from the chief actuary confirmed that the CPP enhancement is sustainable at the legislative contribution rates set out in Bill C-26.
For more information, members should consult the following documents: the news release from the December 2015 finance ministers’ meeting, found at https://www.fin.gc.ca/n15/15-089-eng.asp; the news release from the June 2016 finance ministers’ meeting, found at https://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-081-eng.asp; the backgrounder on the Canada pension plan enhancement, found at https://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/data/16-113_3-eng.asp; the 28th Actuarial Report on the Canada pension plan, found at http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/Docs/CPP28.pdf; the news release on the Canada pension plan enhancement legislation, Bill C-26, found at https://www.fin.gc.ca/n17/17-010-eng.asp; the news release announcing that Manitoba agrees to the Canada pension plan enhancement, found at https://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-088-eng.asp; and Bill No. 149, An Act to Enhance the Quebec Pension Plan, found at http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/projet-loi-149-41-1.html?appelant=MC.

Question No. 2212--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to a real estate speculation tax at the federal level: (a) does the government plan to implement a real estate speculation tax at the federal level; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of implementing a real estate speculation tax at the federal level was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to implement a real estate speculation tax at the federal level, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive, and functioning as intended to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the Government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways:
One of the Government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefitting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the Government introduced the Canada Child Benefit. Compared to the previous child benefit system, the new Canada Child Benefit is simpler, much more generous, and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax-free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, Budget 2018 introduced the new Canada Workers Benefit (CWB). The CWB is replacing the Working Income Tax Benefit beginning in 2019, and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The Government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students, and persons with disabilities.
The Government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared to 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year—savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products, or creating new jobs. As the Government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the Government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the Government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion, and aggressive tax avoidance. In Budget 2016 and Budget 2017, the Government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The Government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the Government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the Government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2213--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the federal carbon tax or price on carbon: (a) does the government plan to increase the federal carbon tax or price on carbon above $50 per tonne of emissions; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increasing the federal carbon tax or price on carbon above $50 per tonne of emissions was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan of increasing the federal carbon tax or price on carbon above $50 per tonne of emissions, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive, and functioning as intended to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the Government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways
One of the Government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefitting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the Government introduced the Canada Child Benefit. Compared to the previous child benefit system, the new Canada Child Benefit is simpler, much more generous, and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax-free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, Budget 2018 introduced the new Canada Workers Benefit (CWB). The CWB is replacing the Working Income Tax Benefit beginning in 2019, and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The Government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students, and persons with disabilities.
The Government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared to 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year—savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products, or creating new jobs. As the Government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the Government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the Government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion, and aggressive tax avoidance. In Budget 2016 and Budget 2017, the Government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The Government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the Government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the Government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2214--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to an inheritance tax at the federal level: (a) does the government plan to implement an inheritance tax at the federal level; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of implementing an inheritance tax at the federal level was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to implement an inheritance tax at the federal level, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive, and functioning as intended to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the Government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways
One of the Government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefitting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the Government introduced the Canada Child Benefit. Compared to the previous child benefit system, the new Canada Child Benefit is simpler, much more generous, and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax-free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, Budget 2018 introduced the new Canada Workers Benefit (CWB). The CWB is replacing the Working Income Tax Benefit beginning in 2019, and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The Government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students, and persons with disabilities.
The Government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared to 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year—savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products, or creating new jobs. As the Government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the Government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the Government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion, and aggressive tax avoidance. In Budget 2016 and Budget 2017, the Government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The Government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the Government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the Government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2215--
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren:
With regard to level of the federal excise tax on gasoline or diesel fuel: (a) does the government plan to increase the level of the federal excise tax on gasoline or diesel fuel; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increasing the level of the federal excise tax on gasoline or diesel fuel was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to increase the level of the federal excise tax on gasoline or diesel fuel, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive, and functioning as intended to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the Government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways
One of the Government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefitting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the Government introduced the Canada Child Benefit. Compared to the previous child benefit system, the new Canada Child Benefit is simpler, much more generous, and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax-free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, Budget 2018 introduced the new Canada Workers Benefit (CWB). The CWB is replacing the Working Income Tax Benefit beginning in 2019, and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The Government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students, and persons with disabilities.
The Government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared to 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year—savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products, or creating new jobs. As the Government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the Government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the Government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion, and aggressive tax avoidance. In Budget 2016 and Budget 2017, the Government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The Government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the Government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the Government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2216--
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren:
With regard to the revenue that was raised or lost as a result of changes to the federal income tax that took effect on January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increased or lost revenue as a result of changes to federal income tax that took effect on January 1, 2016, was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (b) do any supporting documents exist about the revenue that was raised or lost as a result of changes to federal income tax that took effect on January 1, 2016, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government is committed to the objective of an economy that works for everyone. In keeping with this objective, the Government’s focus since coming to office in 2015 has been to reduce taxes and increase support for the middle class and those who are working hard to join it.
One of the Government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefitting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
The Government has been transparent in estimating the revenue impacts of these measures. On December 7, 2015, when these measures were first proposed, the Department of Finance published a backgrounder on its website: https://www.fin.gc.ca/n15/data/15-086_1-eng.asp. Table 2 of this backgrounder (Fiscal Cost of Proposed Tax Changes) provides a detailed breakdown of the estimated $8.2 billion revenue impact of the two federal personal income tax rate changes from 2015-16 to 2020-21. A footnote to Table 2 states that the estimates of the revenue gain from introducing a 33-per-cent rate on taxable income above $200,000 assume that those affected would respond by slightly reducing their taxable income on an ongoing basis.
In estimating the ongoing revenue impacts associated with the changes to the federal personal income tax rate structure, the Department of Finance has taken a prudent approach that reflects Canadian and international research on how individuals at different income levels respond to changes in tax rates.
Raising taxes on the wealthiest one per cent in order to cut them for the middle class has been a key step towards the Government’s goal of improving the fairness of the tax system and ensuring that the benefits of growth are shared among all Canadians. Measures like the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit have provided Canadian families with more money to save, invest, and spend in their communities. Families receiving the Canada Child Benefit are getting $6,800 on average this year. These and other measures introduced by the Government to support the middle class and those who are working hard to join it are driving higher levels of Canadian consumer and business confidence and supporting wage growth.
Going forward, the Government will continue to be guided by the objective of ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are widely shared.

