Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 38
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2018-11-05 15:24
Expand

Question No. 1881--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the decision taken by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to apply an attestation requirement to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) on what date did the Minister authorize the use of the attestation for the 2018 Canada Summer Job program; (b) did the Minister seek legal advice for her decision from the Department of Justice or other sources prior to implementing the attestation; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, when was the advice initially (i) sought, (ii) received; (d) did the Minister seek legal advice for her decision from the Department of Justice or other sources after the implementation of the attestation; and (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, when was the advice initially (i) sought, (ii) received?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour authorized the use of the attestation for Canada summer jobs for 2018 on December 6, 2017.
With regard to (b) to (e), the department is not in a position to provide a response those questions, as information related to legal advice is protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Question No. 1885--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, which states that the government will “ensure that all pre-release and pension administration is completed, and benefits are in place, before the transition to post-military life”: (a) how many Canadian Armed Forces members have been medically released since June 7, 2017; and (b) of the individuals referred to in (a), how many have transitioned to post-military life without all pre-release and pension administration completed and benefits in place?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), since 10 July 2017, 2,020 military personnel have been released for medical reasons. Of these, 1,742 were regular force, 272 were from the primary reserve, five were reservists responsible for cadet training, and one was on the supplementary reserve list. Starting on 10 July 2017, the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, adopted a new database and a revised review process to track release files more efficiently and to accelerate the delivery of benefits to members. The information prior to this date is therefore not available.
With regard to part (b), it is CAF practice not to release personnel until the documentation to receive benefits is completed. Once released the member will begin receiving benefits. Within 45 days of receiving all necessary documents, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, starts administering entitlements under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Within four to six weeks, the CAF begins to pay Canadian Forces severance pay and leave cash-out for eligible personnel.
The same practice applies to CAF personnel releasing with medical issues. The CAF, however, will not hold an individual who wishes to release early to pursue employment opportunities.
Veterans Affairs Canada also provides benefits to CAF members who are released for medical reasons. As committed to in “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, the department is working with Veterans Affairs Canada to transition CAF members seamlessly to post-military life.

Question No. 1886--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the Persian Gulf War, which took place between 1990 and 1991, and as of June 1, 2018: (a) how much capital has been spent by the government to commemorate the participation of the Canadian Armed Forces in the conflict; (b) which government programs have (i) received funding requests or applications to commemorate Canadian participation in the conflict, (ii) granted funding to groups or organizations seeking to commemorate that participation, (iii) rejected funding requests by a group or organization seeking to commemorate that participation; and (c) what criteria did the government use to reject the funding requests mentioned in (b)(iii)?
Response
Hon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Veterans Affairs Canada, through the commemorative partnership program, provides program funding, but does not have a capital vote. Veterans Affairs Canada has operating and management funding.
With regard to (b), the commemorative partnership program of Veterans Affairs Canada has not received any funding requests or applications from June 1, 2018 to September 13, 2018 to commemorate Canadian participation in the Persian Gulf War conflict that took place between 1990 and 1991. The commemorative partnership program, CPP, provides funding to organizations undertaking remembrance initiatives such as commemorative activities, the development of commemorative resources and the construction, restoration or expansion of community war memorials. In 2017-18, the commemorative partnership program approved approximately $2.1 million in funding for close to 200 projects across Canada.
With regard to (c), it is not applicable.

Question No. 1887--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the Persian Gulf War, which took place between 1990 and 1991: (a) are Canadian veterans of the Persian Gulf War eligible for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits in the same manner as all Canadian Armed Forces veterans; and (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, what are the justifications for not providing equal benefits to these veterans?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), yes, Canadian veterans of the Persian Gulf War are eligible for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits in the same manner as all Canadian Armed Forces veterans.
The Gulf and Kuwait War of 1990-91 officially began with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990. The Canadian military participated in the subsequent blockade and war until it ended in February 1991. This special duty area service would include the following geographic areas: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Yemen Arab Republic, the Sultanate of Oman, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and their contiguous seas areas, between 32 and 75 degrees east longitude and 12 and 32 degrees north latitude. This special duty area came into effect on 11 August 1990 and remains in effect presently.
Under the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act, a Canadian Armed Forces member or veteran is eligible for a disability pension or award for a disability or death resulting from injury or illness that was incurred during, attributable to, or aggravated during wartime service or special duty service. This eligibility is referred to as the insurance principle, as individuals are covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and only need to demonstrate that their disability had its onset during this qualifying period of service. They would receive similar benefits as other eligible Canadian Armed Force members or veterans who have served under special duty service. Unlike the compensation principle, no causal link needs to be established between the disability and military service. While serving in a special duty area, Canadian Armed Forces members are eligible under the insurance principle for service in the special duty area; travel to and from the special duty area; leave taken during service in the SDA, no matter where that leave is taken; and time spent in the third location decompression program.
While serving in a special duty area, Canadian Armed Forces members are eligible under the insurance principle for service in the special duty area; travel to and from the special duty area; leave taken during service in the SDA, no matter where that leave is taken; and time spent in the third location decompression program.
Information regarding special duty service can be found in the policy entitled “Disability Benefits in Respect of Wartime and Special Duty Service--The Insurance Principle” found at: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1447
With regard to (b), it is not applicable because Canadian veterans of the Persian Gulf War are eligible for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits in the same manner as all Canadian Armed Forces veterans.

Question No. 1889--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to the number of citizenship certificates issued to Canadians born abroad between February 15, 1977, and April 17, 1981: (a) what was the number of retention applications received from Canadians born abroad between February 15, 1977, and April 17, 1981; and (b) what was the number of applications for passports that were denied to persons born abroad between February 15, 1977, and April 17, 1981, because they would have already lost Canadian citizenship?
Response
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), 2,397 retention applications were received from Canadians born abroad between February 15, 1977 and April 17, 1981.
With regard to (b), IRCC does not track the number of applications for passports that were denied to persons born abroad.

Question No. 1904--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to meetings between Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries and Omar Khadr in June 2018: (a) which Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries met with Omar Khadr; and (b) what are the details of all such meetings, including date and location?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no ministers or parliamentary secretaries met with Omar Khadr in June 2018.

Question No. 1908--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to the government’s announced intent to create a new holiday: what is the complete list of First Nations and other organizations consulted by the government, as of September 17, 2018, in relation to the creation of a new holiday?
Response
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism as well as his staff are involved in ongoing discussions with national indigenous organizations in their efforts to fulfill call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Question No. 1913--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to convicted terrorists having internet and social media access in Canadian correctional institutions: (a) how many individuals are currently serving sentences in correctional facilities as a result of convictions for terrorism related offences; and (b) of the individuals in (a), how many have internet or social media access while incarcerated?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on September 23, 2018, there were 17 offenders under the responsibility of CSC who were convicted of at least one terrorism-related offence. Fourteen of these offenders were in custody, and three were in the community under supervision.
“In custody” includes all active offenders incarcerated in a CSC facility, offenders on temporary absence from a CSC facility, offenders who are temporarily detained in a CSC facility and offenders on remand in a CSC facility.
“In the community under supervision” includes all active offenders on day parole, full parole, or statutory release in the community supervised on a long-term supervision order, offenders who are temporarily detained in a non-CSC facility, offenders who are unlawfully at large for less than 90 days, offenders on remand in a non-CSC facility, and offenders supervised and subject to an immigration hold by Canada Border Services Agency.
With regard to (b), for security reasons, any computers that can be accessed by inmates are not linked to CSC's security systems, external networks, or the Internet. Inmates incarcerated in federal correctional facilities have no access to the Internet or social media. As a result, should there be any online activity by an inmate, it is not occurring via a CSC computer.
CSC continues to manage the risks that computer access can pose on an ongoing basis, and current policy provides measures to detect any misuse of computers by inmates.

Question No. 1914--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to reports that the government is paying $3,800,000 in retention bonuses for three top Kinder Morgan Canada executives: are the retention bonuses part of the $4,500,000,000 purchase price the government is paying Kinder Morgan, or are the bonus payments a separate expenditure?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on August 31, 2018, the Government of Canada purchased the entities that control the Trans Mountain pipeline and related assets.
The government acquired these entities when the political risks made it too difficult for the private sector to move forward. The facts and evidence demonstrated that the Trans Mountain expansion is in the national interest, and represents a sound investment for Canadians.
Prior to acquiring the project, Kinder Morgan was solely responsible for compensation decisions regarding members of the project team. The purchase agreement provided that Canada would honour the existing contracts in order to maintain continuity in Trans Mountain’s operations.
Compensation was set in employment contracts signed between key management personnel and Kinder Morgan prior to the government acquiring Trans Mountain. Employee salaries, including retention payments, should they be made in the future, are a business operating expense that is paid from business operating revenues.

Question No. 1917--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the letters sent by the Minister of Health to opioid manufacturers and distributors requesting that they immediately stop promoting the drugs to health care providers: (a) on what date were the letters sent out; (b) how many letters were sent out; (c) how many responses did the Minister receive as of September 18, 2018; (d) of the responses in (c), how many indicated that they would fully comply with the request; (e) how many companies failed to respond; and (f) what specific measures has the government taken to encourage compliance with the request?
Response
Mr. John Oliver (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), on June 19, the Minister of Health sent a letter to manufacturers and distributors of opioids requesting that they respond to the opioid crisis by immediately suspending any and all marketing and advertising of opioids to health care professionals on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, on August 17, Health Canada sent additional call to action letters to the pharmaceutical industry and organizations in Canada.
With regard to part (b), 88 letters were sent out on June 19, and 14 letters were sent out on August 17, totalling 102 letters sent to pharmaceutical companies and industry organizations in Canada. A list of these companies and organizations and the letters were made public on September 5, and are available at www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/problematic-prescription-drug-use/opioids/responding-canada-opioid-crisis/industry-response.html.
With regard to parts (c) and (e), as of September 27, 31 responses from pharmaceutical companies and two responses from industry groups were received. The Response to the Call on the Pharmaceutical Industry to Voluntarily Suspend Marketing and Advertising of Opioids web page will continue to be updated as more responses are received.
A summary of companies that received a letter and the correspondence received by Health Canada is available at www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/problematic-prescription-drug-use/opioids/responding-canada-opioid-crisis/industry-response.html.
With regard to (d), copies of the correspondence may be requested at www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/problematic-prescription-drug-use/opioids/responding-canada-opioid-crisis/industry-response.html.
Six respondents committed to suspending promotional and advertising activities; 24 respondents reported they do not distribute opioids, or do not market or promote opioids in Canada; one respondent stated it only markets opioid products to treat opioid use disorder; and two responses from industry groups indicated support for the government’s efforts to address the opioid crisis and expressed an interest in collaborating going forward.
With regard to (f), further to the voluntary call to action letters, Health Canada has created a dedicated compliance and enforcement team to proactively monitor opioid marketing in order to identify and take action against inappropriate marketing.

Question No. 1919--
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:
With regard to the methods used within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces including Army Command (combined, “the Canadian military”) to secure accurate knowledge about whether there was reason to be concerned about incidents of, or the practice of, torture in Afghanistan during Canada’s military presence there: (a) was any research conducted within the Canadian military in 2006, 2007 and 2008, that focused, in whole or in part, on determining whether soldiers serving in Afghanistan had, during their deployment, witnessed anyone within their units committing torture and, if so, what were the parameters or, if they were formalized, terms of reference of the research; (b) if such research was conducted, what was the name and institutional position of the person who ordered or commissioned such research and which units and persons (names and institutional positions) were involved in the research, in whatever capacity, including conducting, supervising and evaluating the research; (c) if conducted, did the research eventuate in a written document (however termed, whether report, memo, or other) and, if so, what was the title and other identifying reference of the report and what were its essential conclusions; (d) if a research report, memo or like document (“report”) eventuated, to whom in the Canadian chain of command did the report or any mention of the report circulate and, specifically, were the Commander of the Army, the Commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister made aware of the results of such research and, if any of persons in those five positions at the material time were not made aware, why were they not and who made the decisions not to make them aware; (e) if a report eventuated, were its findings accepted and, if so, did it impact policy or practice in any respect and, if questioned in whole or in part, what questions were raised about the research and were efforts made to do follow-up research to address some or all of those questions and, if so, what was the nature of such follow-up research; (f) if there was follow-up research (of any kind, including checking of research methodology or of the phrasing of any interview or survey questions), did it include asking whether any other state’s military had conducted similar or analogous research or whether the Canadian research instrument may have drawn on research conducted by another military and, if so, was it considered whether the US Army Research Institute had ever conducted similar or analogous research and, if so, was the US Army Research Institute consulted about the questions being raised about the Canadian research results; (g) if follow-up research was conducted, did that follow-up research eventuate in a written document (however termed, whether report, memo, or other) and, if so, what was the title and other identifying reference of the report and what were its essential conclusions; and (h) whether or not follow-up research was conducted, was the initial research and any report eventuating from it suppressed (by whatever term may have been used formally or informally, such as “shelved”) and, if so, why and who made this decision?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, respect for the rule of law is an essential aspect of all Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, operations. Throughout Canada’s military operations in Afghanistan, members of the CAF consistently demonstrated tremendous professionalism in their respective roles. Promoting human rights was a core element of Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan and Canada made significant investments to help build capacity in rule of law functions, including police, judicial and correctional services. Canada funded and worked closely with independent organizations, including the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.
Allegations of misconduct during military operations in Afghanistan have been investigated numerous times. These include boards of inquiry in 2009 and 2010, a public interest hearing by the Military Police Complaints Commission in 2012, a litigation in the Federal Court of Canada brought by Amnesty International and a public interest investigation launched by the Military Police Complaints Commission in 2015. Investigations resulted in no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by CAF members. In 2010, a rigorous board of inquiry process provided an opportunity for the CAF to improve its governance and accountability structures, especially for the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, which is now better integrated into the CAF structure. Training regarding rules of engagement, codes of conduct and reporting obligations as they relate to violations of the law of armed conflict have also been strengthened.
In addition to publishing reports on investigations, the Department of National Defence, DND, and the CAF have made public numerous memos, reports and other documents on the treatment of Afghan detainees over the past decade through various access to information requests. In addition, a number of documents on the treatment of detainees have also been released during various parliamentary sessions through parliamentary returns. These are available from the Library of Parliament.
DND/CAF conducted a search of its electronic document tracking system, as well as available electronic and physical records of relevant groups, which confirmed that, while this issue was monitored as part of routine examination, no research was formally commissioned nor were formal reports produced on the issue of alleged incidents or the practice of torture.

Question No. 1921--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the loan given to Bombardier in 2016: how much of the loan has been repaid to the government, since the company returned to profitability?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada did not give a loan to Bombardier in 2016.

Question No. 1925--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the working relationship between the CSA Group (formerly the Canadian Standards Association) and the government: (a) is the CSA group an entity of the Canadian Government in any way and, if so, what are the details; (b) since November 4, 2015, has the government or Industry Canada ever authorized the CSA Group to speak on behalf of the government and, if so, who provided the authorization, and what were the parameters of the authorization; and (c) what specific role or authority has the government provided to the CSA Group in the development of (i) laws, (ii) regulations?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the CSA Group is a private business. The CSA Group is not a regulatory entity and does not report to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development either directly or indirectly through the Standards Council of Canada, SCC. The SCC is a federal Crown corporation whose role includes the coordination of Canada’s voluntary standardization network. The SCC does not have any regulatory authority in its mandate.
The CSA Group is one of 10 standards development organizations, SDOs, accredited by the SCC, which can be found at www.scc.ca/en/accreditation/standards/directory-of-accredited-standards-development-organizations.
The SCC takes its mandate from the Standards Council of Canada Act, its governing legislation, to promote efficient and effective voluntary standardization in Canada, which can be found at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-16/index.html. The SCC promotes the participation of Canadians in voluntary standards activities and coordinates and oversees the efforts of the persons and organizations involved in Canada’s standardization network.
With regard to part (b), neither the SCC nor the CSA Group is a regulatory entity. The SCC is not aware of any authorization given to the CSA Group to speak on behalf of the government.
With regard to part (c), neither the SCC nor the CSA Group is a regulatory entity. The SCC is not aware of any role or authority given to the CSA Group in the development of (i) laws or (ii) regulations.
Collapse
Aboriginal peoplesAfghanistanAlbas, DanAnniversaryAssociate Minister of National DefenceBains, NavdeepBombardier Inc.Cabinet ministersCalkins, BlaineCanada Summer JobsCanadian Forces ...Show all topics
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1044--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the response by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport on March 10, 2017, how does Transport Canada define a middle class Canadian traveler?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada defines the middle class using a broad set of characteristics that includes values, lifestyle, and income. Middle-class values are values that are common to most Canadians from all backgrounds, who believe in working hard to get ahead and hope for a better future for their children. Middle-class families also aspire to a lifestyle that typically includes adequate housing and health care, educational opportunities for their children, a secure retirement, job security, and adequate income for modest spending on leisure pursuits, among other characteristics. The income required to attain such a lifestyle can vary greatly based on Canadians’ specific situations, such as whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive.

Question No. 1047--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the government’s search for a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for the proposed Infrastructure Bank: (a) what are the details of the contract awarded to Odgers Berndtson to conduct the search including the (i) amount or value, (ii) start date, (iii) end date, (iv) file number; (b) for the contract referred to in (a), are other positions being filled from the search and, if so, for which positions; and (c) what are the qualification requirements for the CEO position?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s search for a chief executive officer, CEO, for the proposed infrastructure bank up to and including the date May 15, 2017, the contract awarded to Odgers Berndtson is to conduct anticipatory searches for the leadership of the infrastructure bank, including the CEO, the chairperson, and the bank’s board of directors.
The contract value is $350,000 excluding taxes. It started on April 1, 2017, and ends on March 31, 2018. The contract number is 3515798 and the file number is CP279.
The qualification requirements for the CEO position are posted as part of the opportunity notice on the Government of Canada’s appointments website at https://www.appointments-nominations.gc.ca.

Question No. 1052--
Ms. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to federal funding for the rental or lease of the giant yellow inflatable duck as part of the Ontario 150 Tour: (a) how much funding has been committed to the Ontario 150 Tour since January 1, 2016; (b) of the funding committed to the Ontario 150 Tour, since January 1, 2016, how much was allocated for the giant duck; (c) what are the locations and tour dates for the giant duck; and (d) when did the Minister of Canadian Heritage become aware that federal funding was being used for the lease or rental of the giant duck?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as part of the Canada 150 celebrations, the government is focusing on four themes, one of which is encouraging reconciliation with indigenous people. The Canada 150 Fund has awarded $250,000 to the Water’s Edge Festivals and Events for the Rhythm of the Nation music and dance performance component of its Ontario 150 tour. This component will be showcased in many cities across Ontario between July 1 and August 13, 2017. None of the committed funds are allocated to the giant duck.

Question No. 1061--
Ms. Cheryl Hardcastle:
With regard to the Canada 150 Fund: (a) what was the allocated budget; (b) how much of the allocated funds have been approved and distributed to date; (c) will any unspent funds be reallocated to projects that fit the Canada 150 criteria and that did not meet the original funding deadline of October 21, 2016; (d) what are the projects funded, broken down by riding; and (e) for each project in (d), what are the details of the amount of funding received?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Canada 150 Fund received a budget of $200 million, which was allocated in the following way: $80 million for large-scale, Canada-wide signature projects; $100 million for community-based projects; and $20 million for major events.
With regard to (b) and (d), all of the allocated funds have been distributed. Members may consult the link that follows for the list of Canada 150 projects: http://canada.pch. gc.ca/eng/ 1475775848282/1475776347243.
With regard to (c), no unspent funds will be reallocated to projects that fit the Canada 150 criteria but did not meet the original funding deadline of October 21, 2016.