Question No. 2217--
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren:
With regard to raising additional government revenue and potential sources: (a) does the government plan to increase government revenue; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of increasing government revenue was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to increase government revenue, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive, and functioning as intended to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the Government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways
One of the Government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefitting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the Government introduced the Canada Child Benefit. Compared to the previous child benefit system, the new Canada Child Benefit is simpler, much more generous, and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax-free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, Budget 2018 introduced the new Canada Workers Benefit (CWB). The CWB is replacing the Working Income Tax Benefit beginning in 2019, and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The Government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students, and persons with disabilities.
The Government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared to 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year—savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products, or creating new jobs. As the Government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the Government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the Government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion, and aggressive tax avoidance. In Budget 2016 and Budget 2017, the Government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The Government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the Government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the Government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2218--
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren:
With regard to the capital gains tax exemption: (a) does the government plan to reduce or remove the capital gains tax exemption; (b) what are the details of any discussions or meetings where the possibility of reducing or removing the capital gains tax exemption was discussed, including (i) date, (ii) participants and location; and (c) do any supporting documents exist about any plan to remove or reduce the capital gains tax exemption, including but not limited to, e-mails, briefing notes, memos and reports, and, if so, what are the details of such documents?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada’s tax system is fair, efficient, competitive, and functioning as intended to make sure that our economy is working for the middle class and all Canadians. While it would not be appropriate to speculate on future tax policy decisions, the Government’s record demonstrates that it has delivered on this commitment in many ways
One of the Government’s first actions was to raise personal income taxes on the wealthiest Canadians in order to cut taxes for the middle class. Over nine million Canadians are benefitting from the reduction of the second personal income tax rate to 20.5% from 22%. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.
In its first budget, the Government introduced the Canada Child Benefit. Compared to the previous child benefit system, the new Canada Child Benefit is simpler, much more generous, and better targeted to families who need it most. The CCB is also entirely tax-free. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty. A typical middle class family of four is now receiving, on average, about $2,000 more per year in support than they did in 2015, as a result of the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit.
To put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, Budget 2018 introduced the new Canada Workers Benefit (CWB). The CWB is replacing the Working Income Tax Benefit beginning in 2019, and will encourage more people to join or stay in the workforce by making the benefit more generous and more accessible.
The Government has taken action to implement changes resulting from its wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. This included measures to improve tax relief for caregivers, students, and persons with disabilities.
The Government reduced the federal small business tax rate from 10.5% in 2017 to 9% in 2019. For small businesses, compared to 2017, this means up to $7,500 in federal tax savings each year—savings that they can reinvest in purchasing new equipment, developing new products, or creating new jobs. As the Government reduced the small business rate, it took action to make sure that this low rate is not used by some to gain unfair tax advantages as the expense of others.
In the fall of 2018, the Government introduced immediate changes to Canada’s corporate tax system that will further support investment, jobs and growth in Canadian businesses, creating opportunities in communities across the country.
In each of its budgets since coming to office, the Government has taken action to improve the fairness of the tax system through measures to prevent underground economic activity, tax evasion, and aggressive tax avoidance. In Budget 2016 and Budget 2017, the Government invested about $1 billion to support the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency in this area. These investments are expected to add over $5 billion in additional federal revenues over six years. Budget 2018 announced additional funding of $90.6 million over five years to support the CRA in its continued efforts to ensure taxpayer compliance.
The Government has also taken action to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages for some at the expense of others. More broadly, the Government has engaged with international partners on an ongoing basis to combat aggressive international tax avoidance, including through enhanced sharing of information between tax authorities.
Going forward, the Government’s tax policy agenda will continue to be guided by the objective of a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Question No. 2229--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
With regard to the funding granted under the Investing in Canada plan, since March 2016: (a) what applications were initially approved by Infrastructure Canada officials but then rejected by the Office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities; and (b) what requests were initially rejected by Infrastructure Canada officials but then approved by the Office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, with regard to the funding granted under the Investing in Canada plan, since March 2016: (a) There were no instances where an application was initially approved by Infrastructure Canada officials, but then rejected by the office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.
(b) The LaHave River Straight Pipe Remediation project in Nova Scotia.
Collapse
View David Sweet Profile
CPC (ON)
View David Sweet Profile
2019-03-22 10:25 [p.26464]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, following my notice to you, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning a leak from Wednesday's meeting of the Ontario Liberal caucus. The leaks were reported in an online article posted on cbc.ca Wednesday evening, entitled “[Member for Markham—Stouffville] faced 'tough' questions from Liberal MPs in [today's] regional caucus meeting”. The first two paragraphs of the article make the following disclosures:
[The member for Markham—Stouffville], who resigned from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet earlier this month over the SNC-Lavalin affair, faced a barrage of tough questions from her Liberal colleagues [today] during a closed-door session of the Ontario caucus, sources told CBC News.
[The member for Markham—Stouffville] addressed the group at the beginning of the meeting, which lasted 30 minutes longer than scheduled and was described by people in the room as “rough” and “uncomfortable.”
The sixth paragraph of the article states:
Today, some of her fellow Liberal MPs reminded her that others in the caucus had made compromises on sensitive issues such as medical assistance in dying — one of the key pieces of legislation [the member for Markham—Stouffville] fronted as health minister, along with then-justice minister [the hon. member for Vancouver Granville].
Meanwhile, this online article was expanded upon by CBC reporter Katie Simpson, who appeared on Wednesday's edition of Power & Politics. I will quote from a transcript of her presentation, which states, “What CBC News can confirm through multiple sources is that when Ontario Liberal MPs met for their weekly meeting this morning, [the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville], who was there, was really the focus of attention at the meeting, and she faced a series of difficult questions about her actions. She, of course, very publicly quit and criticized the Prime Minister, but did not leave caucus when she decided to quit. What we are also told is that while these questions were being asked, the member was also reminded by some of her colleagues of some of the sacrifices and compromises they made to help her with some of her projects like getting the assisted dying legislation passed.... So the meeting went 30 minutes longer than it normally would go. It is described by sources as 'rough' and 'uncomfortable' and rocky', but we do know that Liberals that we were speaking with today, while these concerns may exist privately, this is a group of Liberal Ontario MPs that held this meeting.”
In a Canadian Press article entitled “Conservatives plan filibuster after Liberals shut down...motion”, also published Wednesday evening, it was reported:
Despite the efforts to unite and put the affair behind them, one source said [the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville] faced a “frank and emotional” session with her Ontario caucus colleagues prior to the national caucus meeting she did not attend....
The source spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss confidential caucus matters.
Every single one of us in this House was elected as a member of a party. We sit or have sat in caucuses. Caucus confidentiality is the cornerstone of parliamentary life. That is something we understand clearly, and that is very valuable to me as the national Conservative caucus chairman. It is not because we want to be furtive or secretive; it is because we need to be able to have frank and candid conversations among colleagues without the embarrassment or opprobrium that these exchanges are at risk of producing.
I generally sympathize with the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville. She did something extraordinary on the strength of her principles and convictions by resigning her ministerial commission. She does not deserve the treatment she has received, nor the embarrassment and scorn heaped upon her by her colleagues, including through this caucus leak. The same goes for the treatment that she received after being hidden from, and deterred or intimidated from attending this week's votes, as we heard from the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill in another question of privilege.
Caucus proceedings are discussed on page 34 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition. It states:
Although each caucus operates differently, most limit attendance to parliamentarians.
Because they are held in camera, caucus meetings allow Members to express their views and opinions freely on any matter which concerns them. Policy positions are elaborated, along with, in the case of the government party, the government's legislative proposals. Caucus provides a forum in which Members can debate their policy differences among themselves without compromising—
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-03-22 10:29 [p.26464]
Expand
Order, please.
I thank the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook for his question of privilege and presentation. Again, I am mindful of the time. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, the matter of caucus proceedings is generally not within the purview. I think we all understand the characteristics of them.
I am certain that the hon. member is going to link this matter as it relates to his specific concern about a potential breach of privilege. I do not know that it is necessary to repeat the various instances of this, but if he could get to the connection he is trying to make with this particular scenario in the next few minutes, it would be appreciated. As was mentioned earlier, questions of privilege are important, but they are also not a means by which the time of the House can be taken up unnecessarily.
The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.
Collapse
View David Sweet Profile
CPC (ON)
View David Sweet Profile
2019-03-22 10:30 [p.26464]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I have a particular passion around this, in respect of being elected by the Conservative caucus in regard to the democratic reform bill. I think I speak for all members that their ability to be able to speak confidentially is important to the entire House, and that is why I am raising this point. I will get to some quotes in regard to parliamentary procedure. Page 57 of Australia's House of Representatives Practice reads:
All parties have party meetings in sitting weeks but usually at times when the House is not sitting. The proceedings of party meetings are regarded as confidential, and the detail of discussions is not normally made public. These meetings provide the forum, particularly for backbenchers, for internal party discussion of party policy, parliamentary activity, parliamentary tactics, the resolution of internal party disputes, the election of officers, and they provide a means of exerting backbench pressure on, and communication with, its leaders [for accountability].
Breaches in caucus confidentiality have been treated so seriously in the past as to have been held to be matters of privilege. First, I would refer the Speaker to the question of privilege raised on October 17, 1973 by David Lewis, the leader of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Lewis reported to the House the following sequence of events:
I learned at about two o'clock...that we had a bug at our caucus meeting this morning. During the meeting...the hon. member for Oshawa—Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), who is our caucus chairman, pulled a little [microphone] out from under the table, put it on top of the table, and said to me and to others: “This looks like a bugging device”. Having no knowledge of such things, I could not tell him whether it was or [was] not and we went on with the meeting.
Speaker Lamoureux then ruled, at page 6943 of the Debates, “it is obvious to the Chair that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege involving the type of situation which is normally investigated and looked into by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections..”.
Instead of referring the matter for a committee to study, and because the source of the surveillance device had voluntarily identified himself and was co-operative—
Collapse
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-03-22 10:33 [p.26465]
Expand
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for reiterating essentially the basis of my remarks on this as well. As I mentioned to the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, he is taking up, at least at this point, the issue around his concern about how a potential breach of privilege is informed. I am going to ask him to get to that. It is not necessary at this stage to reach further back in terms of precedence. I get the point that he is making in his submission. We will try to wrap up and get on with other matters before the House.
The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.
Collapse
View David Sweet Profile
CPC (ON)
View David Sweet Profile
2019-03-22 10:34 [p.26465]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I can sum it up in about 90 seconds with a quote from a Speaker who was formerly with the Liberal Party. On March 25, 2004, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the recording disclosure to the media and subsequent publication of confidential proceedings in a meeting of the Ontario Liberal caucus. In that case, the Speaker's own investigation determined that a human error had been made with respect to the broadcasting equipment present in the room.
Despite learning that it was a human error, the Speaker said:
The crux of the matter for the Chair is not the leak of this information, but the publication of leaked information that was manifestly from a private meeting. The concept of caucus confidentiality is central to the operations of the House and to the work of all hon. members. The decision to publish information leaked from a caucus meeting is, in my view, an egregious example of a cavalier and contemptuous attitude to the privacy of all members and that privacy is something upon which all members depend to do their work. It is a situation in my view that cannot go unanswered.
Accordingly, having examined the situation in the matter of the publication of a leak from the caucus meeting of February 25, I find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege and I am prepared to entertain a motion at this time.
I will sum up with that last quote. That pretty well summarizes exactly why I think you, Mr. Speaker, should get involved in this case. Should you find a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion. I appreciate the opportunity to present the case.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2019-03-18 19:12
Expand