Question No. 1062--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what are the government’s definitions of (i) concessional capital, (ii) crowding, (iii) security; (b) how much security will be required for a loan from the Infrastructure Bank, as a percentage of the total project’s value; (c) how much security will be required for a loan guarantee from the Infrastructure Bank, as a percentage of the total project’s value; (d) how much security will be structured as subordinated debt; (e) how much security will be structured as unsubordinated debt; (f) in the event the Infrastructure Bank provides a loan to a project that goes bankrupt, who will repay Canadian taxpayers; (g) in the event the Infrastructure Bank provides a loan guarantee to a project that goes bankrupt, who will repay Canadian taxpayers; and (h) will the Infrastructure Bank provide loans and loan guarantees only to individual projects, or will it also provide loans and loan guarantees to investors who invest in those individual projects?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), the Canada infrastructure bank would use federal support to attract private sector and institutional investment. The federal support would be in the form of investments in projects, and the investment would result in the bank holding an asset on its balance sheet. To the extent that the federal support to help a project get built involves an expenditure by the bank greater than the value of the investment asset it receives, it would be considered concessional capital. With regard to (a)(ii), “crowding-in” is the attraction of private sector and institutional investment to help pay for infrastructure.
With regard to (a)((iii), “security” means collateral for an investment.
With regard to (b), the bank would hire professionals with the expertise to structure and negotiate complex financing arrangements, and this could be one term of the negotiation to be determined on a project-by-project basis.
With regard to (c), the bank would hire professionals with the expertise to structure and negotiate complex financing arrangements, and this could be one term of the negotiation to be determined on a project-by-project basis.
With regard to (d), it would be up to the bank, as an arm’s-length entity, to determine the exact financial instrument most appropriate for each investment, and therefore it is not possible to determine at this time what percentage of its portfolio would be represented by specific financial instruments.
With regard to (e), it would be up to the bank, as an arm’s-length entity, to determine the exact financial instrument most appropriate for each investment, and therefore it is not possible to determine at this time what percentage of its portfolio would be represented by specific financial instruments.
With regard to (f), under traditional infrastructure funding models, governments pay 100% of the costs of infrastructure and bear all of the risks. Compared to this traditional model, the bank will reduce the risks taken on by taxpayers to build the infrastructure we need. By bringing in private investors, risks can be shared, and the bank will ensure the risks borne by taxpayers are minimized. Private investors will be incented to reduce overall risk as well, leading to enhanced due diligence and innovation in infrastructure projects.
For the bank projects, investors will be subject to robust investment agreements designed to protect the interests of Canadians. Just as in a typical private sector transaction, the bank and other investors would negotiate ahead of time how any potential losses would be shared.
Any bankruptcy or default in a project would be guided by the legal agreement between the parties, who will be able to avail themselves of all the recourse mechanisms provided by law.
With regard to (g), loan guarantees would be a tool used in special circumstances and would be structured properly to ensure private capital is at risk and the project benefits from private sector discipline. That is why the legislation includes special oversight provisions on the use of loan guarantees.
If a loan guarantee is used and there is a bankruptcy or default in a project, it would be guided by the legal agreement between the parties, who will be able to avail themselves of all the recourse mechanisms provided by law.
With regard to (h), under the legislation, the bank could invest only in projects, and could not invest in any other party involved in the transaction

Question No. 1064--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the information contained in the government’s initial response to Q-954, and the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government that “the original response contained inaccurate information due to an administrative error in producing the response”: (a) why did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister sign a response containing inaccurate information; (b) who drafted the response containing the inaccurate information; (c) what role did the Director of Issues Management in the Prime Minister’s Office play in drafting the inaccurate information; (d) what role did the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Principle Secretary play in drafting the inaccurate information; (e) has the individual who drafted the inaccurate response faced any disciplinary action, if so what; (f) has the government apologized to person who was defamed by the inaccurate information; and (g) what actions, if any, if the government implementing to ensure that inaccurate information is not contained in any future responses to Questions on the Order Paper?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s response to Question No. 954, departments and ministers’ offices work diligently to provide accurate and informative answers to questions on the Order Paper. In the event that responses contain inaccurate information, the government strives to correct responses in a timely manner.

Question No. 1069--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to the exemption the Minister of Transport granted to Jetlines allowing it to have up to 49% foreign ownership in order to purchase between 24 and 40 Bombardier C-series aircraft over a period of eight years: (a) what guarantees did Jetlines give the government; (b) was a contract signed between Jetlines and the government; (c) if the answer to (b) is yes, what are the details of the contract, including (i) the start and end date, (ii) the contracting parties, (iii) the file number; (d) does the contract state that the foreign ownership exemption is subject to the purchase of C-series aircraft; and (e) does a government study show a link between increased foreign ownership and increased competition?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, changing foreign ownership limits is about increasing competition and allowing the creation of new ultra-low-cost airlines in Canada. The Minister of Transport granted an exemption to Canada Jetlines and Enerjet in December 2016 based on these objectives.
With regard to (a) through (e), as a private company, Jetlines is responsible for its own business decisions, including the purchase of its aircraft fleet. As such, no guarantee or contract was sought with regard to its fleet procurement.
The link between increased foreign ownership and increased competition was documented in various reports. In 2008, the competition policy review panel report, “Compete to Win”, recommended that the Minister of Transport modernize investment restrictions in Canadian air transport to 49% of voting equity. In 2016, the Canada Transportation Act review report called for Canada’s limit on foreign ownership of voting shares to be raised to at least 49%, unilaterally, for all carriers offering commercial passenger services. The report also noted that Canada does not have an ultra-low-cost carrier and was rated relatively “less trade friendly” for air transport in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s services trade restrictiveness index.

Question No. 1070--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Canada's new Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders: (a) has Global Affairs Canada called upon Canadian representatives of the Government of China to provide legitimate evidence of the well-being and whereabouts of Tibet's Panchen Lama, Gendhun Choekyi Nyima; (b) what progress has the Canadian Embassy in Beijing made in their efforts to obtain permission for a Canadian diplomatic delegation to visit Tibet's Panchen Lama, Gendhun Choekyi Nyima, in detention; (c) in the past 12 months, has the Canadian Embassy delivered démarches to the government of China concerning the detention of the Panchen Lama; (d) has the government of China communicated that it considers the actions of Canadian diplomats with respect to the Panchen Lama to be incompatible with their status under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; and (e) what efforts has the government of Canada made to encourage country missions to China by relevant UN human rights procedures, including the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearance, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) through (e), Canada’s guidelines on supporting human rights defenders are designed to support Canadian missions and Global Affairs Canada’s headquarters in advancing the work of human rights defenders. The guidelines are an important tool in the promotion and protection of human rights as an integral part of Canada’s foreign policy and a long-standing priority in our relationship with China. We have consistently and regularly expressed our concerns about the human rights situation in China and have specifically advocated for the protection of human rights defenders, including those in the Tibet Autonomous Region, TAR. We have expressed concerns about the restrictions on the freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly and association, and freedoms of religion and belief of ethnic Tibetans.
As was done during the Prime Minister’s first official visit to China, Canada will continue to have frank discussions with China on respect for human rights and the rule of law, including in relation to religious freedom and the situation in Tibet.
Senior officials of the Embassy of Canada have undertaken several diplomatic visits to TAR. Canada will continue to seek greater access to Tibet for our diplomats, parliamentarians, NGOs, and visiting delegations. Canadian diplomats require permission from Chinese authorities to visit the TAR. Allowing foreign diplomats and journalists unimpeded and regular access to Tibetan areas would allow us to better understand the realities on the ground.
Canada has requested that China provide information on the location of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his parents, the level of education that Gedhun has completed, and the expected date for his return along with his parents.
After persistent requests from the international community and Tibetan advocates, on September 6, 2015, Chinese officials responded that the Panchen Lama, then 26 years old, is living under China’s control. “The reincarnated child Panchen Lama you mentioned is being educated, living a normal life, growing up healthily and does not wish to be disturbed,” said Norbu Dunzhub, a member of the Tibet Autonomous Region’s United Front Work Department.
The Government of China has not communicated that it considers the actions of Canadian diplomats with respect to the Panchen Lama to be incompatible with their status under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Canada has called on China to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief to visit Gedhun Choekyi Nyima.
In the context of our bilateral relationship with China, the guidelines provide the basis for us to continue to examine opportunities for further collaboration in the protection and advancement of the work of human rights defenders, including in TAR. The Government of Canada will continue to urge the Government of China to respect the rights of ethnic Tibetans and to take steps to improve the human rights situation in Tibetan areas.

Question No. 1071--
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West):
With regard to the so-called “Notice and Notice” regime: (a) is the minister of innovation, Science and Economic Development aware that some copyright owners are using this regulation and notification system as a new revenue tool that some experts in the field internet law have referred to as “shakedown”; and (b) given that the Minister has stated publicly that these notifications do not in-and-of themselves constitute a legal obligation to pay, why does the government continue to allow copyright owners to use the “Notice and Notice” regime to demand payment from internet subscribers based on an unsubstantiated accusation of copyright infringement?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, notice and notice is an important feature of Canada’s copyright framework. It provides a tool for copyright owners to discourage online infringement by better informing consumers.
The government is aware that some participants in Canada’s copyright notice and notice regime have sent notices through the system that include offers or demands to make payments in order to settle claims of alleged infringement.
The government is taking steps to educate consumers and engage with stakeholders in order to address concerns raised by Canadians over threatening notices. A frequently asked questions page was created on the Office of Consumer Affairs website, allowing Internet service providers to refer to official and objective information when forwarding a notice. Front-line call centre staff at Innovation, Science and Economic Development inform Canadians about the rules of the notice and notice regime on an ongoing basis. The department also periodically meets with key participants in the regime to better monitor its implementation.
The regime does not impose any obligations on an Internet subscriber who receives a notice, and it does not require the subscriber to contact the copyright owner or the intermediary. There is no legal obligation to pay any settlement offered by a copyright owner.
The department continues to review the regime to ensure it meets its desired policy objectives. In addition, the next five-year parliamentary review of Canada’s Copyright Act, due to begin sometime after November 7, 2017, provides an opportunity to take stock.

Question No. 1073--
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the policy by the National Capital Commission (NCC) to require children ages 5 and up to obtain a permit in order to set up a lemonade stand: (a) when did the Minister responsible for the NCC approve this policy; (b) what are the details of any consultations conducted by the NCC regarding the establishment of a lemonade stand registry; (c) who decided that the pilot program, as announced, would go ahead, as opposed to simply letting children set up their own lemonade stands without a permit; (d) does the government believe the three-page permit application is accessible and appropriate for children aged 5 to 17; (e) what are the costs associated with designing and implementing this permit program, broken down by line item; (f) who will determine whether a beverage or consumable product sold under this permit program is safe for consumption; (g) who will determine whether or not the lemonade stand is being operated safely; (h) what material is covered at the “training workshop offered by JA Ottawa” and why is it strongly recommended; (i) are the individuals who teach the “training workshop” for children required to undergo background checks; (j) who decided that 7 percent of all revenues must be donated to charity; (k) why was the 7 percent figure chosen; (l) is there a cap on the number of permits that will be issued each year, and if so, what is the cap; (m) if there is a cap, how will it be determined as to who receives a permit; (n) what are the range of consequences for a child who operates a lemonade stand without a Young Entrepreneurs Permit; (o) will the government offer translation services to children in order to meet the bilingual signage requirement; (p) if the answer to (o) is affirmative, will the government charge for this service, and if so, what will be the cost of this service; (q) what is the range of consequences for signage not being bilingual; (r) what are the consequences for bilingual signage which places French ahead of English, which would be contrary to the instructions provided in the application; (s) what is the range of consequences for not displaying the permit in the manner required; (t) will parents or guardians be held liable for breaches of the rules associated with the permit; and (u) does the government consider having a lemonade stand registry to be in the public’s best interest?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as a crown corporation in the Canadian Heritage portfolio, the National Capital Commission operates at arm’s length from the government and is responsible for its own day-to-day activities.
With regard to (b), the NCC consulted business and youth engagement groups in developing the Sunday Bikedays youth entrepreneurship program on a pilot basis. It is designed to provide children and youth, ages five to 17 years old, an educational opportunity by operating a kiosk on select NCC parkways during its popular Nokia Sunday Bikedays. The NCC did not establish a lemonade stand registry.
With regard to (c), this NCC initiative is an educational opportunity to introduce children and youth to the world of entrepreneurship and animate NCC’s parkways during Sunday Bikedays in the summer.
With regard to (d), as in most youth programs administered by government or by non-governmental organizations, the application process was designed to give parents the required information about their children’s participation in the program.
With regard to (e), the program includes an optional fun and hands-on educational workshop, offered by Junior Achievement Ottawa, or JA Ottawa. The NCC provided JA Ottawa $20,000 to develop and implement this workshop for program participants. The NCC also ordered promotional signs at a cost of $740.
With regard to (f), as with any operation that sells consumable products in Ottawa, kiosks operated as part of this pilot program must conform to City of Ottawa bylaws.
With regard to (g), NCC staff will advise parents and participants on how to operate kiosks along its parkways in a safe manner for both kiosk operators and Sunday Bikedays participants.
With regard to (h), the training workshop is a fun and hands-on opportunity for children and youth to learn about how to create and operate a business.
With regard to (i), all of JA Ottawa’s facilitators are screened according to JA Canada national screening policy.
With regard to (j) and (k), these aspects are not required by the streamlined application process.
With regard to (l),the answer is no.
Item (m) is not applicable.
With regard to (n), NCC staff will inform anyone interested in operating a kiosk on NCC land of the youth entrepreneurship program, as well as provide information required to ensure the safety of participants and the public.
With regard to (o), the NCC will offer assistance with translation to participants in the program,
With regard to (p), there is no charge for this assistance.
With regard to (q) and (r), this condition of the agreement reflects the National Capital Commission’s obligations under the Official Languages Act. As indicated in the Treasury Board of Canada’s directive on official languages for communications and services, the language of majority for the province must appear first when both official languages are used. The NCC would work with the participant to ensure the Official Languages Act is respected.
With regard to (s), the answer is none.
With regard to (t), parents or guardians are responsible for their children’s participation in this program.
Item (u) is not applicable, as no registry exists.

Question No. 1074--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s comments published in the Globe and Mail on June 7, 2017, that “there are projects that will not get done in this country if we don’t introduce the Canada Infrastructure Bank”: (a) what are the details of all such projects, including (i) name or title, (ii) location, (iii) riding, if known, (iv) cost, (v) project description or summary, (vi) amount of total projected investment, (vii) projected cost of total project; and (b) for each project described in (a), what evidence, if any, does the government have that such projects wouldn’t be built without the Canada Infrastructure Bank?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada faces a significant infrastructure gap. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimates it as high as $570 billion. The public sector alone cannot fill the infrastructure gap in Canada. The Canada infrastructure bank, or CIB, will help attract investors to revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest. This will help provinces, territories, and municipalities build new infrastructure that might not have otherwise been built, increasing overall service levels for Canadians.
With regard to (a) and (b), specific project details are not available at this time.

Question No. 1076--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Canada’s new Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders: (a) how has the Government implemented the Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders to promote human rights and protect human rights defenders in Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), China; (b) how have the Guidelines been applied in the cases of the selected prisoners of conscience (i) Gendhun Choekyi Nyima (the 11th Panchen Lama), who has been detained since May 17, 1995, (ii) Yeshe Choedron who has been detained since March, 2008, (iii) Druklo/Shokjang, who has been detained since March 16, 2015, (iv) Tashi Wangchuk, who has been detained since January 27, 2016; and (c) have Canadian officials in TAR, China conducted field visits and investigated the legitimacy of the charges laid against these human rights defenders (i) Gendhun Choekyi Nyima, (ii) Druklo/Shokjang, (iii) Yeshe Choedron, (iv) Tashi Wangchuk?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Canada’s guidelines on supporting human rights defenders are designed to support Global Affairs Canada at Canadian missions and at headquarters in advancing the work of human rights defenders. The guidelines are an important tool in the promotion and protection of human rights as an integral part of Canada’s foreign policy and a long-standing priority in our relationship with China. We have consistently and regularly expressed our concerns about the human rights situation in China and have specifically advocated for the protection of human rights defenders, including those in the Tibet Autonomous Region, or TAR. We have expressed concerns about the restrictions on the freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly and association, and freedoms of religion and belief of ethnic Tibetans.
We will continue to urge China to live up to its international obligations on human rights through multilateral forums, such as the issuing of statements at the United Nations Human Rights Council and advocacy for the participation of civil society in China’s universal periodic review.
In the context of our bilateral relationship with China, the guidelines provide the basis for us to continue to examine opportunities for further collaboration in the protection and advancement of the work of human rights defenders, including in the TAR. We have also advocated for substantive and meaningful dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama or his representatives to work toward a peaceful resolution of outstanding issues acceptable to both sides. The Embassy of Canada in Beijing has visited Tibetan ethnic regions in China to understand the situation. Canadian diplomats require permission from Chinese authorities to visit the TAR.
With regard to (b) and (c), the Government of Canada is aware of the cases of Mr. Gendhun Choekyi Nyima; Mr. Druklo, or Shokjang; Mr. Yeshe Choedron; and Mr. Tashi Wangchuk. We are closely monitoring the cases of Tibetan human rights defenders who have been detained. This includes seeking trial attendance where possible.
As was done most recently during the Prime Minister’s first official visit to China, Canada will continue to have frank discussions with China on respect for human rights and the rule of law, including in relation to religious freedom and the situation in Tibet. Canada has also consistently advocated for substantive and meaningful dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama or his representatives to work toward a resolution of issues acceptable to both sides.
Senior officials of the Embassy of Canada have undertaken several diplomatic visits to TAR. Canada will continue to seek greater access to Tibet for our diplomats, parliamentarians, NGOs, and visiting delegations. Allowing foreign diplomats and journalists unimpeded and regular access to Tibetan areas would allow us to better understand the realities on the ground.
Specific to the case of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Government of Canada first raised the matter with the Chinese authorities in 1995. In 1998, the Embassy of Canada delivered to Chinese counterparts 1,000 birthday cards for Gedhun Choekyi Nyima from Canadian children.
Since then, Canada has requested that China provide information on the location of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his parents, the level of education that Gedhun has completed, and the expected date for his return along with his parents.
Moreover, Canada has called on China to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief to visit Gedhun Choekyi Nyima.
After persistent requests from the international community and Tibetan advocates, on September 6, 2015, Chinese officials responded that the Panchen Lama, then 26 years old, is living under China’s control. “The reincarnated child Panchen Lama you mentioned is being educated, living a normal life, growing up healthily and does not wish to be disturbed,” said Norbu Dunzhub, a member of the TAR’s United Front Work Department.
The Government of Canada will continue to urge the Government of China to respect the rights of ethnic Tibetans and to take steps to improve the human rights situation in Tibetan areas.

Question No. 1083--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the National Capital Commission’s announcement of the Young Entrepreneurs Permit pilot project: (a) what was the total cost of designing this pilot project, broken down by internal staff time (public servants) and broken down by: (i) information technology employees, (ii) communications employees, (iii) translation employees, (iv) lawyers or legal advisors, (v) other public servants; (b) what was the total cost of designing this pilot project, broken down by internal staff time and broken down by (i) public relations agencies; (ii) consultants; (iii) other expenses; c) what is the estimated total cost of this pilot project, broken down by internal staff time (public servants), including overtime, and broken down by: (i) information technology employees, (ii) communications employees, (iii) translation employees, (iv) lawyers or legal advisors, (v) other public servants; (vi) enforcement officers; (d) what is the estimated total cost of this pilot project, broken down by internal staff time, including overtime, and broken down by (i) public relations agencies, (ii) consultants, (iii) JA Ottawa, the company hired to conduct training seminars, (iv) transportation for enforcement officers, (vi) other expenses; and (e) what is the estimated date for the conclusion of the pilot project?
Response
Mr. Sean Casey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) to (d), the program includes an optional fun and hands-on educational workshop, offered by Junior Achievement, JA, Ottawa. The NCC provided JA Ottawa $20,000 to develop and implement this workshop for program participants. The NCC also made promotional signs at a cost of $740.
The requested information is not readily available in the National Capital Commission’s tracking systems. Extensive manual research and analyses would be necessary to provide further details. This operation cannot be completed within the allotted time frame.
With regard to (e), the concluding date for the pilot project this year is September 3.