Question No. 2153--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the announcement by the Minister of International Development that up to $50 million would be granted over two years to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East: (a) is the $50 million a new investment; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, is this amount in addition to the funding Global Affairs Canada gives to the Agency every year; and (c) how will the $50 million be granted, broken down by annual investment?
Response
Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on October 12, 2018, the Minister of International Development announced Canada’s support of up to $50 million over two years for Palestinian refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA.
With regard to a) and c), this $50 million amount is new support from Canada to UNRWA over a two-year period, 2018 and 2019. Of this amount, Canada committed $40 million over two years, $20 million for 2018 and $20 million for 2019, to help meet the basic education, health and livelihood needs of millions of vulnerable Palestinian refugees, especially women and children. Canada committed $10 million of this amount over two years, $5 million for 2018 and $5 million for 2019, to provide emergency life-saving assistance to more than 460,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon, through UNRWA’s emergency appeal for the Syria regional crisis.
With regard to b), since 2016, Canada has committed a total of $110 million in support for UNRWA. The $50 million announced in October 2018 is in addition to the $60 million previously committed in support for UNRWA, consisting of a total of $25 million in 2016 for UNRWA’s core programs and its response to the Syria regional crisis, a total of $25 million in 2017 for UNRWA’s core programs and its response to the Syria regional crisis, and an exceptional $10 million in March 2018 for emergency assistance for Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza.

Question No. 2156--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to overpayment holds from the Phoenix pay system since April 1, 2016: (a) how many employees have had their pay, or part of their pay, put on hold; (b) of the employees in (a), how many of these employees have had their overpayment deducted from their pay; and (c) of the employees in (b), how many of these employees have not yet had their file resolved?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, employees deserve to be paid properly and on time. Supporting employees facing pay issues and stabilizing the pay system remains a top priority.
While there is still work left to do, the government has taken significant steps to resolve pay issues. We have made steady progress in decreasing the backlog of transactions, improving processes, strengthening and increasing capacity, and providing enhanced services to employees calling the client contact centre.
The government is proposing new measures to support employees who carry the burden of having to repay overpayments due to no fault of their own. These measures will build on our commitment to minimize the financial impacts of Phoenix on employees and fix this unacceptable problem that we inherited from the Conservatives. The government’s proposed measures would allow employees to repay their employer only the net amount of overpayments received in the previous year. As a result, affected employees would generally no longer have to bear the burden of recovering these deductions from the CRA and repaying them to their employer.
In regard to (a), federal employees' pay is never put on hold, including when employees have an overpayment. Overpayments are usually the result of late processing in the Phoenix pay system and can result from the following situations: an employee’s acting pay did not stop when their acting assignment ended; an employee is, or was, on leave without pay and their pay was not stopped; or an employee received pay that they were not entitled to receive.
In early March 2018, the government implemented additional flexible measures to help minimize the financial impact and hardships to employees for the repayment of overpayments related to Phoenix pay system issues.
Recovery of overpaid amounts does not begin until all monies owed to the employee have been paid, the employee has received three consecutive correct pay cheques and a recovery agreement has been established.
Additionally, the government has ensured that employees facing pay issues can request emergency salary advance or priority payments.
For more information, individuals can refer to https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/remuneration-compensation/services-paye-pay-services/systeme-paye-employes-pay-system-employees/trop-payes-overpayments-eng.html.
With regard to (b), 223,173 employees have had an overpayment recovered from their pay between April 1, 2016, and January 31, 2019. The last day of January 2019 was used as a point of reference to provide a month-to-month breakdown.
Members should note that this number includes overpayments that remain in progress for certain employees, in accordance with the individual employee’s recovery agreement. In addition, this number is comprised of true and technical overpayments. However, the Phoenix pay system currently cannot segregate true overpayments from technical overpayments. True overpayments are created in situations where employees receive pay to which they were not entitled. For example, this occurs when an employee’s termination or leave without pay, for example, parental leave, is entered after the pay period of their departure date. Technical overpayments are created to adjust pay and ensure employees receive the pay to which they were entitled. For example, this occurs when an employee’s acting assignment is entered after the pay period in which the acting assignment began. Technical overpayments are typically netted out in the next pay period. They do not have a negative impact on employees. They are entered to offset a payment adjustment and are seamless to the employee.
With regard to (c), producing this information would require manual work that cannot be completed within prescribed timelines.

Question No. 2163--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s sponsorship of events and organizations which are opposed to the Trans Mountain Pipeline since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the complete list of such events and organizations which received funding from the government; (b) for each event and organization in (a), what are the details, including (i) name, (ii) date, (iii) title and description of event or organization, (iv) amount provided by the government; and (c) for each sponsorship, what is the government’s justification for providing funding to anti-pipeline entities?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Environment and Climate Change Canada does not collect or track the names of events or organizations opposed or in support of the project referenced in Question No. 2163.

Question No. 2167--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the television advertising being done by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) during the 2019 NFL Playoffs: (a) what was the total amount spent by the CPPIB during the 2019 NFL Playoffs; (b) what are the details, including the total amount budgeted for the advertising campaign from which the expenditures in (a) were drawn; (c) why did the CPPIB advertise during the NFL Playoffs; and (d) does the government consider this advertisement to be a prudent use of taxpayers money?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, or CPPIB, is neither a department nor an agency of the Crown and, therefore, does not fall within the same guidelines for disclosure. CPPIB is subject to disclosure requirements as set out in the CPPIB Act and reports to federal and provincial finance ministers and Canadians.
CPPIB operating expenses are disclosed in its annual report, which is available online at http://www.cppib.com/en/our-performance/financial-results/.

Question No. 2169--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the briefing note titled “Subject of national security concern granted permanent residency” and the January 2019 media reports that an individual of national security concern was granted permanent residency status: (a) has the individual’s permanent residency status been revoked and, if so, on what date was it revoked; and (b) if the permanent residency status has not been revoked, why has it not been revoked?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 26 of the Privacy Act, the discussion of case specifics without the prior written consent of the individual in question is prohibited.

Question No. 2170--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the effect of wind farms on birds since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the government’s estimates regarding how many birds have been killed by wind farms; (b) how many wind farms have been issued fines by the government under the Migratory Birds Convention Act; and (c) what specific measures, if any, has Environment and Climate Change Canada done in order to protect birds from getting killed by wind farms?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), overall mortality to migratory birds caused by wind turbines is low relative to other sources of mortality, such as cats, windows on buildings, vehicles and transmission lines. More information is available at https://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art11/. The most recent estimates, based on extrapolated data, indicate that up to 47,000 birds could be killed from collisions with turbines each year in Canada. More information can be found at https://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art10/. Presently, there are more than 6,300 turbines installed across Canada with the largest number of turbines in the province of Ontario. For most species of migratory birds, which have estimated populations that number in the millions, wind turbine-related mortality is not likely to have a biologically significant impact on their populations. However, it is possible that turbines sited in sensitive habitats or where species at risk are concentrated could have population-level impacts.
In regard to (b), our records indicate that no incidences of unlawful migratory bird deaths due to wind turbines were reported to ECCC’s enforcement branch. As such, no wind farms have been issued fines under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.
With regard to (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada recognizes that multiple renewable sources of energy, including wind, make an important contribution to Canada’s energy mix. In Canada, the provinces have primary jurisdiction over the development of their energy resources, including wind energy. On non-federal lands, both land use planning and the conservation of wildlife habitat are primarily matters of provincial or territorial jurisdiction. The responsibility for conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared between the federal and provincial or territorial governments.
Despite relatively low mortality, in keeping with the federal government's Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, ECCC requires that all reasonable measures be taken to avoid incidental mortality of migratory birds. ECCC also provides detailed guidance on this subject to all proponents undertaking activities that could result in incidental mortality of migratory birds. More information can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds.html.

Question No. 2171--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the government’s decision to rename the Champlain Bridge to the Samuel De Champlain Bridge: (a) how much did the government spend on its consultations and the process to pick the new name; and (b) what is the detailed breakdown of the expenses in (a) by line item?
Response
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s decision to rename the Champlain Bridge the Samuel de Champlain Bridge, existing internal resources were used for consultations in the process of naming the new bridge the Samuel de Champlain Bridge. Therefore, the consultations did not result in any additional costs.

Question No. 2186--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to foreign vessels engaged in coasting trade in Canadian waters: (a) how many exemptions did the Minister of Transport issue in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018; and (b) in the case of each vessel, what was (i) its country of registration, (ii) its tonnage?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Coasting Trade Act is intended to protect the domestic marine sector by reserving coasting trade to Canadian registered and duty-paid vessels. The act includes a licensing process for the temporary importation of foreign vessels into the Canadian marine sector when a suitable Canadian vessel is not available.
The Minister of Transport has not provided any exemptions given that there is no authority under the act for the minister to issue a general exemption from the licensing requirement. However, the act does include exclusions for foreign vessels to engage in a number of specific coasting trade activities. Responsibility rests with vessel owners to ensure they are eligible to undertake the excluded activities and remain in compliance with the act. These exclusions constitute deregulated activities and are therefore not subject to licensing requirements.
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2272--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the Clerk of the Privy Council: did the Clerk have any discussions or interactions with the Prime Minister or his exempt staff, or other ministers or their exempt staff, regarding his appearance at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on February 21, 2019, prior to his appearance at the Committee, and, if so, what are the details of any such discussions or interactions, including (i) date, (ii) form, (iii) list of participants, (iv) summary?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 2144--
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the $177,718.18 spent by Environment and Climate Change Canada on Non-public servant travel – Key Stakeholders (object code 0262) during the 2017-18 fiscal year: (a) what are the names of the “key stakeholders” who received funds under this expenditure; (b) how much did each “key stakeholder” receive; and (c) what was the destination and purpose of each trip related to each expenditure?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Environment and Climate Change Canada does not have specific coding to track information related to Question Q-2144.
Collapse
Audits and auditorsBacklogsBains, NavdeepBlaney, StevenBroadband Internet servicesCanada Infrastructure BankCanada Revenue AgencyCarbon pricingChamplain BridgeCharlevoixChina ...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-12-13 10:11
Expand