Question No. 1084--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation (FFMC): (a) what is the predicted economic impact including possible job losses, closures of facilities, scaling back of operations etc. associated with the province of Manitoba exiting the FFMC (i) to the corporation as a whole, (ii) specifically as it pertains to the operations and facilities in the riding of Elmwood–Transcona; (b) what specific measures have been taken, are being taken, or are planned, to mitigate any negative impacts on the FFMC associated with the province of Manitoba exiting the FFMC; (c) what was the economic impact including job losses, closures of facilities, scaling back of operations etc. associated with the province of Saskatchewan exiting the FFMC in 2012 to the corporation as a whole; and (d) what was the economic impact including job losses, closures of facilities, scaling back of operations etc. associated with the province of Alberta suspending its commercial fishery in 2014 to the corporation as a whole?
Response
Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary for Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i)(ii), the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is currently preparing an updated corporate risk profile and risk mitigation framework in order to fully consider and address the pending withdrawal of Manitoba.
With regard to (b), the FFMC is preparing for Manitoba’s withdrawal by offering supply contracts to fishers and agents in Manitoba to maintain the supply of fish from fishers who prefer to sell to the FFMC. This is similar to the approach taken by the FFMC when the Province of Saskatchewan withdrew from the act in 2012.
With regard to (c), following Saskatchewan’s withdrawal from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act in 2012, the corporation secured contractual arrangements with fishers in Saskatchewan. These arrangements represented approximately 99.5% of delivered volumes from the province prior to its withdrawal. As a result, the economic impact of Saskatchewan’s withdrawal was negligible on FFMC operations and has not resulted in any facility closures or job losses.
With regard to (d), prior to the Province of Alberta’s decision to close its commercial fishery in 2014, Alberta’s volumes represented 3 to 4% of the FFMC’s total delivery volume, and also accounted for 40% of its lake whitefish roe deliveries. The corporation temporarily scaled back sales of this roe. However, increased lake whitefish roe deliveries from other jurisdictions returned FFMC’s inventory back to pre-closure levels by fiscal year 2015-16. The impact on overall volumes delivered to the FFMC was negligible. One privately owned processing facility located in Edmonton that was leased by the FFMC was closed as a result of the province’s decision. There were no job losses at the FFMC due to the Alberta closure.

Question No. 1096--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) will the Infrastructure Bank be subject to the Access to Information Act; (b) will the Infrastructure Bank be required to disclose information in accordance with the Access to Information Act; and (c) will the Infrastructure Bank be subject to the same proactive disclosure requirements as government departments?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank, (a) the bank is subject to the Access to Information Act.
Moreover, (b), the bank is required to disclose information in accordance with the Access to Information Act, with one narrow exception that covers only information in relation to the bank’s clients, that is, other investors and project sponsors, and not the bank or projects themselves. This will allow the bank to be a trusted commercial counterparty and was modeled off similar provisions for the protection of client information for other financial crown corporations.
Finally, (c), the bank will be expected to follow best practices and legislative requirements for crown corporations regarding the transparency of its operations. Notably, the proposed amendments to the Access to Information Act in Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, would formalize the requirement that crown corporations publish travel and hospitality expenses as well as any report that is required to be tabled in Parliament.

Question No. 1097--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to consultation with our allies, in particular the United States, in relation to the Hytera Communications takeover of Norsat International Incorporated: (a) what are the titles and departments of the individuals consulted within the American government regarding the transaction; (b) when were they consulted; (c) what concerns were raised; and (d) how did the Canadian government address the concerns?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada takes issues of national security very seriously and conducts a rigorous assessment of all foreign investments under the Investment Canada Act, ICA, to safeguard Canada’s national security. The ICA includes a multi-step process whereby Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Public Safety Canada; and Canadian national security agencies review foreign investments to determine whether an order under the ICA is necessary to protect national security.
Limited information on such reviews can be disclosed due to their classified nature and to safeguard national security. The confidentiality provision of subsection 36(1) of the ICA also applies in this case and reads as follows: “all information obtained with respect to a Canadian, a non-Canadian, a business or an entity…in the course of the administration or enforcement of this Act is privileged and no one shall knowingly communicate or allow to be communicated any such information.”
When relevant to a particular investment, it is standard procedure to consult with our allies. In the case of Hytera Communications’ acquisition of Norsat International, the Government of Canada consulted with allie,s including the United States. The details of those consultations are classified and cannot be released.

Question No. 1099--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs and Military Sexual Trauma incidents: (a) what is the specific policy used by the Department to determine whether injuries sustained from a Military Sexual Trauma incident or incidents are service related; (b) what is the documentation from medical experts or other professionals, as well as any other types of evidence, accepted or required to be provided to the Department to determine (i) if injuries sustained from a Military Sexual Trauma incident or incidents are service related, (ii) if the Military Sexual trauma incident or incidents occurred?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Veterans Affairs Canada provides disability benefits to veterans with a service-related health condition or disability, regardless of the cause. The department applies the policies related to peacetime service and wartime and special duty service to test the service relationship of any condition. The policies can be found at http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1578 and http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1447.
With regard to (b), section 49 of the Canadian Forces members and veterans re-establishment and compensation regulations indicates that an application for a disability award shall include medical reports or other records that document the member's or veteran's injury or disease, diagnosis, disability and increase in the extent of the disability.
Veterans Affairs Canada’s disability benefits application checklist specifies that to receive a disability benefit, a veteran must, (1), have a diagnosed medical condition or disability, and (2) be able to show that the condition or disability is related to their service.
In order to make the decision, the documentation required includes a medical practitioner’s diagnostic report, diagnosis of a disability related to sexual trauma during service, and the veteran’s statement. In addition to the above noted evidence, Veterans Affairs Canada also considers factors such as location of the assault, the involvement in a service-related or service-mandated function at the time of the assault, and whether or not the assailant was in a position of power.
Collapse
150th Anniversary of Canadian ConfederationAccess to informationAirportsAubin, RobertBains, NavdeepBeech, TerryBlaikie, DanielBlock, KellyCalkins, BlaineCanada 150 FundCanada Infrastructure Bank ...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2017-01-30 15:24
Expand

Question No. 596--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) how many jobs were created through this program from 2014 to 2016, broken down by year; and (b) for each of these years, how many jobs (i) were full time, (ii) were part time, (iii) lasted more than 12 weeks, (iv) lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, (v) lasted between 4 and 8 weeks, (vi) lasted less than 4 weeks?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the jobs created by the Canada Summer Jobs, or CSJ, program are as follows: for 2014, 34,538; for 2015, 34,470; and for 2016, 65,874.
For 2014, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 34,538 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.
With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 11% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 51% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 38% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.
For 2015, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 34,470 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.
With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 11% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 66% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 23% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.
For 2016, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 68,874 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.
With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 2.5% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 77.5% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 20% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.

Question No. 598--
Mr. Alupa Clarke:
With regard to Supplementary Estimates (B), 2016-17 and the $46.7 million listed for Public Works and Government Services Canada under “Funding for incremental costs related to post-implementation pay operations”, how was the total of this funding used, broken down by line item and expense?
Response
Hon. Judy Foote (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of November 10, 2016, the supplementary estimates (B) have had not been approved by Parliament.
Should they be approved by Parliament as tabled, PSPC plans to allocate this funding (of $47.6 million) in the following way: $5.7 million for additional support provided by IBM, which includes 24-7 troubleshooting support and refinements to processes and functionality.; $22.2 million for satellite offices in various locations, including Gatineau, Montreal, Shawinigan, and Winnipeg, as well as the call centres in Toronto and Ottawa.; $14.6 million for additional resources to manage our complaints centre, provide training and support to departments, and provide other support to ensure that system maintenance is performed with minimal disruption and that systems interacting with Phoenix are running as they should; and . $4.2 million as contingency to address unforeseen issues as they arise.
This is also subject to receiving the necessary spending authorities from Treasury Board.

Question No. 605--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the regulations and guidelines outlined in sections 241.31 (3) and 241.31 (3.1) of the Criminal Code: (a) since June 17, 2016, has the Minister of Health established a process for monitoring and reporting on medical assistance in dying; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, what information has been gathered, on (i) the types of medical conditions that motivate requests, (ii) whether the safeguards in the law are working as intended, (iii) demographic information about people who request the service, (iv) whether there are regional differences in how the service is carried out across Canada, (v) the number of requests made for medical assistance in dying both approved and not approved; (c) what are the details of any statistics available related to information gathered; and (d) if the answer to (a) is in the negative, what steps has the Minister of Health undertaken to begin collecting the information in (b)?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the new legislation, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), formerly Bill C-14, authorizes the federal Minister of Health to make regulations for the purpose of establishing a system for monitoring medical assistance in dying.
With regard to (a), a process for monitoring and reporting on medical assistance in dying is currently being developed. While most sections amending the Criminal Code to permit the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying came into force with the passage of the legislation, the sections on monitoring, sections 4 and 5, will come into force 12 months later--i.e., June 17, 2017. This means that the federal Minister of Health’s authority to make regulations with respect to monitoring will only become active at that point, but it does not require that the regulations be completed by that time.
For these reasons, (b) and (c) are not applicable.
With regard to (d), federal officials are currently working on the parameters of a federal monitoring and reporting system, including what information will be collected; to whom it must be sent; information technology requirements; and how information will be protected, analyzed, and released. The complexity of these regulations and the consequences for health care professionals require that the government must take the time necessary to get the regulations right, and include opportunities for consultations. Until these federal regulations are in place, health care professionals will not be required to provide information to the federal government; however, each province and territory has its own approach to the implementation and oversight of medical assistance in dying and may require its health care providers to provide data for these purposes.
All governments in Canada recognize the importance of timely public reporting on medical assistance in dying. To this end, federal, provincial, and territorial officials are working collaboratively to produce interim reports with available national data during the regulatory development period.
The government expects an initial release of data in early 2017. Subsequent interim reports will be released on a periodic basis until annual reporting commences under the federal regulatory regime.

Question No. 606--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s involvement in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) what were the findings of the risk analyses conducted by the Department of Finance to justify two federal loan guarantees of $6.3 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively, to enable Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor to carry out the Muskrat Falls project; (b) does the Department recommend that the government offer further loan guarantees to cover the project’s rising costs; (c) is the value of the assets of the Muskrat Falls project greater than the $9.2 billion in loan guarantees; (d) does the fee of 0.5 per cent that the government applied to the $2.9-billion loan guarantee announced in November 2016 indicate that this new extension of funds will not be backed by Muskrat Falls assets; (e) has the Department assessed the ability of the Newfoundland and Labrador government to repay the federal government in relation to the Muskrat Falls project should the federal loan guarantee be implemented and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment; and (f) has the government considered the possibility that Newfoundland and Labrador may default on payments to the government following the implementation of the federal loan guarantee, which enabled it to carry out the Muskrat Falls projects, and, if so, what conclusion did the government reach?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (e), and (f), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes advice or recommendations and cabinet confidences.
With regard to (c), Nalcor Energy, found at www.nalcorenergy.com/publications.asp, and Emera Inc., found at http://investors.emera.com/corporateprofile.aspx?iid=4072693, both value property, plant, and equipment assets at historical cost in their financial statements. Once construction is completed, costs and therefore asset values are expected to be in excess of total federal loan guarantees.
With regard to part (d), the specific conditions of additional loan guarantee support will be negotiated with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor Energy in the near future with provisions for commercial terms. The Government of Canada will remain protected by a strong legal construct, as with the first federal loan guarantee.

Question No. 608--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the involvement of the Minister of Natural Resources in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) on the basis of what analysis did the Minister decide that the Muskrat Falls facility would enable Nalcor to cover project costs; (b) at what price will the electricity produced at Muskrat Falls have to be sold for to enable the project to achieve a breakeven point; (c) before offering a new loan guarantee of $2.9 billion, did the Minister conduct market research to determine that the price of electricity in the Atlantic provinces and northeastern United States would enable the Muskrat Falls project to achieve a breakeven point; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what were the findings of this study?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the cost recovery framework for Muskrat Falls consists of a series of revenue agreements available on the Muskrat Falls website at https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/newsroom/reports/, in English only, in provincial legislation, and in orders in council. This cost recovery framework legally requires that all project costs be recovered from electricity consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of the final costs.
With regard to (b), the prices paid to the project entities will be set at a value that ensures full cost recovery plus a return on equity. These prices will be determined once the projects are complete and the final construction cost is known.
With regard to (c), the Muskrat Falls project’s viability is not dependent on electricity exports; all project costs will be covered by electricity consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador. As such, no market research was required to determine whether export prices would enable achievement of a break-even point.
For these reasons, (d) is not applicable.

Question No. 609--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the involvement of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) before authorizing the Muskrat Falls project, did the Minister ensure that the necessary environmental assessments were completed pursuant to the Fisheries Act, particularly as regards mercury contamination of fish stocks; (b) was the Minister informed of the findings of independent studies indicating that the Muskrat Falls project would result in high levels of contamination and, if so, why did the Minister not cancel the authorization?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, was actively involved in the environmental assessment of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project, which was carried out by a federal-provincial joint review panel and concluded in August 2011. Among other things, the environmental assessment examined in considerable detail the bioaccumulation of methylmercury as a result of the project. It was recognized during this environmental assessment that the Muskrat Falls component of the project and other hydroelectric projects on the Churchill River would likely result in some bioaccumulation of methylmercury, including in downstream areas.
During the environmental assessment, DFO reviewed various technical documents, submitted information requests, and prepared both a written submission and an oral presentation for the hearings. DFO provided expert science-based advice that downstream bioaccumulation of methylmercury could be greater and extend further than predicted by the proponent, Nalcor Energy. This was recognized in the report and conclusions of the joint review panel. In response to the joint review panel’s conclusions and recommendations, the Government of Canada required Nalcor Energy to extend downstream methylmercury monitoring into Goose Bay and Lake Melville. This monitoring would assess the extent and duration of any increases in methylmercury in fish and seals and enable Nalcor Energy to implement consumption advisories if needed.
The requirement to implement a comprehensive methylmercury monitoring program was formally prescribed as a condition of the authorization DFO issued to Nalcor in 2013, under section 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act, for impacts on fish and fish habitat from the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam and reservoir creation.
With regard to (b), over the past three years, the Nunatsiavut government has carried out and supported studies on methylmercury in Lake Melville, including work by Harvard University researchers published in 2015. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, was made aware of these studies as a result of meetings with the Nunatsiavut government in October of 2015.
In February 2016, DFO carried out a scientific review of the implications of the Harvard study on methylmercury in Lake Melville through a Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, or CSAS, process. DFO and Environment and Climate Change Canada scientists determined that predictions in the Harvard study were consistent with the advice the DFO provided during the environmental assessment. The scientific review recommended some adjustments to downstream methylmercury monitoring protocols, which DFO implemented.
These adjustments are covered under the Fisheries Act authorization issued to Nalcor Energy in 2013, which allows for the implementation of adaptive management in the monitoring of post-project predictions and adjustments to the program to respond to new information. As a result of this condition, the authorization did not require cancellation or amendment.
Departmental officials have maintained an ongoing dialogue with the Nunatsiavut government with respect to the project. The minister of DFO has also met with the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources for the Nunatsiavut government to acknowledge and discuss the Nunatsiavut government’s concerns related to methylmercury in Lake Melville. Furthermore, in October 2016 an agreement was made between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indigenous leaders to create an independent expert advisory committee, or IEAC, that would determine and recommend options for mitigating human health concerns related to methylmercury. While DFO does not possess expertise in relation to human health risks associated with methylmercury, DFO will be participating in the IEAC as an expert adviser in relation to the bioaccumulation of methylmercury in fish and seals downstream of the project.

Question No. 611--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the decision to not issue a commemorative medal as part of the Canada 150th celebrations: (a) what was the justification for this decision; (b) what are the details of any documented evidence to support this justification; and (c) what process was used to make this decision, in particular, (i) who was consulted, (ii) how they were consulted?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation is a unique opportunity to bring Canadians together and strengthen our connection to our communities by inspiring a vision of a vibrant, diverse, and inclusive country.
Canada 150 celebrations will be rooted in community building, engagement, and family celebrations from coast to coast to coast. These celebrations are for each and every Canadian. They are about connecting with one another.
Our government will mark the 150th anniversary of Confederation by inviting all Canadians to participate, celebrate, and explore via the numerous initiatives in their communities.
The Government of Canada is providing funding for community-driven activities and pan-Canadian signature projects as well as major events. Our government is empowering and encouraging all Canadians to engage with their community and to make 2017 a year to remember. We want all Canadians to join in the celebrations.
The vision for the 150th anniversary of Confederation is intended to inspire Canadians and bring them together by highlighting the themes of diversity and inclusion, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, young people, and the environment.
Our government is proud to support and promote initiatives that will inspire a generation of Canadians to help build Canada’s future and creating a lasting economic, cultural, and social legacy for our country.

Question No. 613--
Mr. Gordon Brown:
With regard to wait times at the Thousand Islands Bridge Border Crossing and the Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Border Crossing, broken down by crossing, between May 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016: (a) what was the average wait time for vehicle traffic, broken down by month, day and hour; and (b) what was the volume of vehicle traffic, broken down by month, day and hour?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
:Mr. Speaker, the CBSA cannot provide the requested information within the prescribed time frame. The request would result in an exceptionally large volume of information, and translating thousands of lines of data would require significant human and financial resources.
Current and forecasted border wait times, however, are available at the following web address: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/bwt-taf/menu-eng.html.

Question No. 615--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the work integrated learning program mentioned by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, in the House of Commons on November 18, 2016: (a) what are the details of the program; (b) how much government funding has been allotted for the program; (c) what is the duration and yearly budget for the program; and (d) what are the specific goals of the program?
Response
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as announced in Budget 2016, the student work-integrated learning program, or SWILP, is a $73-million program that will support new work-integrated learning, WIL, opportunities, such as co-ops and internships for young Canadians, with a focus on high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business, as well as through sustainable partnerships to align skills training with jobs in demand. Details will be provided once the SWILP is officially launched.
With regard to (b), as announced in Budget 2016, the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a $73-million program that will support new work-integrated learning, or WIL, opportunities, such as co-ops and internships, for young Canadians, with a focus on high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business, as well as through sustainable partnerships to align skills training with jobs in demand.
With regard to (c), the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a four-year program. Yearly budget for the SWILP will be provided once the SWILP is officially launched.
With regard to (d), the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a four-year initiative that will support sustainable and innovative partnerships between employers and willing post-secondary education, or PSE, institutions to create quality work-integrated learning, WIL, opportunities for PSE students in high-demand fields related to science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business.
The WIL opportunities created through these partnerships will better align the technical, foundational, and work-ready skills of students. PSE students will be encouraged to approach learning and WIL opportunities with an entrepreneurial mindset, to better position them to secure employment in their chosen fields of study and make immediate and meaningful contributions to Canada’s future growth and innovation.
The student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, will bring stakeholders from post-secondary education institutions and employers in key growth and innovation sectors of the Canadian economy.

Question No. 622--
Mr. François Choquette:
With regard to the Critical Habitat of the Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) St. Lawrence Estuary Population Order, published on May 14, 2016: (a) when will the Order come into force; (b) how many stakeholders have commented on the project; and (c) what are the names of the stakeholders who commented on the project, if this information is available?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the ministerial order is expected to come into force in early winter 2017.
With respect to (b) and this ministerial order, four comments were submitted during the 30-day Canada Gazette part I comment period.
With regard to (c), the stakeholders who commented on this proposed ministerial order are Madame Amélie Larouche, chef conseillère, Première Nation Malécites de Viger; Philippe Gervais, vice-président, Capital Hill Group; Lloyd Sykes, a citizen; and from the Government of Quebec, Minister Laurent Lessard, Ministre des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, and Minister David Heurtel, Ministre du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques.