Question No. 2026--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to the government's decision to resume funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA): (a) has the government put in place enhanced due diligence and accountability measures with respect to the educational needs of Palestinian children and youth, and the adopted curriculum; and (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, (i) when were the measures established, (ii) what are the measures, (iii) who is responsible within the government for oversight of the implementation of these enhanced due diligence and accountability measures?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to the government’s decision to resume funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, and (a) specifically, Canada exercises enhanced due diligence for all international assistance funding for Palestinians, including UNRWA. All programming and funding mechanisms, including those for the West Bank and Gaza, are thoroughly examined to be consistent with Canadian values and legislation, and to meet the highest standards of accountability.
With regard to (b)(i), Canada has exercised enhanced due diligence and monitored accountability for funding for UNRWA since Canada resumed its support to the UN Agency in 2016.
With regard to (b)(ii), Canada’s enhanced due diligence activities include strong anti-terrorism provisions in funding agreements, ongoing oversight, regular site visits, and a systematic screening process.
Canada and UNRWA have agreed to a framework for cooperation that outlines shared commitments and Canada’s expectations regarding the implementation of UNRWA’s reform initiatives, regular monitoring and reporting, and compliance with Canadian anti-terrorism requirements. This framework for cooperation is publicly available on the Global Affairs Canada Internet site: http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/where-ou/gac_un_unrwa-amc_nu_unrwa.aspx?lang=eng .
Canada’s funding also contributes to UNRWA’s neutrality activities, which include regular inspections of the agency’s facilities by specially trained UNRWA officers who can identify, report, and take action on violations of neutrality; training for UNRWA staff on neutrality, including in social media, and for senior staff on how to carry out effective installation inspections; promotion of students’ knowledge and skills reflecting United Nations, UN, values, including human rights, conflict resolution, gender equality and tolerance, through educational activities and materials; and UNRWA’s development, distribution and use of additional educational materials, as part of the agency’s approach to enable teachers to promote neutrality. This support also builds on funding Canada provided from 2017 to 2019 to hire a neutrality coordinator to monitor activities and respond promptly to allegations of neutrality violations.
This assistance demonstrates how Canada and UNRWA are working together to ensure respect for the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, operational independence and impartiality. This is essential to the effective delivery of its work and to Canada’s continued support to UNRWA.
In addition, our funding enables us to be an active member of UNRWA’s advisory commission. We continue to work on a regular basis with UNRWA and other donor governments to advance reforms related to governance, effectiveness, monitoring and financial administration. Canada’s participation provides an opportunity for oversight, influence and engagement on key issues. Canada will continue to take all allegations of neutrality violations very seriously.
It is a long-standing policy for UNRWA to use the textbooks of the jurisdiction in which UNRWA schools operate. This allows students to sit for local exams. UNRWA has in place a formal framework to review all textbooks and, where needed, provides additional training for teachers to address any problematic issues related to neutrality, bias, gender equality or age appropriateness.
With regard to (b)(iii), monitoring and oversight are conducted by Global Affairs Canada officials and implementing partners. Each funding instrument requires partner organizations, including UNRWA, to provide regular reporting on work plans and activities, financial records, and results achieved. Global Affairs Canada officials reserve the right to request additional information or clarification from partners as needed, to ensure compliance with the terms of funding instruments, to manage risks, to assess results or to obtain further financial details.
Given that UNRWA has operations in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, the Government of Canada officials based across the region closely monitor project activities and results.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-12-10 15:27
Expand

Question No. 2012--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to meetings between the RCMP and ministers, exempt staff members, or other government employees in relation to leaks of Cabinet confidences: what are the details of all such meetings, including (i) name and title of minister, exempt staff member or other government employee, (ii) location, (iii) date, (iv) subject matter discussed?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, given its mandate and operational requirements, the RCMP does not disclose details related to operational activities.

Question No. 2013--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-1503 where it indicated that it was aware of six incidents of leaked information, but that only one individual had been under investigation for leaking information: broken down by each of the five instances where information was leaked but an investigation did not take place or no one was placed under investigation, what is the rationale for not pursuing an investigation into each of the instances?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s response to Q-1503, in the five other incidents, following initial fact-finding work, it was determined that there was insufficient data and evidence to determine the source of compromise and no further action was warranted.

Question No. 2014--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to instructions or directives provided by the Office of the Prime Minister to the Privy Council Office (PCO) since November 4, 2015: what instructions or directives were given to PCO in relation to the release of documents as requested by lawyers in the Mark Norman case, or in relation to the alleged leak of information from a November 2015 Cabinet committee meeting, and on what date was each instruction or directive given?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is an outstanding legal proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice and the parties to that proceeding have sought disclosure of documents. The Government of Canada is collecting documents in its possession that are potentially responsive to the request, to provide to the court. It is up to the court to decide which documents should be released to defence counsel. It is accepted practice for the House of Commons to respect the sub judice convention and, as such, it would be inappropriate to comment.

Question No. 2019--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the terms used in Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act: (a) what is the government’s definition of “meaningful human contact” and what are examples of contacts that would or would not satisfy the Bill's requirements related to that term; and (b) what is the government’s definition of “leisure time” and what would be examples of activities that would or would not satisfy the Bill's requirements related to that term?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in Bill C-83, the term “meaningful human contact” is intended to refer generally to social interaction and psychological stimulation conducive to mental health and rehabilitation. It is drawn from rule 44 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the “Nelson Mandela rules”.
With regard to (b), in Bill C-83, the term “leisure time” is intended to refer to interactions with other individuals outside the context of formal CSC programs and interventions. Examples include sharing meals or engaging in physical activity with compatible inmates in a manner consistent with the secure environment of a structured intervention unit.

Question No. 2020--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to changes or concessions made by the government to supply management in the United States—Mexico—Canada Agreement (USMCA): (a) what are the details of any studies the government has conducted on the impact of the changes to supply management in the USMCA, including the findings to any such studies; and (b) what projections does the government have on the impact of the supply management changes in the USMCA to each of the supply managed industries?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, information on the economic impact of recent trade agreements that can be made public is available on Government of Canada’s websites.
With regard to CPTPP, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
With regard to CETA, please see www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/europe/canada-european-union-comprehensive-economic-and-trade-agreement-ceta-for-agri-food-exporters/ceta-a-competitive-advantage-for-the-canadian-agri-food-industry/?id=1505510292539
With regard to CIFTA, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/israel/benefits-avantages.aspx?lang=eng
With regard to USMCA, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/usmca-aeumc/agri.aspx?lang=eng
The Canadian Grain Commission did not conduct any studies on the impact of the changes to supply management under the USMCA and does not have any projections on the impact of the supply management changes under the USMCA. The Canadian Grain Commission does not have any role or responsibility with respect to supply-managed industries.
The Farm Products Council of Canada has not conducted any studies on the impact of the changes to supply management in the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, USMCA.
With regard to the Canadian Dairy Commission, information on the economic impact of recent trade agreements that can be made public is available on Government of Canada’s websites.
With regard to CPTPP, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
With regard to CETA, please see www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/europe/canada-european-union-comprehensive-economic-and-trade-agreement-ceta-for-agri-food-exporters/ceta-a-competitive-advantage-for-the-canadian-agri-food-industry/?id=1505510292539
With regard to CIFTA, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/israel/benefits-avantages.aspx?lang=eng
With regard to USMCA, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/usmca-aeumc/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Farm Credit Canada has not conducted any studies on the impact of the changes to supply management in the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, USMCA.

Question No. 2021--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to instructions or advice provided by the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO) or the Privy Council Office (PCO) to departments and agencies regarding requests for the release of documents by a legal counsel to a party with matters before the courts: what are the details of any instructions which the PMO or PCO provided to any department or agency since November 4, 2015, including (i) sender, (ii) recipients, (iii) date, (iv) contents of the instructions or advice?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is bound by the Privacy Act and makes efforts to apply the principles of the Access to Information Act. In relation to matters before the courts, if such records exist, any instructions or directives would generally be subject to litigation privilege and potentially, to solicitor-client privilege.

Question No. 2023--
Mr. Bob Benzen:
With regard to the government’s Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance: why are there no panel members from any province or territory outside of Ontario and Quebec, as of October 24, 2018?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the ministers of Environment and Climate Change and Finance selected panel members based on their experience in diverse segments of the financial sector, their ability to engage financial sector executives and their understanding of both private sector and regulatory perspectives.
The Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance is consulting broadly with industries and stakeholders across Canada.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 2004--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to Canada-Taiwan relations and reports that the Government of China is requiring Canadian private companies, including Air Canada and the Royal Bank of Canada, to label Taiwan as part of China: (a) has the government discussed this issue with the Government of Taiwan and, if so, (i) on what dates was it discussed, (ii) what message was conveyed, (iii) what was Taiwan’s response; (b) has there been a change in the government’s policy with respect to Canada-Taiwan relations and, if so, what was the change; and (c) what is the status of negotiations on a Foreign Investment Protection Agreement with Taiwan?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada supports Taiwan’s democracy and continues to have strong and growing trade and people-to-people ties with Taiwan within the framework of Canada’s one China policy. Canada is committed to expanding these ties, including on the basis of shared values and a large diaspora. Canada is pleased to note that there has been steady growth in tourist visits, international student exchanges, and bilateral merchandise trade between our two markets.
Canada opposes any actions taken to alter the status quo or raise tensions across the Taiwan Strait. While private companies are responsible for the content of their websites, Global Affairs Canada has made firm representations to the Government of the People’s Republic of China expressing Canada’s strong disappointment that China is involving private industry and obliging them to take a position on political issues. Global Affairs Canada has made clear to Chinese officials that Canadian companies should be able to operate their websites without political interference. Canadian officials have also met with Taiwanese authorities to inform them that there has been no change in Canada’s longstanding one China policy.
With regards to a possible foreign investment protection agreement or arrangement, FIPA, with Taiwan, Canada is giving consideration to the matter.
Canada is committed to continuing to strengthen trade and investment relations in the Asia-Pacific region, including with Taiwan.

Question No. 2006--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to government expenditures on personal wellness, spiritual experts, yoga instructors or other similar types of services during the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) services provided, (iv) amount of contract or expenditure, (v) for which individuals the services were provided?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Global Affairs Canada’s summits management office had no expenditures related to personal wellness, spiritual experts, yoga instructors or other similar types of service that were used during the 2018 G7 summit in Charlevoix.

Question No. 2010--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the decision by the Minister of National Defence to hire James Cudmore as a Senior Policy Advisor in late 2015 or early 2016: (a) on what date was Mr. Cudmore offered employment in the Office of the Minister; and (b) on what date did Mr. Cudmore begin his employment in the Office of the Minister?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. With respect to the details of an individual’s employment, a response could disclose personal and solicitor-client privileged information. Therefore, the government must respectfully decline to respond.
Collapse
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

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

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

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

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

Question No. 2003--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to all Marine Mammal Regulations introduced or amended by the government since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all biological, ecological, population, and impact studies conducted by the government, broken down by regulation or regulatory change, including (i) completion date, (ii) who conducted the study, (iii) findings, (iv) website location where the findings can be located, (v) methodology?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were no scientific studies specifically conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to inform the marine mammal regulations amendments post November 4, 2015; therefore, the answer to the above questions (i) to (v) is nil. However, the most recent amendments to the marine mammal regulations were informed by the best available science from the department’s scientists, as well as external scientific research, and through consultations with indigenous groups and stakeholders.
In the early 2000s, concerns about the cumulative effects of disturbance to marine mammals were brought to the attention of the department by industry and marine mammal researchers. The department commissioned Dr. Jon Lien of Memorial University in Newfoundland to provide his professional recommendations with respect to addressing these concerns. Dr. Lien’s report, found at http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/462620/publication.html, published in 2001, indicated that repeated exposure to, and interaction with, humans may interrupt or prevent marine mammals from completing their normal life processes, e.g., mating, calving and nursing; cause habituation of marine mammals to human activities; and threaten the survival of individual animals. At that time, section 7 of the marine mammal regulations, MMR, did prohibit the disturbance of marine mammals by any person. However, they did not expressly and effectively identify specific activities that may disturb the normal life processes of a marine mammal.
The department considered a general approach distance for vessels on the water of 100 metres for whales, dolphins and porpoises to be a practical and comprehensible means to prevent disturbance to the animals; however, the practicality of setting a single approach distance applicable to all species, areas and circumstances proved to be a very difficult task. Although 100 metres is considered to be a reasonable distance to minimize disturbance both nationally and internationally, including by Australia, New Zealand and the United States, after consultation in several locations in Canada, DFO considered different distances and ultimately decided to introduce a schedule to the MMR that tailors vessel approach distances to particular areas and circumstances and species.
Specific approach distances in the amended MMRs were informed by a number of external studies. For example, DFO contracted Chris Malcolm to conduct a study on the behaviour of beluga whales in the presence of whale watching vessels in Churchill, MB. This study, published in 2011, found at http://cbwtoa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MalcolmPennerBelugaBoats.pdf, recommended a 25 metre minimum approach distance in Churchill, and a 50 metre approach distance for beluga feeding aggregations. On the Pacific coast, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has compiled scientific evidence regarding approach distances for killer whales. Research results indicated that killer whale behaviour can be affected by approaches at distances greater than 100 yards, or 91.4 metres, according to Lusseau et al, 2009, https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v6/n3/p211-221/; Noren et al, 2009, https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v8/n3/p179-192/; Williams et al, 2009, https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v6/n3/p199-209/, due to behavioural changes and therefore potential impacts on life processes.
In consideration of flight manoeuvres, the amendments prohibit activities such as taking off, landing or altering the course or altitude of the aircraft for the purpose of bring the aircraft closer to a marine mammal or otherwise disturbing it. This prohibition is applicable when the aircraft is being operated at an altitude of less than 304.8 metres, or 1000 feet, within the radius of one-half nautical mile from the marine mammal. The 1000 feet altitude distance is considered a best practice domestically and internationally, including in the United States. However, helicopters that are being used for the seal pup observation industry are exempted from section 7.2 of the regulations, as there is evidence that the brief interaction people have with seal pups on these excursions have no negative effects on the pups, according to Kovacs and Innes, 1990, https://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/0168-1591(90)90083-P/abstract.
The approach limits specified in the amended MMR are also generally consistent with standards adopted internationally, including Australia’s environment protection and biodiversity conservation regulations 2000, and most of the guidelines in the United States. There are various guidelines, codes of conducts and best practices guides in the U.S. under which the approach distance to marine mammals varies depending on the region, state, and species. Although they are distinct in their application, these regulatory and non-regulatory instruments reflect a common purpose for conservation and protection of marine mammal species, and include rules such as keeping a minimum approach distance of 100 yards from all marine mammals. Moreover, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s northwest office has established a regulatory requirement specific to killer whales in the Pacific region, which requires that vessels must not approach any killer whale any closer than 200 yards, or 183 metres, and must stay 400 yards, or 366 metres, out of the path of oncoming whales. Finally, vessels are forbidden to intercept a whale or position a vessel in the path of a whale.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-12-03 15:16
Expand

Question No. 1988--
Mr. Bev Shipley:
With regard to forensic toxicology tests and the National Forensic Laboratory Services (NFLS) section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: (a) how many blood tests were conducted by the NFLS from 2015 to date, broken down by year; (b) how many blood tests are projected to be conducted by the NFLS in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (c) what is the projected yearly budgetary increase required for the NFLS as a result of the legalization of cannabis; and (d) what is the projected increase in turnaround time for test results as a result of the legalization of cannabis?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the RCMP's National Forensic Laboratory Services, NFLS, receives requests for different types of forensic services from across Canada, excluding Ontario and Quebec, who manage and operate their own public forensic laboratories. NFLS tracks the number of service requests, not "blood tests", it receives for forensic analysis.
With regard to (c), at this time, the projected yearly budgetary increase required for the NFLS as a result of the legalization of cannabis is not available.
The government will ensure that the resources are in place to deliver the programs and services that accompany this important transformation.
With regard to (d), the NFLS currently has established target diary dates for its toxicology services program. Included in the above-mentioned proposal to confirm funding is a plan to build NFLS capacity to meet any increase in demand for services. The NFLS service model already includes a monitoring function that assists in prioritization of urgent service requests.