Question No. 626--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and specifically, the section which called for the review of the previous government's changes to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Protection Acts: (a) specifically what lost protections is the mandate letter referring to; (b) what harms or proof of harm, to fish or fish habitat, attributed to the previous government's changes to these two Acts exist; and (c) specifically what protections lost, or alleged to have been lost as a result of the previous government's changes to these two Acts, is not provided for under other federal, provincial, or territorial legislation or regulations?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the previous government’s changes to the Fisheries Act were made with little consultation or transparency and were poorly received by environmental and indigenous groups. Various partners, stakeholders, and indigenous groups have emphasized the need for improved engagement and collaboration in developing and implementing any new legislation and policy to protect fish and fish habitat.
Since the Fisheries Act was changed in 2012-2013, indigenous groups, the academic community, stakeholders, and the public more generally have expressed concern with the changes to the act and their implementation. The department has continued to hear these types of concerns during the initial stages of public engagement related to the review of the 2012-2013 changes to the Fisheries Act this year.
For example, concern has been expressed about the legislative change from a prohibition against “harmful alteration, destruction or disruption of fish habitat” to a prohibition against “serious harm to fish”, defined as the “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. Some people have expressed concern that under this new wording, temporary alterations to fish habitat are no longer prohibited, even though temporary alterations can have significant effects on fish and fish habitat productivity.
There has also been concern raised that since 2012-2013, the habitat protection prohibition only applies to fish and fish habitat that are part of or support commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries and that are currently harvested.
The department has received comments that the reduction in offices and staff that coincided with the 2012-2013 amendments also reduced protections, as they resulted in a decreased capacity to deliver on fish and fish habitat protection through project review, monitoring, and enforcement.
With regard to (b), the department has not been either resourced or mandated to conduct this type of comprehensive monitoring and has not undertaken specific monitoring or analysis to compare the impacts of the changes to the act. The department is, however, developing new processes to monitor projects as well as to report back to Canadians on how fish and fish habitat are being protected in these specific areas.
With regard to (c), while management of inland fisheries has largely been delegated to the provinces and the Yukon Territory, the administration of the provisions related to the protection of fish and fish habitat remains with the federal government across Canada. Provincial and territorial authorities do deliver a range of natural resource conservation initiatives under various provincial and territorial laws that complement those of the federal government. For example, land use decisions made by these authorities may have a significant bearing on the quality and function of fish habitat in a given watershed.

Question No. 628--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the Community Participation Fund program: (a) how many grants were issued from January 1, 2016, to November 23, 2016; (b) how many of the groups who received grants were (i) Indigenous groups, (ii) local groups and local organizations, (iii) municipalities with a population of less than 10 000, (iv) not-for-profit organizations; (c) how many requests for funding were received; and (d) what percentage of grants went to (i) reviewing documents and providing written comments to contribute to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada, (ii) preparing for, travelling to, and participating in meetings related to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada, (iii) hiring expertise or conducting studies that contributes to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada. That is why the community participation funding program, CPFP, helps eligible indigenous groups and local communities take part in developing and improving Canada's marine transportation system. The CPFP gives recipients the opportunity to contribute their knowledge towards tailoring marine transportation systems to local conditions and the environment.
Eligible recipients include indigenous groups, local groups and local organizations, municipalities with a population of less than 10,000, and not-for-profit organizations. Applicants must also prove that they depend on the local marine environment in an area that is being considered for social, economic, or commercial activities.
With regard to (a), 36 grant recipients were approved during this time period, and 29 grant payments have been issued to date.
With regard to (b), of the groups that received grants, 22 were indigenous groups, none were local groups or local organizations, one was a municipality with a population of less than 10,000, and 13 were not-for-profit organizations.
With regard to (c), 39 funding requests were received.
With regard to (d)(i), 100% of grants went to reviewing documents and providing written comments to contribute to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system. With regard to (d)(ii), 100% of grants went to preparing for, travelling to, and participating in meetings related to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system. With regard to (d)(iii), 16.6% of grants went to hiring expertise or conducting studies that contributed to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system.

Question No. 629--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to Transport Canada’s online consultation on the Navigation Protection Act: (a) how many submissions were received; and (b) what are the names of the individuals and organizations who participated in the consultation?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Transport Canada’s online consultation on the Navigation Protection Act, with regard to (a), from June 20 to August 31, 2016, Canadians were encouraged to participate in an online questionnaire to help inform the government's review of environmental and regulatory processes, including the Navigation Protection Act, as outlined in the Minister of Transport’s mandate letter. This questionnaire included one question specific to the Navigation Protection Act, to which 155 people provided a response. This consultation was in addition to the continual engagement work conducted by Transport Canada.
With regard to (b), names of individuals and organizations that participated were not collected through this questionnaire. This online questionnaire was conducted anonymously to encourage more openness in responses, as is common practice. Anonymously filling out the questionnaire also eliminates the risk of unauthorized or inappropriate use or disclosure of personal information because no personal information is collected.

Question No. 631--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the most recent request for funding by the Canadian Administrator of VRS (CAV), Inc. from the National Contribution Fund: (a) what is the amount of the total 2017 CAV budget; (b) what is the amount of CAV’s 2016 deficit; (c) what is the amount of the 2017 administrative expenses in the CAV budget; (d) what is the amount of the 2017 CAV budget to provide 76 hours per week in both English/ASL and French/LSQ services; (e) what is the CAV’s forecast in the 2017 budget of the number of VRS users on average throughout the year and the average number of minutes per month; (f) what is the amount being paid by CAV to the contractor for the VRS Platform, IVèS, in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017; (g) what is the amount being paid by CAV to Convo Communications for seat-hours in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017; (h) what is the amount being paid by CAV to Service d’interprétation visuelle et tactile (SIVET) in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, for VRS service to meet the needs of French/LSQ speakers; and (i) what is the amount being paid by CAV in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, to Convo Communications as an incentive to establish Canadian-based operations?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the amount of the total 2017 budget for the Canadian Administrator of VRS, or CAV, is $25,419,405.
With regard to (b), the amount of CAV’s 2016 deficit is $666,693. With regard to (c), while there is no line item in the budget specifically called “administrative expenses”, the CAV projected $375,419 for administration for 2017.
With regard to (d), by “the amount of the 2017 CAV budget to provide 76 hours per week in both English/ASL and French/LSQ services”, it is assumed that the question refers to the CAV’s operations expenses and operations-contingency, which are as follows: for operations, 19,703,898; for operations-contingency, $3,487,416.
With regard to (e), the CAV’s forecast of VRS users for 2017 is an average of 3000 users, and the average number of minutes per month is 100 minutes per user.
With regard to (f), (g), and (h), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and the information requested has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes third party information related to material loss and contract negotiations.
With regard to (i), while the CAV’s application to the CRTC notes that there are incentives within the contract they concluded with Convo Communications to incite them to establish Canadian-based operations, no further details were provided and the CRTC has no additional insight.

Question No. 634--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Canada 2020: how much funding did SSHRC provide to Canada 2020 in order to sponsor the Canada 2020 conference held from November 2 to 4, 2016, in Ottawa?
Response
Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Minister of Science, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, SSHRC, has an agreement with Canada 2020 that includes a $15,000 contribution to the conference.

Question No. 642--
Hon. Candice Bergen:
With regard to the guidelines set out in the Prime Minister’s “Open and Accountable Government” document: (a) what processes are in place when a public office holder is accused of violating the Prime Minister’s guidelines; (b) what processes are in place when the Prime Minister is accused of violating the said guidelines?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, “Open and Accountable Government” sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations for his ministry. The Prime Minister may determine whether a particular minister is meeting those expectations and whether any corrective action should be taken. Similarly, it is the responsibility of each minister to ensure that the exempt staff in his or her office are acting in accordance with guidelines applicable to those staff. Privy Council Office, PCO, officials may support the Prime Minister in providing advice on how such guidance can be interpreted or applied and how it relates to other documents or legal instruments, such as the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act. PCO officials further support the Prime Minister with respect to Governor-in-Council appointment processes for senior government officials.

Question No. 644--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), since October 20, 2015: (a) which divisions within the RCMP equip some or all of their cruisers with automated external defibrillators (AEDs); (b) in each RCMP division, how many police cruisers are equipped with an AED; (c) has the number of RCMP cruisers equipped with AEDs increased, and if so, in which RCMP divisions has the increase occurred, and what is the number of the increase experienced in each division; (d) what policies or procedures exist which dictate (i) the use of AEDs by RCMP officers, (ii) the dispatching of RCMP vehicles to incidents where a sudden cardiac arrest is suspected, (iii) how to equip patrol cruisers with AEDs; (e) are there any existing or developing plans, at the divisional or national level, to increase the number of RCMP cruisers equipped with AEDs; and (f) what are the dates, times, originators and recipients of all communications to and from the Office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness which mention automated external defibrillators and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Speaker, in response to (a), the divisions within the RCMP that equip some or all of their cruisers with automated external defibrillators, AEDs, are C, Québec; D, Manitoba; E, British Columbia; K, Alberta; and National.
In response to (b), the number of police cruisers by division equipped with AEDs are as follows: C Division, Québec, six police cruisers; D Division, Manitoba, two police cruisers; E Division, British Columbia, is unable to provide an accurate response at this level of detail, as it would require an excessive amount of resources and time; K Division, Alberta, six police cruisers; and National Division, two police cruisers
In response to (c), there was no recent increase in the number of RCMP cruisers equipped with AEDs in Divisions C, D, K, and National. E Division is unable to provide an accurate response at this time.
In response to (d), training for the use of AEDs is included in the standard first aid curriculum that all RCMP members take every three years.
The RCMP has approved the implementation of AEDs for the following RCMP operational areas: the emergency medical response team, the divisional fitness and lifestyle program, the Prime Minister’s protection detail, and where provincial policing standards require that an AED be available or carried in conjunction with a conducted energy weapon.
In response to (e), if an RCMP workplace is not outlined in (d) and requires AED implementation, the detachment commander or manager can obtain approval through the commanding officer.
In response to (f), between October 20, 2015, and December 5, 2016, the RCMP executive services and ministerial liaison unit received one piece of correspondence on defibrillators on February 26, 2016, from the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. A response was provided on March 18, 2016.
National and divisional RCMP policies with respect to the use of AEDs by the RCMP can be found in chapter 9 of the RCMP National Occupational Safety Manual.

Question No. 653--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees the government has issued through the Department of Canadian Heritage, in excess of $1000 and since November 4, 2015: what are the details of these funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees, and for each one, what is the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) constituency of the recipient, (iii) program for which the grant, loan, or loan guarantee was given, (iv) date the application was received, (v) amount of the individual grant, loan, or loan guarantee, (vi) date the payment was made?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of January 1, 2016, in the effort to increase transparency, Canadian Heritage became the first department to go above and beyond Treasury Board policy requirements on proactive disclosure and committed to disclosing awards from one dollar and above.
Please note that the requested information is available on the departmental website at http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1453476384672/1453476482298. The department does not provide loans or loan guarantees.

Question No. 654--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to bonuses paid out for employees of Shares Services Canada, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many employees have received bonuses; (b) what is the total amount paid out in bonuses; (c) how many employees have received performance bonuses; (d) what is the total amount paid out in performance bonuses; and (e) what is the total amount paid out in performance bonuses to employees at the EX-01 level or higher?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the performance management program for executives is a government-wide program guided by a directive set by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and a responsibility of the deputy head, which is adhered to by SSC.
Executives in the core public administration are eligible to earn performance pay when they meet the commitments outlined in their performance agreements. Executives do not earn performance pay if they do not meet expectations. Performance pay includes at-risk pay, which is a portion of the pay that must be re-earned each year, and, potentially, a bonus for exceptional performance.
The terminology used in the answers below covers fiscal year 2015-16 as follows: “at-risk pay” covers sections (a) and (b); “bonus” covers sections (c) and (d).
Accordingly, (a) employees that have received at-risk pay, 117.
According to (b) total amount paid out in at-risk pay, $1,532,968.
According to (c) employees that have received performance bonuses (bonus), 19.
According to (d) total amount paid out in performance bonuses (bonus), $82,683.
According to (e) total amount paid out in performance bonuses (at-risk pay, plus bonus) to employees at the EX-01 level or higher, $1,615,651.

Question No. 660--
Hon. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the government and middle-class Canadians: (a) what is the government’s definition of the middle-class; and (b) what salary range does the government consider to be middle-class for (i) individuals, (ii) couples, (iii) families?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada defines the middle class using a broader set of characteristics than merely income. Middle-class Canadians can generally be identified by the values they hold and the lifestyle they aspire to. Middle-class values are values that are common to most Canadians and from all backgrounds: they believe in working hard to get ahead and hope for a better future for their children. Middle-class families also aspire to a lifestyle that typically includes adequate housing and health care, educational opportunities for their children, a secure retirement, job security, and adequate income for modest spending on leisure pursuits, among other characteristics. The income required to attain such a lifestyle can vary greatly based on Canadians’ specific situations, e.g., whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive.
As a result, it is not possible to pin down a specific income range that would capture everyone who is in the middle class and exclude everyone who is not. In addition, Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 663--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the RCMP ceremonial guard at the Canada 2020 reception at the Renwick Gallery in Washington, D.C., on March 9, 2016: how much did Canada 2020 pay the RCMP for the ceremonial guard?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada 2020 did not pay the RCMP, but they covered all travel-related expenses.

Question No. 671--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank: what contingency plans does the government have in the event that private-sector funding for the Bank is either unavailable or withdrawn?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker governments in Canada cannot address all of the country’s infrastructure needs alone. Large institutional investors, such as Canada’s public pension funds, have a large pool of capital that the infrastructure bank can help attract and leverage to meet the country’s infrastructure requirements.
The Advisory Council on Economic Growth’s report on infrastructure released in October 2016 highlights that given the historically low and, in many cases, negative interest rate environment, there is an abundance of institutional capital around the world waiting to be deployed. The report broadly illustrates this point in noting that there is approximately $11.7 trillion “parked” in negative-yield bonds.
The report also states that pension funds and sovereign wealth funds have approximately $170 billion invested in infrastructure. The infrastructure investment potential for these institutional investors is estimated at $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion, representing 10 to 14 times the level of current investment.
Canada is a stable country with fiscal room for significant investment and a well-grounded system in place. Furthermore, Canada has a long and solid tradition of partnering with the private sector, with a solid reputation in developing and leading in public-private partnership projects. Thus, Canada is well positioned to attract its share of the large amounts of capital that the private sector is seeking to invest in infrastructure.
The Canada infrastructure bank will be responsible for investing at least $35 billion on a cash basis from the federal government into large infrastructure projects that contribute to economic growth, through direct investments, loans, loan guarantees and equity investments. Part of this amount—$15 billion—will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and rural and northern communities. An additional $20 billion in capital will be available to the Canada infrastructure bank for investments, which will result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debt. This $20 billion will therefore not result in a fiscal impact on the government.

Question No. 672--
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher:
With regard to the 59 different expense claims made by the exempt staff of the Minister of International Development for trips to Sherbrooke, Quebec, between November 20, 2015 and August 30, 2016, as listed on proactive disclosure: (a) what are the details of any official government business which occurred on each trip, broken down by specific event or meeting; and (b) what government business related to the Minister’s International Development portfolio occurred on each trip, broken down by specific event or meeting?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, 55 of the 59 claims submitted as listed in the proactive disclosure are transportation related. Despite the significant distance between Ottawa and the riding of Compton--Stanstead, there are very limited flight or train options to travel. The most cost-efficient solution is to use the driver provided by the department for transportation.
Further details are provided in the “Policies for Ministers’ Offices--January 2011”, available online at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/structure/pgmo-pldcm/pgmo-pldcmtb-eng.asp

Question No. 673--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to studies conducted by the government about the impact a carbon tax will have on food and grocery prices, since November 4, 2015: (a) have any studies been conducted regarding the increase in food and grocery prices as a result of a carbon tax; and (b) what are the specific details for all studies in (a) including (i) date of completion, (ii) title, (iii) file number, (iv) summary of conclusions?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the first ministers meeting on December 9, 2016, most provinces and territories agreed to implement the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The framework includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, such that carbon pricing will be implemented across the country by 2018. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to choose between two systems: a direct price on carbon pollution or a cap and trade system. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, representing over 80 per cent of the population, have already implemented or have introduced legislation to implement carbon pricing.
The federal government will introduce a backstop pricing system that will apply in jurisdictions that do not meet the national carbon pricing benchmark. The revenues from pricing carbon pollution will remain in the province or territory where they originate. Each jurisdiction can use carbon pricing revenues according to their needs, including to address impacts on vulnerable populations and sectors, and to support climate change and clean growth goals.
The impact of pricing carbon pollution on food and grocery prices in Canada will depend on the approaches taken individually by provinces and territories in implementing a carbon price that meets the pan-Canadian benchmark for carbon pricing, as well as the decisions made regarding how revenues from carbon pricing will be used.
An overview of the analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of the pan-Canadian framework can be accessed on the Canada.ca website at the following address: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/economic-analysis.html.

Question No. 676--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the submission from the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) to the Standing Committee on Finance which recommends exempting group medical structures and health care delivery from Budget 2016’s proposed changes: (a) has the Department of Finance done a cost analysis on this recommendation, and if so, what were the results; (b) does the government plan on implementing the CMA recommendation; and (c) what is the rationale for the decision in (b)?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the department has not done a cost analysis for the recommendation made by the CMA.
With regard to (b), implementing CMA’s recommendation would be inconsistent with the intent of the amendments, which clarify that each small business is entitled to one small business deduction.
With regard to (c), the government is committed to ensuring tax fairness for all Canadians and businesses so that everyone pays their fair share. This includes ensuring that private corporations are not being used to inappropriately reduce tax obligations for high-income earners. The Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2 amended the Income Tax Act to address certain tax planning arrangements that could allow access to the small business tax rate in unintended circumstances. It ensures, for example, that if the $500,000 income limit is intended to be shared among partners in a small business partnership, the partners cannot multiply the limit. The amendments will only affect structures that attempt to multiply access to the small business deduction through the use of a partnership or corporation. It will not affect certain alternative structures that are available for group operations, such as cost-sharing arrangements.

Question No. 680--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to civil aviation enforcement actions by Transport Canada: (a) how many operators currently do not have the confidence of Transport Canada, and specifically the confidence of Prairie and Northern Region (PNR) Civil Aviation and are considered to not be operating safely; and (b) what specific actions have been taken by Transport Canada or PNR to address the assessment on the final page of the Minister’s transition binder that “minimal compliance with regulations has proven to be insufficient to deem these operators safe”?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, continually improving aviation safety in Canada is a priority. As such, the Government of Canada does not hesitate to take the necessary actions to keep Canada’s skies safe. With respect to civil aviation enforcement actions by Transport Canada and question (a), when Transport Canada believes an operator is operating unsafely, it immediately takes action to require the operator to correct the issue or, if deemed appropriate, it suspends the operator’s operating certificate until the situation can be corrected. All Canadian air operators are treated in this manner across the country.
With respect to (b), Transport Canada suspends or cancels an operator’s operating certificate when it believes they are operating unsafely. A suspended operator cannot operate until they demonstrate that they have met the conditions of reinstatement.
In the public interest, Transport Canada cancelled the air operator certificate of one company, prohibiting them from operating aircrafts commercially due to the company’s inability to sustain the required level of compliance needed to maintain safe operation. The air operating certificate was cancelled after Transport Canada conducted a comprehensive review of the company’s full compliance and safety record.
Transport Canada also suspended a second operator, as deficiencies were identified in the company’s operational and maintenance control. After being suspended, Transport Canada approved corrective action plans developed by the company. As a result, Transport Canada reinstated the company’s air operator certificate. Following their reinstatement, the company was placed in enhanced monitoring to enable department officials to closely monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions. Transport Canada continues to monitor the company to ensure that its corrective action remains in place and is effective.
Transport Canada takes its aviation safety oversight role very seriously and expects every air operator to fully comply with aviation safety requirements. When air operators fail to comply with regulations, Transport Canada will take action in the interest of public safety.

Question No. 684--
Mr. Robert Aubin:
With regard to the International, Large Business and Investigations Branch of the Canada Revenue Agency, since it was created in April 2016: (a) how many employees have been assigned to it; (b) what has been its operating budget; (c) how many taxpayer audits have been active; (d) of the audits in (c), how many have been referred to the Criminal Investigations Program or the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (e) of the audits in (d), how many have been or are before the courts; and (f) of the cases before the courts in (e), how many have resulted in convictions?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the international, large business and investigations branch, ILBIB, was formerly part of the larger compliance programs branch, CPB. ILBIB was created in April 2016 to provide more focus on international tax audit, aggressive tax planning, criminal investigations and the development of strategies to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. As of June 29, 2016, the most recent date for which current information is available, ILBIB had 2,654 full time equivalents FTEs.
With regard to (b), ILBIB has an annual operating budget of $271,283,229, which includes funding from budget 2016 related to the cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance commitment.
With regard to (c), since April 2016, there have been 15,602 active audits in ILBIB, of which 5,184 audits were completed as of November 25, 2016, the most recent date for which current information is available. Please note that many of the completed and active files were created in the former CPB, prior to the creation of ILBIB.
With regard to (d), while the CRA is able to provide the number of new criminal investigations opened since April 1, 2016, it cannot do so in the manner requested (i.e., with respect to the data provided in part (c)). Since April 1, 2016, 56 new criminal investigations have been opened. Criminal investigations can be complex and require months or years to complete. This will be dependent on the complexity of the case, the number of individuals involved, the availability of information or evidence, cooperation or lack thereof of witnesses or the accused, and the various legal tools that may need to be employed to gather sufficient evidence to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt.
None of the 56 have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC, in the nine months of the scope of the question. Generally speaking, whether or not a file is accepted for criminal investigation and possible subsequent prosecution is based on many factors, including the evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and the likelihood of securing a conviction if charges are laid. The criminal investigations program investigates suspected cases of tax evasion, fraud, and other serious violations of tax laws and recommends to the PPSC cases for possible prosecution where an investigation has been carried out and where evidence accumulated indicates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
With regard to (e) and (f), for the reasons outlined in part (d), since April 1, 2016, no files are before the courts and, consequently, there have been no convictions.

Question No. 688--
Ms. Karine Trudel:
With regard to the audits conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency concerning international tax evasion, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many cases have resulted in a negotiated settlement, broken down by (i) year, (ii) amount of the penalties imposed, (iii) interest charged?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, please note that as of April 2014, through the creation of the offshore compliance division, the CRA began to track offshore related audits that resulted in a negotiated settlement. For this reason, the CRA is only able to provide data from that date. Information prior to April 2014 is not available in the manner requested (i.e., by year, since January 1, 2006).
The CRA strives for effective and efficient resolution of audit issues, on the basis of facts, and only settles files on a principled basis in accordance with legislation that it administers (the Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act, and other fiscal legislation). Reaching an agreement with the taxpayer has numerous potential benefits, such as the reduction of litigation risk and costs, taxpayer agreement to the taxability of the income earned, consistency in resolution of complex issues, and the commitment by the taxpayer to pay the liability within a specific time frame.
With regard to part (a)(i), since 2014, 34 of the over 293 tax audits of offshore non-compliance resulted in a settlement.
With regard to part (a)(ii), these 34 audit cases settled resulted in over $6 million in federal taxes assessed and $3.8 million in penalties. In total, the 293 audits yielded $155 million in federal tax and penalties assessed.
With regard to part (a)(iii), the CRA does not track the interest charged from the negotiated settlements noted above.

Question No. 694--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Offshore Tax Informant Program (CRA) (OTIP), since its creation in 2014: (a) what have the CRA’s operating costs for this Program been; (b) how many leads have been provided under OTIP; (c) of these leads, how many resulted in audits; (d) what sums were recovered by the CRA as a result of OTIP; (e) what was the amount of each award given to OTIP informants; and (f) what percentage of the amounts recovered did the awards to OTIP informants represent?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. The offshore tax informant program, OTIP, was launched on January 15, 2014, as part of the CRA’s efforts to fight international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. OTIP allows the CRA to make financial awards to individuals who provide information related to major international tax non-compliance that leads to the collection of taxes owing.
Individuals who wish to participate in the OTIP and who have specific and credible information about a situation of major international tax non-compliance are recommended to first contact the OTIP hotline. During the call, the CRA discusses how the program works on a no-names basis. If it appears that the case generally meets the criteria, individuals are provided with a case number and instructions on how to submit the information to the program. Information that the CRA receives is collected under the authority of federal tax legislation and will be used to determine if there is non-compliance with Canada's tax laws. Where the CRA determines that the submission does not meet the program criteria or qualify for a reward, the CRA can still use this information for other purposes in carrying out its mandate to ensure that all taxpayers pay the correct amount of tax under the law. The information provided can be referred to other program areas for compliance action.
More information is available on the CRA website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmplnc/otip-pdife/sbmt-eng.html.
In response to part (a), from January 2014 up to November 2016, the date to which current figures are available, the CRA’s operating costs for the offshore tax informant program, OTIP, are $1,866,090.
In response to part (b), as of November 30, 2016, the date to which current figures are available, the OTIP has received 398 written submissions; 127 are active submissions, of which the OTIP has entered into over 20 contracts with informants and are reviewing the balance. Of the 271 cases that did not qualify under the OTIP, 94 have been closed and 177 were referred to other areas within the CRA for possible compliance action.
In response to part (c), of the leads received in part (b) through the OTIP, the CRA has completed or is currently conducting audits involving over 218 taxpayers.
In response to part (d), while the CRA is unable to confirm the amount recovered, to date, the CRA has reassessed more than $1 million in federal tax and foreign reporting penalties as a result of information submitted to the OTIP. As these are multi-year audits, this represents a small number of the over 218 taxpayers that were or are currently under audit.
In response to part (e), an individual, or “informant”, must be eligible for the offshore tax informant program, OTIP. Information about the eligibility for the offshore tax informant program is available on the CRA website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmplnc/otip-pdife/lgblty-eng.html.
An OTIP analyst will consider the information provided by the informant, evaluate the merits of the case, and make a recommendation about inclusion in the program. If a case is recommended for inclusion in the program, it is referred to an oversight committee of senior management representatives for approval to enter into a contract. Once approved, the informant and the CRA will enter into a contract. A payment can be denied and a contract can be terminated in certain situations. The CRA works to conclude the process as efficiently as possible. However, it may take several years from the date of entering into a contract with the CRA until the additional federal tax is assessed, the taxpayer's appeal rights have expired, and the amount owing is collected.
The CRA has entered into over 20 contracts with informants and others are in process; however, for the reasons noted above, no rewards have been paid to date.
In response to part (f), for the reasons noted in part (e), the CRA has not paid any awards to date. However, under the OTIP, if the CRA assesses and collects more than $100,000 in additional federal tax, the amount of the reward will be between 5% and 15% of the federal tax collected, not including interest or penalties.

Question No. 697--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the carbon pricing plan announced by the Prime Minister: (a) has the government produced any economic impact studies on the impact of a $50 per tonne carbon price on the following sectors (i) commercial aviation, (ii) freight rail, (iii) passenger rail, (iv) marine shipping; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each study, including (i) dates and duration of each study, (ii) who conducted each study, (iii) findings of each study?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the first ministers’ meeting on December 9, 2016, most provinces and territories agreed to implement the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The framework includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, such that carbon pricing will be implemented across the country by 2018. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to choose between two systems: a direct price on carbon pollution or a cap and-trade system. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, representing over 80%of the population, have already implemented or have introduced legislation to implement carbon pricing.
The federal government will introduce a backstop pricing system that will apply in jurisdictions that do not meet the national carbon pricing benchmark.
The revenues from pricing carbon pollution will remain in the province or territory where they originate. Each jurisdiction can use carbon pricing revenues according to their needs, including to address impacts on vulnerable populations and sectors and to support climate change and clean growth goals.
The impact of pricing carbon pollution on commercial aviation, freight rail, passenger rail, and marine shipping in Canada will depend on the approaches taken individually by provinces and territories in implementing a carbon price that meets the pan-Canadian benchmark for carbon pricing, as well as the decisions made regarding how revenues from carbon pricing will be used.
An overview of the analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of the pan-Canadian framework can be accessed on the Canada.ca website at the following address: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/economic-analysis.html.

Question No. 702--
Mr. Gordon Brown:
With regard to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA): what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and CBSA since November 4, 2015, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a preliminary search was done in ccmMercury, the file tracking system of the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, to find the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and the CBSA since November 4, 2015. As a result of the volume and the processing required to provide the detail requested, the CBSA cannot produce a response by the specified deadline.

Question No. 725--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the political activities regime set out in the Public Service Employment Act: (a) how many allegations of improper political activities were reported between October 2015 and December 2016, broken down by department; (b) of the reports listed in (a), how many investigations were performed, broken down by department; (c) of the investigations listed in (b) how many resulted in disciplinary action, broken down by department; and (d) of the investigations listed in (b), how many were initiated by the Deputy Minister, the Associate Deputy Minister, and other management level officials?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), from October 1, 2015, to December 6, 2016, the Public Service Commission received five allegations of improper political activities concerning employees from Shared Services Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Justice, and Natural Resources Canada.
In response to (b), of these allegations, two investigations were launched In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes personal information.
In response to (c), to date, no disciplinary action has been ordered by the commission regarding these investigations. One of these investigations was discontinued, while the other one is still ongoing. In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes personal information. Disciplinary action can also be taken by the employee’s home department under the deputy head’s authority. The Public Service Commission does not collect data related to disciplinary action taken by departments
In response to (d), both investigations were initiated by managers.

Question No. 726--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to public service staffing and the Veterans Hiring Act: (a) how many veterans have been hired since October 19, 2015; (b) how many veterans applied; and (c) how many veterans were rejected, and what were the reasons for each rejection, in list format?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), a total of 266 veterans were hired since October 19, 2015, of which 255 were statutory or regulatory priorities. This data originates from the Public Service Commission’s priority information management system. It includes appointments from organizations subject to the Public Service Employment Act, as well as appointments using similar criteria at the Canada Revenue Agency. In addition, 11 were through preference and mobility provisions. Information on preference and mobility appointments is available up to March 31, 2016.
With regard to (b), a total of 1,350 veterans submitted 3,813 applications from October 19, 2015 to November 30, 2016. This includes applications to organizations subject to the PSEA, based on the closing date of the advertisement. Cancelled advertisements are excluded. Some veterans submitted multiple applications. Due to information being captured through monthly extracts, applicant data is only available up until November 30, 2016.
With regard to (c), of the 3,813 veteran applications, 457 were screened out of internal and external appointment processes from October 19, 2015 to November 30, 2016 for the following reasons: 420 applications did not meet the screening requirements identified for the job opportunity, 30 applications did not meet the unsupervised Internet test requirements identified for the job opportunity, six applications did not indicate that the applicant was residing or employed in the specified radius identified for the job opportunity at the time they submitted their application, and one application did not meet the experience requirements identified for the job opportunity. This data originates from the Public Service Commission’s public service resourcing system, PSRS. Decisions on the remaining applications were made by the hiring organizations at later stages in the appointment process and may have been based on assessment tools such as written examinations, interviews or references.

Question No. 734--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the government's proposal for the Canadian Infrastructure Bank: (a) what will be the corporate structure of the bank; (b) how much funding will the government provide to the bank; (c) how much in loan guarantees will the government, including any federal agency, provide to the bank; (d) how much private investment is needed to ensure the sustain the bank; (e) what is the value of all firm financial commitments the government received to the bank from private investments so far; (f) are there any requirements that private investments in the Canadian Infrastructure Bank come from Canadian firms; (g) will the Canadian Infrastructure Bank allow investments from individuals or groups with ties to the Chinese government; (h) will the Canadian Infrastructure Bank allow investments from individuals or groups with ties to other foreign governments; and (i) will the Canadian Infrastructure Bank allow investments from individuals or groups with ties to a listed terrorist group?
Response
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the 2016 fall economic statement announced the investing in Canada plan, proposing to invest over $180 billion over 12 years, starting in 2017-18, in public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, transportation that supports trade, and Canada’s rural and northern communities. As part of this plan, the government is proposing the creation of a Canada infrastructure bank that will work with provinces, territories, and municipalities to further the reach of the government funding directed to infrastructure. The Canada infrastructure bank, federal and provincial/territorial governments, and investors will work together to identify potential projects and identify investment opportunities that provide the biggest economic, social, and environmental returns.
The Canada infrastructure bank will make investments in revenue-generating infrastructure projects and plans that contribute to the long-term sustainability of infrastructure across the country. It will be mandated to work with project sponsors to structure, negotiate, and deliver federal support for infrastructure projects with revenue-generating potential; use innovative financial tools to invest in national and regional infrastructure projects and attract private sector capital to public infrastructure projects; serve as a single point of contact for unsolicited proposals from the private sector; and improve evidence-based decision making and advise governments on the design and negotiation of revenue-generating infrastructure projects.
Regarding the corporate structure of the Canada infrastructure bank, it will be accountable to, and partner with, government, but will operate at greater arm’s length than a department. It will work with provincial, territorial, municipal, indigenous, and investment partners to transform the way infrastructure is planned, funded, and delivered in Canada.
In terms of funding and investments, the Canada infrastructure bank will be responsible for investing at least $35 billion on a cash basis from the federal government into large infrastructure projects that contribute to economic growth through direct investments, loans, loan guarantees, and equity investments. Part of this amount, $15 billion, will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and rural and northern communities. An additional $20 billion in capital will be available to the Canada infrastructure bank for investments, which will result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debt. This $20 billion will therefore not result in a fiscal impact for the government.
Regarding potential private sector investments in Canada’s public infrastructure, the Investment Canada Act provides for the review of significant direct acquisitions of control of Canadian businesses by foreign investors for their likely economic net benefit to Canada. The act also provides for the review of foreign investments that could be injurious to national security.
The government will announce further details on the investing in Canada plan through budget 2017.

Question No. 737--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to any federal payments made, or to be made, as a result of the decision by the Ontario government to cancel a project with Windstream Energy LLC: (a) what is the current amount of federal funds which are slated to be delivered to Windstream Energy LLC as a result of the related NAFTA ruling; (b) what steps is the government planning or considering in order to recover the money from the individuals involved; (c) has the government asked any of the following individuals or entities for repayment on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, (i) the former Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, (ii) the current Premier of Ontario, (iii) the Liberal Party of Ontario, (iv) any of the individuals facing charges in relation to the cancellation of the project, or in relation to the deletion or destruction of related emails; (d) does the government have any plans to take legal action against any individuals in order to recover the federal funds required as a result of the NAFTA ruling; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what are the details of any action the government is planning to take?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 2016, the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal constituted to hear Windstream v. Canada issued its final award, which awarded the claimant, Windstream Energy LLC, $25,182,900 in damages and $2,912,432 in costs.
This award is but a small fraction of the damages requested as the majority of the company’s claims were dismissed by the tribunal. Post-award interest, as agreed to by the parties, is also payable. The public version of the award is available here at www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2036. The Government of Canada is currently in consultation with the Government of Ontario with regards to payment details.
This dispute represents a very small portion of the billions in investments that Canada attracts and the billions that Canadian companies invest abroad.

Question No. 740--
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
With regard to Lt. Gen. Michael Hood’s testimony at the Senate Standing Committee for National Security and Defence in which he indicated that our NORAD and NATO commitments were previously being met, but a policy change which required meeting these commitments concurrently resulted in a requirement to increase the number of fighters available: (a) who made this policy change; (b) was Lt. Gen. Hood consulted prior to the decision to make this change; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the negative, what is the rationale; (d) on what basis or recommendation was this policy change made; (e) on what date was this policy change made; (f) why was this change made before the completion of the government’s Defence Policy Review; (g) what is the rationale for this policy change; (h) since November 3, 2015, has the Armed Forces’ policy requirements changed for the (i) Chinook helicopter fleet, (ii) CP-140 Aurora surveillance plane fleet, (iii) Griffin helicopter fleet, (iv) Sea King helicopter fleet, (v) C-17 Globemaster fleet, (vi) C-130 Hercules fleet; (i) if the answer to any part of ( h) is affirmative (i) what was the change, (ii) who made it, (iii) on what basis or recommendation was it made, (iv) on what date was it made, (v) why was it made before the completion of the government’s Defence Policy Review, (vi) what is the rationale for it; (j) what are the estimated additional operational costs of this policy change; (k) what is the total number of fighter jets required for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to implement this policy change; (l) what will be the result of this policy change with respect to the RCAF’s NATO contributions; and (m) what is the expected result of this policy change with respect to the RCAF’s NORAD contributions?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has made the decision to no longer risk manage our ability to simultaneously meet our NORAD and NATO commitments. Canada’s current CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet is now more than 30 years old and down from 138 to 76 aircraft. Canada has been risk managing its ability to meet these commitments for a number of years. The government is no longer willing to accept this risk, and is consequently exploring the acquisition of an interim fleet of Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet until the permanent replacement arrives. This decision was announced on 22 November 2016.
By taking action now, the government will ensure that our defence needs will continue to be met in both the short- and long-term, and that Canada remains a credible and dependable ally. In making this decision, advice to the Minister of National Defence was funneled through his two main advisors, the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister.
The specific information requested about on what basis or recommendation this policy change was made constitutes advice to ministers and is cabinet confidence.
Since 3 November 2015, there have been no changes to policy requirements for any of the other fleets of the Royal Canadian Air Force listed in the question.
Canada has obligations to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, to be ready to deploy a fighter capability. Specifically, Canada has committed six fighter aircraft on standby to the NATO Response Force. The number of Canadian fighter aircraft committed to NORAD is classified. However, the number of mission-ready fighter jets Canada can concurrently provide to these organizations is fewer than the sum of these obligations could demand, which means, as a result, that the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, faces a capability gap.
Details on the permanent fleet size and the anticipated costs will be defined by the defence policy review and budget 2017.

Question No. 741--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the statement made in the House of Commons by the Minister of National Defence on November 23, 2016, that on September 11, 2001, Canada had to “put every single fighter up in the air”: (a) how many of Canada’s CF-18s flew sorties on September 11, 2001; (b) how many of Canada’s CF-18s were put on readiness on September 11, 2001; and (c) were any of Canada’s CF-18s diverted from their NATO obligations on September 11, 2001?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, in response to terrorist attacks against the United States, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, took control of Canadian and American airspace and mobilized assets to address the threat. The airspace in both Canada and the United States was shut down, and all airborne civilian and military aircraft were ordered to land at the nearest suitable airfield.
In Canada, all NORAD rapid reaction assets were immediately deployed, primarily to escort international air traffic to coastal airfields. Throughout the day, the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, recalled personnel and prepared combat capable, mission-ready air assets in response to the uncertain security situation. The RCAF continued to generate forces at the two main operating bases, Canadian Forces Base Bagotville and Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, until each base reached its maximum operating capacity. NORAD has responsibility for detailed information related to operations on September 11, 2001, and has classified information related to the number of sorties flown that day.
Readiness is a measure of how prepared the Canadian Armed Forces are to deploy, and readiness levels are always classified. In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information relates to national security, defence and international affairs. In keeping with the principles of these acts, while we are in a position to state that all NORAD rapid reaction assets in Canada were deployed, specific details such as the number of aircraft fuelled and armed or the number of sorties flown on September 11, 2001 cannot be released.
A review of our historical data found no record of CF-18s being diverted from their North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, obligations, specifically on September 11, 2001.

Question No. 742--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the deletion from the Department of National Defence’s website of the Defence Research and Development Canada June 2014 report in relation to fighter jets: (a) when was the report deleted from the website; (b) who ordered the deletion; (c) when was the Minister or his office made aware of the deletion; (d) did the Minister or his office approve the deletion, and if so, on what date; (e) what is the rationale behind the decision to delete the report; and (f) what are the details of any briefing notes, memorandums, or other dockets related to the deletion of said report including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the report was removed from the website on November 4, 2016.
The director of staff, strategic joint staff, ordered the deletion of the report.
The minister and the minister’s office became aware of the deletion after the Department of National Defence had taken action to remove the report from the website.
Neither the minister, nor the minister’s office, approved the deletion of the report. The Department of National Defence did not seek the minister’s approval.
Given the current threat environment, the director of staff, strategic joint staff, judged the information contained in the report should no longer remain public.
No briefing notes, memorandums or dockets were produced on the subject.