Question No. 1994--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act: what are the projected implementation costs of the legislation, broken down by each policy measure contained in the Bill?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, eliminating the use of administrative segregation within Canada's correctional system and replacing it with structured intervention units, SIUs, will require both the enactment of new legislation, Bill C-83, and the investment of new resources.
The objective is to ensure that the system can properly separate certain offenders as necessary for safety and security reasons, while still providing them with on-going meaningful human contact and the interventions, programs and social supports that their circumstances require, including access to program officers, indigenous liaison officers, elders, chaplains and others. If the new legislation is enacted, the Government of Canada will invest close to $300 million over six years, and then some $70 million annually thereafter, to implement the new SIU approach.
For this approach to be successful, the correctional system must also strengthen its mental health programming. This will include the enhanced assessment and early diagnosis of inmates at intake and throughout incarceration at all levels, plus enhanced primary and acute mental health care, support for patient advocacy services and 24-7 health care at designated institutions. If this new legislation is enacted, the Government of Canada will invest more than $150 million over six years, and then more than $70 million annually thereafter, to implement these mental health care improvements.
More specific financial details will become available through the on-going budgetary process, including the usual estimates presented for approval to the House of Commons.

Question No. 1996--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the government’s announcement that it will be waiving the record suspension application fee for individuals who have criminal records related to the possession of cannabis: (a) how many individuals have criminal records solely from possession of cannabis convictions; (b) how many individuals have criminal records from possession of cannabis convictions in addition to convictions on other charges; and (c) what is the projected cost to the government of waiving the record suspension application fee for those convicted of cannabis possession?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services, CCRTIS, maintains the RCMP national repository of criminal records. The repository is a record database and was not designed to provide statistical analysis. As a result, the content of the repository cannot be aggregated and disaggregated in a way that would accurately depict answers as they relate to these questions.
With regard to (c), at this time, the implementation costs of the proposal are not available.
The government will ensure that the resources are in place to deliver the programs and services that accompany this important transformation.
Collapse
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 1982--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the government’s closure to the public of the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada office in Winnipeg without an appointment: (a) what is the government’s rationale for no longer allowing access to general public without a prior appointment; (b) how many clients were served at this location between January 2015 and September 2018, broken down by month; and (c) what is the breakdown in (b) by purpose of visit, (for example, obtaining a status card, etc.)?
Response
Mr. Dan Vandal (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the office located at 365 Hargrave Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, no data is available, as there was no appointment process in place for this location while access was provided to the general public. In an effort to balance service standards with the safety of the public and staff, and following the closure of the office at 365 Hargrave Street to the general public, a new appointment process was put in place at the new location to minimize disruptions and to ensure that services continued as efficiently as possible.
The ISC office for secure certificate of Indian status, located at 391 York Street Winnipeg, Manitoba, was opened on November 23, 2016, and continues to provide services to the general public by appointment. The majority of appointments are for secure certificate of Indian status card applications, marriage and death registrations, name changes and amendments. The approximate number of visits from November 2016 to September 2018, broken down by month, are as follows: November 2016: 34; December 2016/January 2017: 235; February 2017: 172; March 2017: 250; April 2017: 141; May 2017: 213; June 2017: 221; July 2017: 253; August 2017: 373; September 2017: 297; October 2017: 331; November 2017: 384; December 2017: 273; January 2018: 331; February 2018: 381; March 2018: 408; April 2018: 349; May 2018: 435; June 2018: 299; July 2018: 624; August 2018: 382; and September 2018: 330.

Question No. 1983--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the 10-year grant funding mechanism announced by the Minister of Indigenous Services on December 6, 2017: (a) how many First Nations provided a written expression of interest by the July 13, 2018, deadline; (b) how many First Nations have met the eligibility criteria, as confirmed to the Department of Indigenous Services by the First Nations Financial Management Board; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by province or territory; (d) what are the details of reporting mechanisms for accountability to band members; (e) will the Department of Indigenous Services or the First Nations Financial Management Board body determine if the reporting mechanisms for accountability to band members are adequate and have been met; and (f) what is the complete list of First Nations individuals and organizations that were consulted between December 6, 2017, and October 16, 2018?
Response
Mr. Dan Vandal (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there were 214 first nations that provided a written expression of interest by the July 13, 2018 deadline. As of October 15, 2018, a total of 252 first nations had submitted a written expression of interest.
With regard to (b), the First Nations Financial Management Board has not yet completed its assessment of the first nations who sent in an expression of interest.
With regard to (c), the breakdown of eligible first nations by province or territory is not yet known. The number of first nations who expressed interest in the 10-year grant is distributed by province or territory as follows: Alberta, 17; British Columbia, 88; Manitoba, 30; New Brunswick, 8; Newfoundland and Labrador, 3; Nova Scotia, 11; Northwest Territories, 2; Ontario, 45; Prince Edward Island, 2; Quebec, 14; Saskatchewan, 32.
With regard to (d), under the 10-year grant, measures for accountability to first nation members are codified in the financial administration law, FAL, or financial administration bylaw, FAB, of the first nation and reinforced in the funding agreement. First nations must enact and maintain a FAL or FAB in order to be eligible and to maintain eligibility for a 10-year grant.
Under a FAL/FAB, the first nation must have a policy for first nation information or involvement. The council must establish such a policy and/or procedures or give directions respecting the means by which members of the first nation must be informed about or involved in consideration of the following: the annual budget; the multi-year financial plan; and budget deficits or extraordinary expenditures. Additionally, the council must post a public notice of each council meeting when each of the following is presented for approval: the multi-year financial plan; the annual budget; and amendments to the annual budget. Members of the first nation may attend that part of the council meeting when the matters referred to in the above are being considered.
With regard to (e), under the 10-year grant compliance measures are replaced by practices that strengthen first nations governance and empower first nation citizens to hold their leaders accountable. This includes ongoing monitoring of the co-developed eligibility criteria for 10-year grants by the First Nation Financial Management Board. This monitoring would include an assessment of the adequacy of reporting to band members as per the reporting provisions codified in the first nation’s financial administration law, FAL, or financial administration bylaw, FAB. On an annual basis, the First Nations Financial Management Board will report the results of their assessment of eligibility criteria to ISC. ISC will support the first nations to remediate any issues related to maintaining eligibility for 10-year grant, including the reporting mechanisms for accountability.
With regard to (f), from October 11 to November 20, 2017, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and the AFN met on nine occasions with first nations leaders and technical experts around the country to seek their input on options to address predictability of funding, sufficient funding for program delivery, and mutual accountability. The feedback from participants on their priorities and major concerns were considered and reflected in the report entitled, “A new approach: Co-development of a new fiscal relationship between Canada and First Nation”. The Assembly of First Nations presented this report to all first nations chiefs in attendance at Assembly of First Nations’ special chiefs assembly in Ottawa, on December 6, 2017. Department of Indigenous Services Canada officials continue with ongoing co-development work related to the 10-year grant with both the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Financial Management Board. Beginning in January 2018, Indigenous Services Canada staff participated in a number of information sessions across many regions to provide first nations participants with more information about the grant.