Question No. 744--
Hon. Candice Bergen:
With respect to the mydemocracy.ca website: (a) what are the details of the membership of the advisory panel who decided on the questions, including for each individual their (i) name, (ii) title, (iii) affiliation; (b) what is the breakdown of expected costs associated with the postcards promoting the website, including (i) postage, (ii) printing, (iii) preparation, (iv) other costs broken down by individual cost; (c) what was the total cost of the development of the website, broken down by individual line item; (d) did the Minister of Democratic Institutions approve the questions on the website, and if so, on what date did the Minister approve the questions; and (e) on what date were the questions (i) finalized by the advisory panel, (ii) submitted to the Minister for approval?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part a) of the question, Vox Pop Labs developed the questions, in consultation with the Government of Canada and an advisory panel of prominent scholars in areas such as research design, survey methodology, and electoral politics. The panel members included the following academics: André Blais, professeur titulaire, Université de Montréal; Elisabeth Gidengil, Hiram Mills professor, McGill University; Richard Johnston, professor, University of British Columbia; Peter Loewen, associate professor, University of Toronto; Scott Matthews, associate professor, Memorial University; Jonathan Rose, associate professor, Queen’s University; Laura Stephenson, associate professor, Western University; and Melanee Thomas, assistant professor, University of Calgary.
The members of the academic advisory panel issued a statement that can be found at: http://individual.utoronto.ca/loewen/Electoral_Reform_files/statement%20advisory%20board%20FINAL.pdf.
With regard to part b), the Government of Canada wanted to engage as many Canadians as possible in a conversation about electoral reform. Postcards were sent to every Canadian household inviting them to participate in MyDemocracy.ca. The breakdown of expected costs for the postcards includes $1,673,921.08 for postage and a total of $295,128 for the printing and preparation of the cards, which were done by the same firm. There were no other individual costs.
With regard to part c), the contract with Vox Pop Labs for the development of the application along with analysis and reporting of results is expected to cost $369,058.00, including HST.
With regard to part d), the final approval of the questions included in MyDemocracy.ca was given in November 2016.
With regard to part e), Vox Pop Labs developed the questions, in consultation with the Government of Canada and an advisory panel of prominent scholars in areas such as research design, survey methodology, and electoral politics.
The process for developing, reviewing, and providing feedback on questions was an iterative, consultative, and collaborative process. Final approval for the questions included in MyDemocracy.ca was given in November 2016.

Question No. 755--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada what is: (a) the criteria for benefits for veterans with injuries or disease due to exposure to toxic chemicals, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv)cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals; (b) the number of claims that have been made for exposure to toxic chemicals, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv) cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals; and (c) the number of successful claims for toxic chemicals exposure, including, but not limited to, (i) asbestos, (ii) lead, (iii) lubricants, (iv) cleaners, (v) chemical spraying, (vi) spraying at CFB Gagetown, (vii) depleted uranium, (viii) radiation, (ix) other chemicals?
Response
Hon. Kent Hehr (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part a), a diagnosed medical condition and evidence that the condition or disability is related to military service is required to receive a disability benefit from Veterans Affairs Canada. Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans with a disability associated with exposure as a result of military service or any other service-related disability are encouraged to apply for disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada. Additional guidance for the adjudication of disability benefit applications related to hazardous material, radiation exposure, and exposure to Agent Orange and other unregistered United States military herbicides may be found at the following website addresses: www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1315 and www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1190.
With regard to b) and c), toxic chemicals are not a condition but rather a potential cause to other conditions. Veterans Affairs Canada does not track the causes of the conditions, only the conditions themselves. As a result, Veterans Affairs Canada is unable to provide the data requested.

Question No. 757--
Mr. Jim Eglinski:
With regard to projects funded by the government on the O’Chiese First Nation: (a) what is the total value of invoices which have been received but not paid as of December 7, 2016; (b) what are the details of any such invoices, including the (i) amount, (ii) date received, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) reason for non-payment; (c) what are the details of all correspondence between the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs and the O’Chiese First Nation or the vendors regarding non-payments, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) file number?
Response
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada is concerned, no invoices were unpaid as of December 7, 2016.

Question No. 761--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the Free 2017 Parks Canada Discovery Pass Program offered by Parks Canada: (a) how many passes have been requested as of December 7, 2016; (b) how many passes were requested by (i) individuals residing in Canada, (ii) families residing in Canada, (iii) individuals residing outside of Canada, (iv) families residing outside of Canada; (c) what has been the cost to produce the passes, broken down by (i) staff time, (ii) staff overtime, (iii) printing, (iv) design, (v) mailing, (vi) postage, (vii) other costs, indicating nature of such costs; (d) how many passes have been provided to other agencies, such as the Canadian Automotive Association or Alberta Motor Association, identifying which agencies received passes and how many passes each agency received; (e) how many passes were purchased in the 2015-2016 fiscal year and what was the total gross revenue from purchased passes; and (f) what was the cost to produce the passes in the 2015-2016 fiscal year broken down by (i) staff time, (ii) staff overtime, (iii) printing, (iv) design, (v) mailing, (vi) postage, (vii) other costs, indicating nature of such costs?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is very pleased to offer free admission for all visitors to national parks, national historic sites, and national marine conservation areas operated by Parks Canada in 2017 to celebrate Canada 150.
Canada’s national parks and national marine conservation areas provide outstanding examples of our country’s natural landscapes, generate economic activity by attracting visitors from Canada and abroad, and provide Canadians with access to our natural heritage.
As Canada’s largest provider of natural and cultural tourism, Parks Canada’s destinations form important cornerstones for Canada’s local, regional, and national tourism industry. Parks Canada places are an important part of local economies, helping to generate billions of dollars annually and employ tens of thousands of people.
The millions of visitors to Canada’s national parks, national historic sites, and national marine conservation areas make a substantial and widespread contribution to the Canadian economy, through job creation and revenues generated for local businesses.
With regard to a), as of December 7, 2016, there were 377,879 pass orders for 661,925 passes.
With regard to b), Parks Canada received 360,926 orders from individuals or families residing in Canada for 632,146 passes. Parks Canada received 16,953 orders from individuals or families outside of Canada for 29,779 passes. The agency cannot differentiate between families or individuals based on orders.
With regard to c)i), the amount is $40,000. Over three months, the Discovery Pass program represented 70% of the work of two staff and 30% of the work of one staff person. No staff overtime has been incurred. Each pass costs $0.342 to produce. As of December 7, 2016, approximately 661,925 passes were ordered. Print costs would be approximately $226,378. With regard to c) iv), the amount is $2,713. No mailing costs were incurred. No postage costs were incurred. No other costs were incurred.
No passes were provided to other agencies.
The free 2017 Discovery Pass replaces both regular entry and traditional Discovery Pass sales. The total number of 2015-16 entry passes purchased, including Discovery Passes and daily entry, was 5,884,127, totalling $65,991,356 in total gross revenue. The number of Discovery Passes purchased for 2015-16 is 176,557 passes, totalling $21,435,577 in gross revenue.
With regard to f) i), the amount is $55,000 over 12 months. The Discovery Pass program represented 50% of the work of one staff and 20% of the work of one staff person. No staff overtime has been incurred. The cost of printing the 2016 Discovery Pass was $0.36 per pass for a total of $63,561. With regard to f) iv), the amount is $2,713. Packaging and mailing passes cost $34,250. Some 8,250 Discovery Passes were ordered for distribution by mail. With an average postal charge of $0.98 per order, the total cost was $8,085. No other costs were incurred.

Question No. 762--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to the list of chronic diseases maintained by the Public Health Agency of Canada: (a) why are Crohn's and colitis not included on the list; (b) when were Crohn's and colitis last reviewed for inclusion on the list; (c) what criteria do Crohn's and colitis not meet for inclusion on the list; (d) when will Crohn's and colitis next be reviewed for inclusion on the list; and (e) what is the full criteria used for determining whether a disease is included on the list?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to a), the list of chronic diseases and conditions on the Public Health Agency of Canada’s website was updated in December 2016 to include Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, see www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/index-eng.php. In addition, surveillance information on diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease, IBD, collected on an annual basis via Statistics Canada’s Canadian Community Health Survey, is also publicly available online via PHAC’s Chronic Disease Infobase DataCubes, see http://infobase.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cubes/index-eng.html.
With regard to b), the list of diseases and conditions was reviewed in December 2016, and PHAC’s website has been updated to include Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, see www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/index-eng.php.
With regard to c), generally, the list includes those diseases and conditions on which PHAC conducts ongoing national surveillance.
With regard to d), as mentioned, the list of diseases and conditions was reviewed in December 2016, and PHAC’s website has been updated to include Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, see www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/index-eng.php.
With regard to e), generally, the list includes those diseases and conditions on which PHAC conducts ongoing national surveillance. Surveillance activities are prioritized based on criteria such public health considerations, such as epidemiologic and economic burden; technical aspects, such as feasibility to collect data at the national level; validity of collection methods for the condition; alignment with PHAC’s mandate and government’s priorities; and resource availability. Surveillance experts revisit the coverage of their activities regularly, in light of these parameters.

Question No. 764--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the cancellation of the Enbridge Northern Gateway: (a) what scientific data was provided with regard to the impacts of the proposed pipeline route subsequent to the approval of this project by the Joint Review Panel in 2014; (b) how did this additional scientific input contradict the science that supported the original decision by the Joint Review Panel; and (c) what were the (i) potential consequences identified by this new scientific input, (ii) the risk or likelihood that these consequences would occur, (iii) the likelihood that additional conditions or measures intended to mitigate could have reduced these risks to an acceptable level?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in its 2014 report, the joint review panel made a non-binding recommendation to the Governor in Council on the project application. The report documents the extensive technical, scientific, traditional, and specialized information and knowledge the panel received from a variety of sources in relation to the project. In its November 25, 2016 decision, Order in Council 2016-1047, the Governor in Council directed the National Energy Board to dismiss the Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership’s application for a certificate. The National Energy Board acted on the Governor in Council’s direction on December 6, 2016, by dismissing the project application.
The Governor in Council’s decision on the project application relied on the joint review panel’s 2014 report including the scientific evidence, analysis, and data contained in that report. The report contained scientific and other evidence documenting the unique and irreplaceable nature of the ecosystem of the Great Bear Rainforest, including the Douglas Channel. The sensitivity of this ecosystem was central to the Governor in Council’s conclusion that the waters of the Douglas Channel must be protected from any spills of crude oil from tankers and was also, therefore, central to its direction to the National Energy Board to dismiss the project application. As the joint review panel did an adequate job of documenting the scientific evidence, it was unnecessary to consider additional scientific sources beyond those documented in the panel’s report.

Question No. 770--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the initiative of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism: (a) what is the number of nominations for the Award received in 2015 and in 2016, broken down by each of the following categories (i) youth, (ii) organization, (iii) lifetime achievement or outstanding achievement; (b) what is the number of valid candidates for each year and category referred to in (a); (c) who is the winner of the 2016 Award; and (d) what is the full and complete list of all news release and other communication or notification products used in relation to the Award?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part a), in 2015, (i) 4 nominations, (ii) 12 nominations, (iii) 25 nominations.
In 2016, there were no nominations received as no call for nominations was made.
With regard to part b), in 2015, (i) 3 nominations, (ii) 11 nominations, (iii) 23 nominations. Three nominations received in 2015 were incomplete and were therefore not valid.
In 2016, there were no nominations received as no call for nominations was made.
With regard to part c), the format of the Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism is being re-evaluated following the return of the multiculturalism program to the Department of Canadian Heritage.
With regard to part d), communication and notification products used in relation to the 2015 Paul Yuzyk Award included a news release on January 19, 2015,
“Nominations now being accepted for the 2015 Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism”, see http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=922589.
On social media, on Twitter, 44 award-related messages were posted in English and French. These were retweeted 95 times and favourited 85 times. Other Twitter users posted 40 external messages related to the Award, which were in turn retweeted 20 times and favourited six times.
On Facebook, starting in March 2015, approximately eight award posts were made before the nomination deadline. Facebook had not previously been used to promote the award because of departmental restrictions.
In email marketing, messages were sent to approximately 1,800 contacts. These encouraged nominations and provided information about the new categories.
Messages were sent on four occasions: targeted launch messages for each of the three categories, a reminder to all contacts in early March, a deadline extension notice in late March, and a targeted message to previous sponsors encouraging repeat nominations, also in late March.
Details of the award were listed on Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s website, which had responsibility for the multiculturalism program at the time.

Question No. 772--
Mr. Alain Rayes:
With regard to the Mydemocracy.ca website: (a) did the Minister of Democratic Institutions make changes to add or remove any of the questions on the survey and, if so, what specific changes were made; (b) did the exempt staff of the Minister make changes to add or remove any of the questions on the survey and, if so, what specific changes were made; (c) who made the final decision regarding which questions were included; and (d) what role did (i) academic experts, (ii) Privy Council Office officials, (iii) political staff, have in the development, approval, and implementation of the questions?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows: Vox Pop Labs developed the questions, in consultation with the Government of Canada and Vox Pop Lab’s advisory panel of prominent scholars in areas such as research design, survey methodology, and electoral politics. Inclusion of or changes to some questions was also based on empirical testing.
The process for developing, reviewing, and providing feedback on questions was an iterative, consultative, and collaborative one, but the Government of Canada was responsible for final approval of the questions.

Question No. 777--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces' Treasury Board submissions, for each fiscal year from 2014 to present: (a) how many submissions were approved for (i) capital equipment projects, (ii) infrastructure, (iii) information management and information technology; (b) for each item in (a), what is the title and value of each submission; and (c) did any of the submissions in (b) refer to article 506.11(a) in the Agreement on Internal Trade, and if so, which ones?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles of the Access to Information Act, and as such, the information requested in the question has been withheld on the grounds that it constitutes a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

Question No. 782--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the Prime Minister's Open and Accountable Government guidelines: who has the mandate to conduct an investigation into alleged breaches of the guidelines?
Response
Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, “Open and Accountable Government” sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations for his ministry. The Prime Minister may determine whether a particular minister is meeting those expectations, and whether any corrective action should be taken. Similarly, it is the responsibility of each minister to ensure that the exempt staff in his or her office are acting in accordance with guidelines applicable to those staff. Privy Council Office officials may support the Prime Minister in providing advice on how such guidance can be interpreted or applied, and how it relates to other documents or legal instruments such as the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act. PCO officials further support the Prime Minister with respect to Governor in Council appointment processes for senior government officials.

Question No. 785--
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
How many additional full-time jobs have been created in Canada between November 2015 and November 2016?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, between November 2015 and December 2016, 204,000 additional jobs were created in Canada, 88,100 of which were full-time jobs.

Question No. 788--
Mr. Erin Weir:
With regard to the approval of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project: what measures, if any, do the government and the National Energy Board plan to take to ensure that it be built with Canadian-made steel?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board recommendation report for the Trans Mountain expansion project does not require Kinder Morgan to purchase pipe materials, including steel, from Canadian suppliers. Country of origin is not a factor in material requirements for this project. Rather, materials must comply with the specifications and quality standards detailed in Condition 9 of the NEB’s report and the Canadian Standards Association’s oil and gas pipeline systems standards, CSA Z662, clause 5. These conditions and standards are designed to keep Canadians and their environment safe.
The proponent, Trans Mountain ULC., has stated its intent to source approximately 230,000 metric tonnes of line pipe material from a domestic supplier, which includes the use of Canadian-made steel. According to the proponent, Trans Mountain’s sourcing strategy is to maximize the amount of locally sourced pipe material, within the production capability and capacity of the domestic supplier.

Question No. 789--
Mr. François Choquette:
With regard to the recovery strategy for the Copper Redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi) and its population in Quebec, published in 2012 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada: (a) when will the proposed regulations to identify the species’ critical habitat in southwestern Quebec be published in the Canada Gazette; and (b) when will the Order come into force?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), officials with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are actively working with their colleagues in other federal departments on this matter. It is anticipated that an order would be published in the Canada Gazette as early as winter 2017.
In response to (b), orders made under subsections 58(4) and (5) of the Species at Risk Act typically enter into force after they are signed by the competent minister or ministers and formally assigned a unique number by the Privy Council Office, i.e. “registration”.

Question No. 791--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to changes made to capital gains taxes and mortgage insurance rules in October 2016 by the Department of Finance: (a) what analysis has been done on the effects of such changes with respect to (i) housing prices by region, (ii) construction activity, (iii) value and rate of mortgage approvals for Canadians, especially first time homebuyers, (iv) GDP and employment; and (b) for each of the analyses conducted related to (a)(i) through (a)(iv), what conclusions were reached?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these measures follow an in-depth analysis of the housing market conducted by the Department of Finance Canada, in conjunction with various government agencies, including the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Bank of Canada, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. They were also informed by the views of the wide range of stakeholders with whom the Department of Finance and government regularly meet, including ongoing collaboration and information sharing done through a working group with provincial and municipal officials.
Prior to the announcement regarding the changes to mortgage insurance eligibility, loan-level data from recent quarters was used to determine the extent to which mortgage lending would have been affected if the new rules had already been in place. The analysis found the new restrictions could have impacted roughly 8% of recent home sales in the first year of the policy, with impacts spread across the country. This estimate did not account for adjustments buyers could make to remain in the market by using savings for a larger down payment or purchasing a cheaper home.
The potential reduction in home sales was then translated into estimated impacts on residential investment, home prices and GDP growth, finding that the measures would be a modest drag on house prices and GDP growth in the short term.
These estimates did not incorporate the impact of the measures on enhancing the long-term stability of the Canadian housing market, financial system, and economy due to more sustainable mortgage debt. The intended impact of the new stress test is to help ensure new homeowners across all provinces can afford their mortgages even if economic conditions change, such as an increase in interest rates. This requirement will help promote the stability of the Canadian housing market and economy over the long term.

Question No. 792--
M. Glen Motz:
With regard to Budget 2016: according to the most recent data available, what has been the economic and employment impact of the fiscal measures outlined on p. 256-258, both in total and broken down by specific measure?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, overall, the fiscal measures in budget 2016 are “expected to translate into 100,000 jobs created or maintained by 2017-18.” This is based on the historical relationship between the types of spending and revenue measures announced in budget 2016, and their impact on growth in employment and real GDP in Canada.
Funding for the most substantial measures of budget 2016 began to flow into the economy in the third quarter of 2016--Canada child benefit and investments in infrastructure. Given that the estimates for economic impact included in budget 2016 were calculated based on a two-year time horizon, having only one quarter of GDP data does not provide sufficient information to assess their impact with any degree of precision.
However, employment data are available for the last two quarters of 2016. While it is not possible to attribute gains to specific budget measures, it is notable that employment gains in the last quarter of 2016--108,000 jobs--were the highest since the second quarter of 2010.

Question No. 793--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the Minister of Finance's tax expenditure review panel: (a) what materials have been developed for the review panel; (b) what are the mandate, terms, and conditions of participation in the panel; (c) what is the list of tax expenditures which have been reviewed by the panel for potential elimination; (d) does the government have any targets with respect to revenue raised and, if so, what are they; and (e) what is the net cost of each expenditure referred to in (c)?
Response
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the review of federal tax expenditures is led by the Department of Finance Canada, with the support of a group of external advisers. The objective of the review and the role of the advisers are further explained in the response to part (b).
Advisers have been provided with internal analysis prepared by the Department of Finance Canada in the context of the review. Advisers have also been provided with general background information on federal tax expenditures.
In response to part (b), as stated by the government, the objective of the review is to ensure that federal tax expenditures are fair for Canadians, efficient and fiscally responsible--see Department of Finance Canada news release, June 17, 2016: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-077-eng.asp). This review is part of a broader government commitment to eliminate poorly targeted and inefficient programs, wasteful spending, and ineffective and obsolete government initiatives.
The review of federal tax expenditures is led by the Department of Finance Canada. To ensure that the review is informed by a range of perspectives, the following external experts have been engaged to provide advice to Department of Finance Canada officials: Robin Boadway, Queen’s University; Kim Brooks, Dalhousie University; Kevin Dancey, former CEO of CPA Canada; Luc Godbout, Université de Sherbrooke; Jinyan Li, Osgoode Hall Law School; Kevin Milligan, University of British Columbia; and Jennifer Robson, Carleton University.
Terms and conditions under which the advisers are providing advice to the Department of Finance Canada were set out in the letters of agreement between the department and the advisers. As per the statements of work attached to these letters, the advisers are expected to participate in periodic meetings, either in person or through conference calls, with other advisers and government officials; and provide advice to the Department of Finance.
The letters of agreement cover the period up to March 31, 2017. Advisers are remunerated on a per diem basis, up to maximum amounts that are set out in the letters of agreement. One adviser has declined to receive a per diem. Travel and living expenses incurred in the performance of these agreements are reimbursed by the department in accordance with the rates and conditions that are specified in the Treasury Board travel directive, up to maximum amounts that are set out in the letters of agreement. Total contract values are posted on the Department of Finance Canada website at www.fin.gc.ca/disclose-divulgation/discl_cont-eng.asp.
In addition to the above, Mr. Kevin Milligan was on assignment with the Department of Finance Canada until December 31, 2016. The terms and conditions of this assignment are set out in an Interchange Canada letter of agreement, which has been agreed upon between Mr. Milligan, his employer--the University of British Columbia--and the Department of Finance Canada. Mr. Milligan’s work during his assignment consists of special research projects directed by the Department of Finance Canada in the context of the review.
In response to part (c), as per the budget 2016 announcement, the department is undertaking a comprehensive review of tax expenditures. The scope of the review of federal tax expenditures is broad, and includes personal income tax expenditures, corporate income tax expenditures, as well as goods and services tax expenditures. The external experts who have been engaged to provide advice to Department of Finance Canada officials are providing advice in respect of all analysis performed by the department in the context of the review.
In response to part (d), the Government of Canada has not set a specific revenue target for the review of federal tax expenditures.
In response to part (e), estimates of the fiscal cost of each federal tax expenditure can be found in part 2 of the “Report on Federal Tax Expenditures” that is published annually by the Department of Finance Canada. The latest edition of this report is available on the department’s website at www.fin.gc.ca/purl/taxexp-eng.asp.
Collapse
150th Anniversary of Canadian Confederation8555-421-676 Submission from the Canadia ...Air safetyAlbrecht, HaroldArnold, MelAssisted suicideAubin, RobertAudits and auditorsAwards presentationsBacklogsBeluga ...Show all topics
View Geoff Regan Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Geoff Regan Profile
2016-09-19 15:16
Expand

Question No. 193--
Hon. Gerry Ritz:
With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when; (d) is the Minister considering a request for an exemption from the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament; and (e) has the Minister instructed her Department to start drafting implementing legislation for the Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and, if so, (i) what deadline was given to the Department for completion of drafting, (ii) what other departments has the Department consulted with in regard to the legislation, (iii) when does the Minister anticipate introducing the implementing legislation?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), Global Affairs Canada, GAC, has not been tasked with drafting an explanatory memorandum for the tabling of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA.
With regard to parts (c) and (d), the Minister of International Trade intends to table the final text of CETA in the House of Commons this fall to facilitate parliamentary debate of the agreement.
For part (e), work related to implementation of the agreement is ongoing. With regard to (i), implementing legislation will need to be completed in advance of entry into force of CETA. The minister has indicated that she is targeting entry into force of CETA in 2017. With regard to (ii), all departments and agencies that need to make legislative changes will be involved in the drafting process. With regard to (iii), implementing legislation will be introduced following the signature of CETA. CETA is currently is expected to be signed in the fall of 2016.

Question No. 194--
Hon. Gerry Ritz:
With regard to the Minister of International Trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development start drafting an Explanatory Memorandum for tabling with the treaty; (b) what deadline was given to the Department in order to draft an Explanatory Memorandum; (c) will the Minister table a copy of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and Explanatory Memorandum, and, if so, when; (d) is the Minister considering a request for an exemption from the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament; and (e) has the Minister instructed the Department to start drafting implementing legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and, if so, (i) what deadline was given to the Department for completion of drafting, (ii) what other departments has the Department consulted with in regard to the legislation, (iii) when does the Minister anticipate introducing the implementing legislation?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is consulting Canadians on the outcomes of the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, the TPP. No decision has been made with respect to the ratification of the TPP, and no direction has been provided to the department with respect to tabling the treaty or drafting legislation.

Question No. 199--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to each Senate appointment made by the Prime Minister: (a) did the government verify that each individual being appointed to the Senate met their constitutional residency requirement; (b) how did the government verify each requirement in (a); and (c) what are the details of the verification in (a)?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows. The government verified that each individual being appointed to the Senate met their constitutional residency requirement prior to their appointment. The government requested copies of valid photo identification indicating the individual’s address, as well as copies of bills, statements, or other documentation in the individual’s name, indicating their place of residence. In the case of appointment recommendations for the province of Quebec, the government used the information provided to verify whether the individual resided in one of the vacant senatorial divisions.

Question No. 201--
Mr. Wayne Stetski:
With respect to admission fees to National Parks, Marine Conservation Areas and national historic sites: (a) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that admission fees are collected; (b) what procedures does the government have in place to ensure that these policies are followed with large groups and with groups arriving in National Parks by train or on tour buses; (c) in its planning of revenue, does the government account for an estimate of uncollected admission fees in National Parks, Marine Conservation areas, and national historic sites; (d) if so, how much was this estimate for each of the past ten years; (e) what is the anticipated loss of revenue for National Parks, Marine Conservation Areas and national historic sites resulting from offering free admission to all visitors in 2017, and to some visitors beginning in 2018; (f) what plans does the government have in place to address the revenue gap left by providing free admission for all visitors in 2017, and for some visitors beginning in 2018; and (g) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential risks to wildlife and ecological integrity related to anticipated increases in visitors due to free admission to National Parks and Marine Conservation Areas, and what were the results of this analysis?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Parks Canada entry fees are fixed pursuant to the Parks Canada Agency Act in compliance with the Canada National Parks Act and are collected as per the Parks Canada user fees and revenue management policy.
With regard to (b), the Parks Canada user fees and revenue management policy applies to the collection of all fees from individuals, families, groups, and commercial groups. The Parks Canada directive on revenue comptrollership for user fees establishes a standard method for the collection and recording of user fee revenues for all types of services, including entry for large groups and for groups arriving in national parks by train or on tour buses.
With regard to (c), Parks Canada does not account for revenues that are not collected.
Part (d) is therefore not applicable.
With regard to part (e), the federal budget of 2016 announced up to $83.3 million over five years to provide free admission for all visitors to national parks, national marine conservation areas, and national historic sites operated by Parks Canada in 2017, the 150th anniversary of Confederation, and to provide free admission for all children under the age of 18 beginning in 2018.
With regard to (f), the response is included in the response to part (e).
With regard to (g), national parks are designed as an interface between visitors and Canada’s natural heritage. Projected attendance for national parks in 2017 is not expected to exceed peak attendance figures recorded in 2002. Ecological integrity monitoring is in place in all national parks to assure that valued aspects of the ecosystem are conserved. This data is reviewed and analyzed on a systematic basis for departmental performance reporting and planning purposes. For the national parks that are accessible by road, approximately 20% of the agency’s ecological integrity indicators—or roughly three ecological integrity indicators per park—are potentially sensitive to increased visitation and will be observed and analyzed in 2017. Parks Canada will have sufficient information to protect its park ecosystems.

Question No. 202--
Mr. Alain Rayes:
With regard to Budget 2016: what is the total number of hours paid by the government to employees and contractors for preparing the budget, and what is the cost associated with those hours of work?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the preparation of the budget is at the core of the Department of Finance’s mandate and is a year-long process. As such, the department does not track the hours of work nor the cost associated with this work.
The total costs of contracted services (but not itemized by hours of work) relating to the printing and editing/translation of Budget 2016, not itemized by hours of work, were $490,334.63 and $111,244.52, respectively.

Question No. 220--
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
With regard to the planned full-time staffing complement of Kistilano Coast Guard Station: (a) how many full-time staff will have Rigid Hull Inflatable Operator Training certification; (b) how many full-time staff will have a Master Mariner certificate; (c) how many full-time staff will be 60 ton or higher certified; (d) how many full-time staff will be 150 ton certified; (e) how many full-time staff will have a Watchkeeper certificate; and (f) will the station be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, members will please note the base became operational May 1, 2016. With regard to the planned full-time staffing complement at the Kitsilano Coast Guard base, with planning currently under way:
and with regard to (a), one deck crew member shall have certification for rigid hull inflatable operator’s training, RHIOT, on each crew.
With regard to (b), a Master Mariner certificate will not be required for command of a vessel at Kitsilano, although there may be times when an individual’s certificate of competency exceeds requirements.
With regard to (c), a Master, Limited for a vessel of 60 tons or more will not be required for command of a vessel at Kitsilano, although there may be times when an individual’s certificate of competency exceeds requirements. A Master, Limited for a vessel of less than 60 tons is planned as a minimum requirement for command of the pollution response vessel at Kitsilano. There are two full-time staff proposed.
With regard to (d), a Master, 150 tons, is proposed for two full-time staff as a minimum requirement for command of the SAR vessel to be procured.
With regard to (e), a Watchkeeping Mate certificate is not proposed as required, although there may be times when an individual’s certificate of competency exceeds requirements.
With regard to (f), the Kitsilano Coast Guard base is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year.

Question No. 221--
Mr. Fin Donnelly:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the construction of the Site C hydroelectric dam in northeastern British Columbia: (a) how many DFO staff members are responsible for monitoring the project’s compliance with fish habitat protections; (b) how many independent environmental monitors are responsible for the project’s compliance with fish habitat protections; (c) how many onsite DFO inspections have taken place since construction began and when did they take place; (d) how many onsite inspections have independent environmental monitors conducted since construction began and when did they take place; and (f) has the Ministry consulted with local First Nations to measure the impact of the project on their fishing rights?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), four staff members from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, have been involved in monitoring the project’s compliance with the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. This includes three staff from DFO’s fisheries protection program and one from DFO’s conservation and protection program. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the BC Environmental Assessment Office are also conducting periodic monitoring for compliance with binding conditions from the federal and provincial environmental assessments.
With regard to (b), DFO does not utilize independent environmental monitors to monitor project compliance with the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. An independent environmental monitor is a requirement of the environmental assessment certificate issued by the province of B.C. for the project. As a result, the number of independent monitors is determined by the BC Environmental Assessment Office.
With regard to (c), four on-site inspections have taken place since DFO issued the Fisheries Act authorization for site preparation works for the project on September 30, 2015. These site visits were conducted by fisheries protection program staff on November 26, 2016, November 27, 2016, and March 30, 2016, and an inspection by DFO’s conservation and protection program staff was undertaken on October 28, 2015.
With regard to (d), the requirement for an independent environmental monitor is a condition of the provincial environmental assessment certificate for the project and the frequency of inspections is determined by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office.
With regard to (f), yes, the department has consulted and continues to consult with local First Nations in relation to the potential impacts of the project. Consultations occurred during the environmental assessment process for the project and more recently during consideration of regulatory approvals for the project. Consultation efforts remain ongoing with respect to the application for a Fisheries Act authorization that has been made to the department for the construction of the main civil works and operations of the facility.

Question No. 241--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and each First Nation reserve community: (a) how many fires have there been in all First Nations reserve communities since 2006, broken down by year; (b) which communities have their own fire departments; (c) for each community mentioned in (b), which ones have functional firefighting equipment; and (d) which communities have agreements with nearby municipalities to provide firefighting services?
Response
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and its special operating agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned: INAC provides core capital funding to each First Nation community on an annual basis through the capital facilities and maintenance program.
First Nations prioritize spending to meet their requirements for community services, including fire protection. First Nations communities are not required to provide detailed reports on their funding decisions with their core funding, including those relating to fire protective services.
With regard to (a), the annual breakdown of reported fires is as follows: in 2006, 1025; in 2007, 1572; in 2008, 1472; in 2009, 1252; in 2010, 954.
In 2010, a decision was taken to stop collecting data of fire incidents on reserve in order to reduce the reporting burden on First Nations.
INAC will work with partner organizations, including the Aboriginal Firefighters Association of Canada, on new options to address the fire data gaps on reserve.
With regard to (b), (c), and (d), First Nations manage fire protection services on reserve and are responsible for making specific decisions regarding fire protection services under the annual core capital funding they receive from INAC. First Nations may establish their own fire departments, or contract fire protection services from nearby communities through a municipal transfer service agreement.

Question No. 243--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the Department of Employment and Social Development, since the inception of the Housing First program: (a) how many units of affordable housing, broken down by province, have been created for (i) seniors, (ii) families; (b) what impact has the Housing First program had on reducing homelessness, broken down by province; (c) how many total new housing spaces have been created that are identified as affordable, broken down by province; and (d) how many new affordable housing spaces have been created in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, and Ottawa?
Response
Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government’s homelessness partnering strategy, HPS, aims to prevent and reduce homelessness in Canada. The strategy provides direct financial support to 61 urban communities as well as aboriginal and rural and remote communities across Canada. This direct financial support gives communities flexibility to invest in proven approaches that reduce homelessness at the local level. To strengthen the work of communities in their efforts to help homeless Canadians find stable housing, budget 2016 announced an additional $111.8 million in funding for the strategy over two years. This substantial new investment builds on the program’s existing investment of nearly $600 million over five years in 2014-2019 with a focus on the Housing First approach.
The HPS does not fund affordable housing spaces. It focuses on coordinating and providing services to help homeless individuals to access stable housing, as well as wraparound support services to help individuals maintain their housing following placement.
Given that the renewed strategy was recently launched, in 2014, and that the Housing First approach was gradually phased in among communities, the impact that the approach has had on reducing homelessness is not yet available nationally or provincially.

Question No. 254--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to prawn-by-trap licenses issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Coast Guard: (a) how many First Nations fishermen owned prawn-by-trap licenses before the limited prawn-by-trap entry was imposed in November 1989; (b) how many First Nations prawn-by-trap licenses were grandfathered as a result of the November 1989 limitation; and (c) how many First Nations prawn-by-trap licenses exist as of this date?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the department does not track what licence holders are aboriginal or affiliated with aboriginal organizations. The issuance of commercial licences for the prawn-by-trap fishery does not require individuals to self-identify as aboriginal persons or require entities to identify affiliations with aboriginal organizations. Communal commercial licences are identified by the First Nation organization or community.
With regard to (b), as explained, the department does not track this information.
With regard to (c), 57 communal commercial prawn-by-trap licences have been issued to First Nations communities since 1993, the start of the allocation transfer program. The department does not track how many other regular commercial prawn-by-trap licences are held by aboriginal individuals or aboriginal organizations.

Question No. 255--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Statistics Canada 2016 census questionnaire: (a) what is the number of individuals who have refused to respond to the census questions by the mandated May 31, 2016, deadline; (b) what is the number of individuals referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for further action for refusing to respond to the census questions; and (c) what is the number of prosecutions currently being undertaken by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada against individuals who refused to respond to the census questions?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), May 31, 2016, is not a mandated deadline by which individuals must respond to the census questions. If an individual has initially refused to complete a census questionnaire, the Chief Statistician will send a registered letter that requests that the questionnaire be completed properly, certified as accurate, and returned by a specific date. This step will occur in August 2016.
With regard to parts (b) and 9c), Statistics Canada has not yet reached this stage in the collection process.

Question No. 262--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and contracts: (a) what contracts have been issued by the PMO from November 4, 2015, to present; and (b) for each of the contracts identified in (a), which were awarded without a competitive bidding process?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister’s Office did not issue any contracts from November 4, 2015 to present.

Question No. 263--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington from March 9 to 11, 2016: (a) how many guests who are not employees of the government were invited to events during the visit; and (b) how much money was spent to support the attendance of these guests?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the Privy Council Office has no information on the number of guests invited to events during the visit who are not employees of the Canadian government. Invitations to events would have been issued by the host government and/or organization.
With regard to part (b) of the question, the cost of attendance for non-government employees at the events organized by the Government of the United States and/or any third party was covered by the host government and/or organization.

Question No. 267--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the 2016 Census: (a) has all personal data collected from Canadians thus far been handled in a safe and secure manner; (b) how many additional resources have been dedicated to follow up on those who have not completed the Census yet; (c) have any census workers raised concerns with regard to their safety or the safety of the data they have collected from the public; (d) has the government moved forward with prosecuting any individuals for failing to respond to the 2016 request; and (e) what is the final date for those who have not completed the 2016 Census to do so before facing prosecution?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), there have been six incidents where completed questionnaires have not yet been accounted for within the process for the return of questionnaires or provided to another household in error rather than providing a blank questionnaire. It is possible that the completed questionnaires that have not yet been accounted for within the return process will be located during reconciliation at the processing centre. Instances have been small in number relative to the millions of questionnaires collected and have not elicited any major concerns about the collection processes. As part of field collection procedures, reports are filed for all incidents related to potential information and privacy breaches. Incidents involving breach or potential breach of confidentiality for census data are escalated to the director of Statistics Canada’s information management division. Each case is reviewed individually and appropriate actions are taken to correct the situation and to reduce the probability of any future occurrences.
With regard to part (b), Statistics Canada has hired 27,896 staff to conduct follow-up activities on non-responding households.
With regard to part (c), Statistics Canada takes the health and safety of its employees very seriously and has procedures to report any safety incidents or accidents. In locations deemed as potentially higher risk for safety issues, proactive precautionary measures are taken to ensure the safety of all census workers, such as pairing enumerators during follow-up. Some census enumerators have reported concerns regarding health and safety over the course of collection activities. Statistics Canada responds promptly to each concern on a case-by-case basis. There have been no concerns raised by the staff with respect to the safety of the data they have collected.
With regard to part (d), Statistics Canada has not yet reached this stage in the collection process.
With regard to part (e), if an individual has initially refused to complete a census questionnaire, the Chief Statistician will send a registered letter that requests that the questionnaire be completed properly, certified as accurate, and returned by a specific date. This step will occur in August 2016.

Question No. 269--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to federal transfers for palliative care and home care, how much has been designated by the government for palliative care and home care, broken down by province and territory?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is working toward the development of a new health accord, including a $3-billion investment in home care. The government looks forward to announcing details once an agreement has been finalized.

Question No. 276--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to tax revenue from marijuana dispensaries, how much total tax revenue has the Canada Revenue Agency collected from marijuana dispensaries since November 4, 2015?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for the period November 4, 2015 to June 10, 2016, the CRA is unable to provide a response to the question as the administrative reporting system utilized does not currently include a specific category for marijuana dispensaries.
With regard to goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax, GST/HST, administration and income tax administration, the current reporting requirements that define the primary business activities of a given corporation are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Canada 2012 industry classification standard. These NAICS standards are jointly developed and maintained by Statistics Canada and its counterparts in the United States and Mexico, and do not yet include a unique category for marijuana dispensaries. Further information on the NAICS is available at www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/naics/2012/index.
Nevertheless, GST/HST applies on all taxable supplies made by GST/HST registrants. A taxpayer is generally required to register if the value of their supplies or services exceeds $30,000 per year. From a GST/HST perspective, marijuana is considered a taxable supply and would be subject to tax if made by a GST/HST registrant. All dispensaries/shops that are registered for GST/HST are required to collect and remit the GST/HST on the supply of marijuana. Additionally, from an income tax perspective, income earned from a marijuana dispensary or shop is taxable, and should be reported as business income. According to the Income Tax Act and to the Excise Tax Act, all income, from either legal or illegal activities, is taxable and is to be reported. Taxpayers and GST/HST registrants suspected of deriving income from illegal activities are risk assessed and appropriate compliance actions are taken by the CRA, working closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provincial and local police, and other law enforcement agencies.

Question No. 277--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: (a) what were the total costs incurred as a result of changing the department’s name; (b) what related costs were incurred to reflect the department’s new name, and specifically what was spent on (i) signage, (ii) stationary, (iii) business cards, (iv) promotional materials?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the amount is $9,326.26.
With regard to part (b), the amounts are as follows: signage, $8,361.70 stationery, $716.42; business cards, $248.14; and promotional materials, nil.

Question No. 284--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to Temporary Foreign Worker inspections: how many have been conducted since November 4, 2015?
Response
Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, between November 4, 2015 and June 14, 2016 the department has completed 2,440 inspections on employers who have used the temporary foreign worker program. These include regular employer compliance reviews, random and risk-based inspections, and reviews under ministerial instruction.

Question No. 286--
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to mortgages backed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: (a) how many such mortgages exist; and (b) what is the total dollar value of those mortgages?
Response
Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as of March 31, 2016, as per Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s “Quarterly Financial Report”, available on its website at www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca, the number of CMHC mortgage loans in force was 2,625,329. In response to (b), the dollar value was $520 billion.