Question No. 1984--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to funding for the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework: (a) for what will funding be utilized, broken down by item; and (b) what is the percentage and total of the funding that will be utilized for administrative costs?
Response
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in support of the indigenous early learning and child care, ELCC, framework, the Government of Canada is committing up to $1.7 billion over 10 years to strengthen early learning and child care programs and services for indigenous children and families starting in 2018-19. This is part of the commitment of $7.5 billion over 11 years the government has made to support and create more high-quality, affordable child care across the country.
Over the next 10 years, up to $1.02 billion will support ELCC for first nations and will be managed in partnership with first nations. Up to $111 million will support ELCC for Inuit and will be managed in partnership with Inuit. Up to $450 million will support ELCC for the Métis Nation and will be managed in partnership with the Métis Nation. New funding will be aimed at improving and increasing access to culturally rooted early learning and child care programs and services, aligned with the co-developed goals and priorities set out in the Indigenous ELCC framework.
In addition to distinctions-based funding, enhanced funding of $34 million over 10 years will also be available to enhance the aboriginal head start in urban and northern communities, AHSUNC, program. In addition, a total of $44 million over 10 years will support quality improvement projects, that is, application-based, indigenous-led projects to advance foundational elements of indigenous ELCC.
With regard to (b), of the total new funding of $1.7 billion, $46.8 million, or 2.7%, over 10 years would be allocated to administrative costs related to federal operating requirements. These funds will enable Employment and Social Development Canada, ESDC, Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, to support implementation of the indigenous ELCC framework and ensure effective program monitoring and reporting.

Question No. 1985--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the October 2018 announcement that the government would provide $50 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees: (a) what specific written guarantees, if any, does the government have that the funding will not be used for anti-Semitic or anti-Israel activities; and (b) what is the website location where the text of any written guarantees mentioned in (a), can be located?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on October 12, 2018, Global Affairs Canada announced Canada’s continued support to Palestinian refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA. Canada committed $40 million over two years to help meet the basic education, health and livelihood needs of millions of vulnerable Palestinian refugees, especially women and children. In addition, Canada committed $10 million to UNRWA’s emergency appeal for Palestinian refugees impacted by the regional crisis caused by war in Syria.
Importantly, Canada’s funding is also contributing to UNRWA’s neutrality activities, which include regular inspections of the agency’s facilities by specially trained UNRWA officers who can identify, report and take action on violations of neutrality; training for UNRWA staff on neutrality, including in social media, and for senior staff on how to carry out effective installation inspections; promotion of students’ knowledge and skills reflecting United Nations, UN, values, including human rights, conflict resolution, gender equality and tolerance, through educational activities and materials; and UNRWA’s development, distribution and use of additional educational materials, as part of the agency’s approach to enable teachers to promote neutrality. This support also builds on funding Canada provided from 2017 to 2019 to hire a neutrality coordinator to monitor activities and respond promptly to allegations of neutrality violations. This assistance demonstrates how Canada and UNRWA are working together to ensure respect for the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, operational independence and impartiality. This is essential to the effective delivery of its work and to Canada’s continued support to UNRWA.
Canada is aware that UNRWA has faced various criticisms and allegations. In Canada’s view, UNRWA has demonstrated its commitment to establish conditions to ensure that assistance is provided to the most vulnerable while increasing strong accountability and neutrality measures among its over 30,000 employees. Canada is working with UNRWA to establish additional measures to ensure thorough monitoring, reporting and accountability. Our funding enables us to be an active member of UNRWA’s Advisory Commission, and we continue to work on a regular basis with UNRWA and other donor governments to advance reforms related to governance, effectiveness, monitoring and financial administration. Canada’s participation provides an opportunity for oversight, influence and engagement on key issues.
Canada and other donors support UNRWA’s efforts to ensure that UNRWA students learn UN values such as neutrality, human rights, conflict resolution, tolerance, equality and non-discrimination based on race, gender, language and religion. UNRWA has in place a formal framework to review all textbooks and, where needed, provides additional training for teachers to address any problematic issues related to neutrality, bias, gender equality or age appropriateness.
Canada exercises enhanced due diligence for all international assistance funding for Palestinians, including funding for UNRWA. This includes strong anti-terrorism provisions in funding agreements, ongoing oversight, regular site visits, and a systematic screening process. All programming and funding mechanisms are thoroughly examined to ensure consistency with Canadian values and to meet the highest standards of transparency and accountability. If and when issues arise, Canada and UNRWA engage quickly and openly.
Regarding additional measures that Canada requires UNRWA undertake to ensure its neutrality, Canada and UNRWA have agreed to a framework for cooperation that outlines shared commitments and Canada’s expectations regarding the implementation of UNRWA’s reform initiatives, regular monitoring and reporting, and compliance with Canadian anti-terrorism requirements. This framework for cooperation is publicly available on the Global Affairs Canada Internet site: http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/where-ou/gac_un_unrwa-amc_nu_unrwa.aspx?lang=eng.
Upholding the neutrality of its operations allows UNRWA to deliver effectively on its important assistance to Palestinian refugees. Canada will continue to take all allegations of neutrality violations very seriously.
Our government will continue to support the provision of assistance to the most vulnerable on behalf of Canadians, in a way that reflects Canadian values. Thanks to UNRWA’s work, more than three million people have access to primary health care, and over half a million Palestinian refugee girls and boys benefit from the quality education provided to them in UN schools.
Collapse
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-11-28 15:53
Expand

Question No. 1975--
Mr. Guy Lauzon:
With regard to the government’s decision to change the word “illegal” to "“irregular" in reference to illegal border crossers on the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada website on July 10, 2018: (a) when was the change ordered; (b) who ordered the change; (c) what role did the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship or his office play in the name change taking place; (d) did the Minister or anyone in his office approve the change; (e) was the change made as a Liberal political response after the Minister verbally attacked the Ontario Premier, and the Ontario Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues on July 9, 2018; and (f) if the answer to (e) is negative, on what date did the department decide to make the change?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship did not order the change of the word "illegal" to "irregular" on IRCC's website. The decision to standardize the terminology was made by the department to minimize the mischaracterization of asylum seekers as being in Canada illegally. In accordance with Canadian and international laws, until their claim is decided, or if they are found to be a refugee, a person will not be charged with an offence based on how they entered Canada. The updates to the website were made on an ongoing basis, and incrementally from the fall of 2017 to the summer of 2018 to reflect the fact that it is not illegal for someone to claim asylum in Canada after entering at any point along the Canada-U.S. border.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 30 of 109 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data