Question No. 288--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the new interview and selection process for Senate appointments: (a) how many applicants were interviewed (i) by phone, (ii) in person; (b) of the applications in (a), who performed the interviews; (c) of the applications in (a), what process was put in place in order to determine which applicants were interviewed; (d) of the applications in (a), who decided which applicants would be interviewed; (e) what costs were involved in the interview process; (f) how many recommended nominees were sent to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) for final decision; (g) were written recommendations made for the nominees, and, if so, what are the details of these written recommendations; (h) what was the travel cost for each interview done; and (i) were any memos sent to the PMO regarding the nominees, and, if so, what are the details of these memos?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows. During the transitional phase of the new Senate appointments process, the independent advisory board for Senate appointments reviewed all 284 candidacies received. A merit-based review was completed to assess the suitability of each of the recommended candidates, in accordance with the terms of reference, and members identified a list of priority candidates they deemed best met the criteria. Members used the nominations, reference letters, resumés or biographies, and personal statements as the basis for their assessment.
Each provincial advisory board of federal and ad hoc members from that province then met to discuss their short lists and to deliberate on the recommendations to the Prime Minister. In discussing their individual assessments, members noted an interesting level of consistency in assessments and in highly rated candidates. No interviews were conducted as part of the transitional process, therefore no costs were incurred.
The advisory board established a list of five qualified candidates for each of five vacancies, for a total of 25 recommended candidates, and provided their advice to the Prime Minister, in accordance with the terms of reference. Recommended candidates were not prioritized; the proposed candidates were listed in alphabetical order. The advice included a short synopsis detailing the merits of each recommended candidate, as well as more detailed information from their candidacy submission.
Information regarding the specific details of the advisory board’s recommendations constitutes advice to the Prime Minister and therefore has been protected under the guiding principles of the Access to Information Act which the government applies, along with the Privacy Act, when processing parliamentary returns.

Question No. 298--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the government’s intention to expand the Canada Pension Plan (CPP): (a) what has the government done to consult employers and stakeholders representing the business community about the possibility of a change in the CPP; (b) what has the government done to consult small businesses about the possibility of a change in the CPP; (c) what feedback has been provided to the Finance Minister and the Department of Finance by businesses and stakeholders with respect to the possibility of expanding CPP; and (d) what feedback has been provided to the Finance Minister and the Department of Finance by Provincial Governments with respect to the possibility of expanding CPP?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government regularly consults with stakeholders on important policy issues. For example, during 2016 pre-budget consultations, tens of thousands of Canadians shared their thoughts through meetings, events, and through online channels, resulting in the highest-ever turnout for pre-budget consultations on record. As part of pre-budget consultations, a number of Canadians and stakeholders shared their views on Canada pension plan, CPP, enhancement, with many voicing their support.
A number of stakeholders representing the business community, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, have provided their views publicly on enhancing the CPP. The impact of CPP enhancement on businesses was an important consideration of federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers in their deliberations on CPP enhancement.
The government was elected, in part, on a commitment to work with provinces and territories, workers, employers, and retiree organizations to enhance the CPP. In December 2015, the government began discussions on enhancing the CPP with provinces and territories.
Since December, the government has worked with provinces and territories extensively and collaboratively to enhance the CPP. This work has culminated in the agreement in principle reached by Canada’s finance ministers on June 20, 2016, which reflects the views of provinces and territories, stakeholders, and Canadians at large.
To address concerns about the impact of a CPP enhancement on businesses and the economy, the increases to CPP contribution rates outlined in the agreement in principle are being gradually phased in over a seven-year period starting in 2019.
This will allow businesses and workers time to adjust to the additional contributions associated with the enhanced program. More information can be obtained from a background document on the agreement in principle found on the Department of Finance Canada website at www.fin.gc.ca/n16/data/16-081_1-eng.asp.

Question No. 299--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the Department of Finance's economic modelling: what effect would raising Canada Pension Plan contribution rates or the cap on pensionable earnings have on (i) number of jobs, (ii) economic output, (iii) disposable income, (iv) private savings, (v) business investment?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on June 20, 2016, Canada’s ministers of finance reached an agreement in principle to enhance the Canada pension plan, CPP. The agreement will strengthen the CPP for future generations of Canadians, increasing income replacement from one-quarter of their eligible earnings to one-third, with an increase to the earnings limit. These changes will be phased in slowly over seven years, from 2019 to 2025, so that the economic impacts are small and gradual.
Once fully in place, the CPP enhancement will increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit by about 50%. The current maximum benefit is $13,110. In today’s dollar terms, the enhanced CPP represents an increase of nearly $7,000, to a maximum benefit of nearly $20,000. Over time, the enhancement is expected to materially increase the incomes of retirees, leading to increased consumption. In addition, the CPP provides a secure, predictable benefit that is fully indexed to inflation and payable for life, which means that Canadians will be able to worry less about outliving their savings in retirement.
The Department of Finance has conducted analyses to estimate the impacts of the CPP enhancement using economic modelling tools. The assumptions used in these models reflect those that are standard throughout the economic literature and best efforts have been made to neither understate the costs nor overstate the benefits of the proposed CPP enhancement. In general, the economic impacts of the CPP enhancement are expected to be net positive over the long term. The short-term impacts posed by increased contribution rates will be very modest and further mitigated by the phase-in of contributions
In response to part (i) regarding the number of jobs, over the long term, employment levels are projected to be permanently higher by between 0.03% and 0.06% relative to the baseline. In the short term, enhancing the CPP will lead to a temporary effect on employment growth. At its maximum impact, this will result in employment being between 0.04% and 0.07% lower relative to its baseline level in the absence of the CPP enhancement. By way of comparison, over the past five years, overall employment growth averaged roughly 1.1% per year. In this context, the impact on the overall labour market from the enhancement will be very limited. While the short-term impacts would be very modest, middle-class families and the whole of the economy would benefit long term.
In response to part (ii) regarding economic output, in the long term, real GDP is estimated to be between 0.05% and 0.09% higher than under the status quo as a result of the CPP enhancement. Compared to the status quo growth track of GDP, the level of output is projected to be a maximum of between 0.03% and 0.05% lower over the phase-in period. In this context, GDP would continue to grow in the short term, albeit at a slightly slower rate. By way of comparison, the measures contained in budget 2016 are projected to increase the level of GDP by 0.5% in 2016-17 and 1% in 2017-18.
In response to part (iii) regarding disposable income, over the long term, as CPP benefits increase and the positive impacts on output kick in, disposable income is projected to be higher by 0.2% to 0.4% relative to the status quo. In the short term, disposable income over the phase-in period is projected to be 0.03% to 0.06% lower than under status quo. Again, this short-term impact would be more than offset by the long-term economic benefits.
In response to part (iv) regarding private savings, the CPP enhancement would increase overall retirement savings. There will be a modest reduction in private savings as Canadians rebalance their savings decisions to account for enhanced CPP benefits. In the short term, private savings are expected to decline by between 0.5% and 1.3% per year. Over the long term, it is expected that the cumulative amount of private savings will be about 7% lower than under the status quo, reflecting the reduced need for Canadians to rely on their own savings to maintain their standard of living in retirement.
In response to part (v) regarding business investment, over the long term, the level of investment is projected to be 0.03% higher as higher aggregate savings through the CPP will increase the amount of financing available for investment. In the short term, business investment is projected to be 0.03% to 0.06% lower relative to the status quo over the phase-in period.

Question No. 300--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the Department of Finance's analysis of the economic impact of Budget 2016: (a) what econometric model and data sources were used to generate the job and GDP estimates; (b) what is the basis for the multipliers used; (c) was consideration given to the effect of higher levels of consumer debt; (d) does the economic model in Budget 2016 account for the regional breakdown of planned government spending and differences in the output gap across regions; (e) does the economic model in Budget 2016 account for the effects of currency appreciation; (f) what is the assumed lag time before infrastructure, housing, and program spending affects the real economy; (g) was the economic model in Budget 2016 reviewed by economists outside the Department; (h) if the answer to (g) is in the affirmative, why; (i) if the answer to (g) is in the negative, why not?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), to generate the economic impact of the measures presented in budget 2016, the Department of Finance used its Canadian economic and fiscal model, CEFM, along with social and economic data from Statistics Canada and aggregate tax collection and refunds data from Canada Revenue Agency.
In response to part (b), shocks were performed on the macroeconomic variables within CEFM corresponding to various fiscal measures, e.g., non-residential investment, housing investment and taxes. The response of GDP to these simulations forms the basis for the multipliers.
In response to part (c), yes. The consumption equation in CEFM takes into account net financial assets, which is affected by household indebtedness.
In response to part (d), CEFM is a national model and as such does not consider any regional dimension surrounding government spending or economic output.
In response to part (e), the exchange rate is an endogenous variable in CEFM, i.e., the model takes the exchange rate into account. Using a standard Hicksian IS-LM framework, in an open economy, a floating exchange rate responds to fiscal stimulus, i.e., appreciates, via changes in the interest rate. However, in the context of budget 2016, it is highly unlikely that interest rates, and thus the exchange rate, would move: with very weak projected economic growth and interest rates close to their lower bound, the LM curve is likely to be flat and thus rates unlikely to respond to changes in government spending or taxation; this assumes that the Bank of Canada would take a hands-off approach to rising domestic interest rates in the face of a weak economic situation; and, other factors affecting the currency in an uncertain global environment—‘risk on/risk-off’ capital flows, oil and other commodity price changes, etc.— would likely dominate any impact that measures contained in budget 2016 might have on domestic interest rates.
In response to part (f), based on the assumed spending profile, the impact of infrastructure and housing measures is expected to begin positively impacting the economy in 2016 quarter three with the peak impact occurring in 2017 quarter four.
In response to part (g), CEFM, the model used to provide the economic and fiscal forecasts in all budgets and updates, is not reviewed by economists outside the department as such. However, the department has, in the past, published working papers detailing the structure and dynamic properties of the model on the department website. The department also regularly discusses aspects of the model and its characteristics with organizations such as the PBO.
Part (h) is not applicable.
In response to part (i), beyond the model generally, and with respect to the multiplier estimates specifically, in the 2009 budget the Department of Finance contracted the Conference Board of Canada and the University of Toronto’s Policy and Economic Analysis Program to estimate fiscal multipliers from their own models and compare them to those used to evaluate the impact of budget 2009 economic action plan stimulus measures. The multipliers estimated by these two organizations were similar to, or higher than, those used by the department in budget 2009. At that time, this suggested that the department’s estimates were reasonable. Since 2009, neither the model used for the department’s analysis, CEFM, nor the resulting multipliers have changed meaningfully. The department again contacted these two organizations to repeat the exercise for budget 2016. However, given the department’s results were not materially different from the 2009 exercise, and in light of the cost involved in re-contracting the two firms, the department deemed that repeating the exercise would not provide value for money and thus not be in the public interest.

Question No. 307--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion: (a) what is the overall budget for the new office; (b) what are the specific projects that the office has funded; and (c) what is the complete list all official statements released by the office since its creation?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, OHRFI, which replaces the former ORF, is comprised of three divisions with 36 full-time employees: Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs; Inclusion and Religious Freedom; and Democracy. The overall operations and salary budget for the three divisions within the OHRFI totals $3.04 million. The programming budget dedicated to the promotion of human rights, including religious freedom, will be as much as $15 million, three times the amount originally committed to the former ORF. Programming will aim to promote peaceful pluralism, inclusion, respect for diversity and human rights, including freedom of religion or belief.
In response to (b), since its establishment on May 17, 2016, the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms ad Inclusion, OHRFI, is working to identify programming opportunities. As a first step, the OHRFI has actively engaged with a multitude of different existing and new stakeholders, including those who have previously received funding through the former office of religious freedom, ORF. As part of this ongoing outreach, stakeholders and potential partners have been encouraged to submit concept papers on a variety of human rights issues, including freedom of religion or belief, peaceful pluralism, inclusion, diversity, and democracy.
In response to (c), the Prime Minister is actively championing all human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, through various platforms, including news releases, media events and social media. In addition, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have empowered Canadian heads of mission—ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general—to speak from the field and promote human rights, freedoms and inclusion online, within conversations with counterparts and publicly with the media. Human rights promotion, including freedom of religion or belief, is now entrenched in our heads of missions’ core objectives and priorities and will be included in their annual performance commitments. Further to statements made domestically and through social media channels, Canada has released a total of 10 stand-alone public statements and nine group statements at the 32nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, June 13, 2016 to July 1, 2016.
These Canadian statements focused on the 10th anniversary of the council; thematic issues including on women and migrants; and specific situations, including Burundi, Syria and Ukraine. Canada also delivered two statements during high-level meetings of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, on April 25 and June 29, 2016.

Question No. 308--
Mr. Mark Warawa:
With regard to the proposed replacement for the Office of Religious Freedoms: (a) what are the detailed cost estimates of changes to the department and operations of the new office; (b) to reflect the department’s new name, what costs will be incurred on (i) signage, (ii) promotional materials; and (c) what is the overall budget for the new office?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the operations and salary budget for the former office of religious freedom, ORF, comprised of five full-time employees, FTEs, was $720,386 with an annual programming budget of $4.25 million of which $3.75 million was disbursed in fiscal year 2015-16. By comparison, the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, OHRFI, is comprised of three divisions—Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs; Inclusion and Religious Freedom; and Democracy—with a total of 36 FTEs. The overall operations and salary budget for the three divisions within the OHRFI totals $3.04 million. The programming budget dedicated to the promotion of peaceful pluralism, inclusion, respect for diversity and human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, will be as much as $15 million, three times the amount originally committed to the former ORF.
In response to (b), like the former ORF, the OHRFI does not have dedicated signage or promotional materials. As such, there have been no costs incurred to reflect the new name. In the first few weeks following the establishment of the OHRFI, significant outreach activities were undertaken with domestic stakeholders across Canada to maintain and expand the network previously established by the ORF, share information on the future operations of the office, and consult stakeholders to inform future advocacy and promotion activities. The OHRFI will continue to engage with domestic stakeholders on a regular basis, and continue to work closely with Canadian and international members of civil society, religious groups, academics and NGOs, to best leverage Canada’s pluralist experience as a multicultural and multi-faith country.
In response to (c), as noted in (a) above, the operations and salary budget for the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion totals $3.04 million. The programming budget dedicated to the promotion of peaceful pluralism, respect for diversity and human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, will be as much as $15 million, three times the amount originally committed to the former ORF.

Question No. 309--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project Ministerial Panel: (a) what is the planned budget for the panel; (b) how many meetings will take place with stakeholders; (c) how many of its meetings will be open to the public, and for each, what advertising was undertaken to make the public aware of the meeting; (d) for each of its meetings, what are the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) number of people attending, (iv) organizations represented by attendees and contributors, (v) costs associated with the attendance of a Minister or ministerial staff member, (vi) travel-related costs associated with the attendance of departmental staff, (vii) aggregated costs dispersed to organizations or individuals in order to support their attendance at or contribution to the meeting, (viii) total cost associated with the meeting not already listed, including for room rentals, catering, translation, provision of documentation, and other related costs; and (e) what is total spending to date on the panel?
Response
Hon. Jim Carr (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), up to $500,000.00 Canadian has been budgeted to support the work of the panel.
In response to (b), all meetings will take place with stakeholders.
In response to (c), on June 30, 2016, the panel announced a series of roundtable and town hall meetings along the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline and marine corridors in Alberta and British Columbia. Further information on meeting times and exact location was released as it became available. All of the panel’s publicly announced meetings were open to the public. Information on these meetings is available on the panel’s web pages and was communicated to the public through traditional and social media.
In response to (d)(i) and (ii), the panel held 44 public meetings in Alberta and British Columbia communities as follows: July 7, 2016, in Calgary, Alberta; July 8, 2016, in Edmonton, Alberta; July 9, 2016, in Jasper, Alberta; July 19 and 20, 2016, in Kamloops, British Columbia; July 21, 2016, in Chilliwack, British Columbia; July 26, 2016, in Abbotsford, British Columbia; July 27 and 28, 2016, in Langley, British Columbia; August 9 to11, 2011, in Burnaby, British Columbia; August 16 to 18, 2016, in Vancouver, British Columbia; August 19, 2016, in North Vancouver, British Columbia; and August 22 and 23, 2016, Victoria, British Columbia
In response to (d)(iii), all of the panel’s publicly announced meetings were open to both invited speakers as well as members of the public. Over 2,400 Canadians attended these public meetings, and more than 650 made presentations to the panel.
In response to (d)(iv), over 200 stakeholder groups were invited to meet with the panel, regardless of their previous status before the National Energy Board. Input will also be accepted via email or an online questionnaire until September 30, 2016.
In response to (d)(v) (vi) (vii) (viii), up to $500,000.00 Canadian has been budgeted to support the work of the panel. This amount includes costs outlined in subquestions (v) to (viii).
In response to (e), as of September 7, 2016, total spending on the panel was approximately $245,000.

Question No. 312--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Canada's Defence Policy Review: (a) what is the planned budget for the panel; (b) how many of its meetings will take place with stakeholders; (c) how many of its meetings will be open to the public, and for each one, what advertising was undertaken to make the public aware of the meeting; (d) for each meeting in (c) in total, and broken down by meeting, what are the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) number of people attending, (iv) organizations represented by attendees and contributors, (v) costs associated with the attendance of a Minister or Ministerial staff member, if applicable, (vi) travel-related costs associated with the attendance of Departmental staff, (vii) aggregated costs dispersed to organizations or individuals in order to support their attendance at or contribution to the meeting, (viii) total cost associated with the meeting not already listed, including room rentals, catering, translation, provision of documentation, and other related costs; and (e) what is the total spending to date on the panel?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), all costs associated with the defence policy review, including the activities of the ministerial advisory panel, will be paid for from the department's existing budget. All costs will be captured throughout the process and reported on at the conclusion of the review through normal channels.
The estimated total cost for the panel is forecasted to be $309,000.00 based on current requirements and scope of work. This estimate is subject to change and will be routinely updated.
In response to part (b), the role of the ministerial advisory panel is to provide direct advice to the Minister of National Defence on the defence policy review process and to test ideas and challenge approaches, leveraging the unique insight and accomplished perspectives of the panel members. To support this mandate, the ministerial advisory panel meets monthly and these meetings do not involve participation from stakeholders.
In response to part (c), as the meetings of the ministerial advisory panel are held between the panel, ministerial and departmental staff, and meant to provide the Minister of National Defence with advice on the defence policy review, they are not open to the public. However, at least one member of the panel has participated in all of the meetings in the cross-Canada series of roundtables convened separately as well as other fora organized by outside public organizations.
In response to part (d), as there are no meetings listed in the answer to part (c), there are no costs associated either.
In response to part (e), total spending related to the ministerial advisory panel and its activities is $192,499.57 to August 16, 2016. These expenses include both funds committed and expended and may be adjusted as travel and stipend claims are processed.

Question No. 313--
Hon. Tony Clement:
With regard to the ongoing dialogue between Canada and the Russian Federation since November 4, 2015: (a) has the Prime Minister of Canada spoken directly to the President of the Russian Federation; (b) has the Prime Minister of Canada spoken directly with the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation; (c) has the Minister of Global Affairs spoken directly with the President of the Russian Federation; (d) has the Minister of Global Affairs spoken directly with the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Russian Federation; (e) what topics were discussed for each of the meetings listed in (a), (b), (c), and (d); (f) what other dialogue has been held between officials of the Russian Federation and officials representing Canada; (g) what topics were discussed in the dialogue mentioned in (f); (h) has the case of Sergei Magnitsky been discussed in the dialogue mentioned in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f); (i) has the Russian Federation, through its President, Foreign Minister, or officials, requested that Canada refrain from adopting legislation concerning Russian officials involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, and, if so, what was Canada’s response; (j) has the Russian Federation requested through its President, Foreign Minister, or officials, that Canada refrain from criticizing Russia on the subject of Ukraine or Crimea, and, if so, what was Canada’s response; and (k) has the subject of human rights been discussed between any representative of Canada and any representative of the Russian Federation, and, if so, what was the response from the Russian Federation?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has been explicit in its condemnation of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine but also understands the value of engagement, that dialogue can lead to improvements for Canada, for Ukraine and for global security.
In November 2015, the Prime Minister had a brief conversation with President Putin on the margins of the G20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey. The Prime Minister communicated that although Canada has indicated its intentions to broaden its engagement, Canada remains deeply concerned over Russian interference in Ukraine. The Prime Minister also reiterated Canada’s strong and unequivocal support for Ukraine and called on Russia to fully engage and implement the Minsk agreements, in order to end the violence and bring about a peaceful and durable solution in eastern Ukraine.
Since this initial exchange, the Government of Canada has indicated that dialogue and diplomacy are important in the conduct of international affairs, including with countries with which Canada has a profound disagreement. This government’s engagement strategy allows us to continue to hold Russia to account, including in regard to its actions in eastern Europe.
Canada has been re-establishing channels of direct dialogue with Russia, with eyes wide open, in order to advance Canadian interests and express Canadian values, on issues such as the Arctic, global security and human rights.
Canada’s engagement is taking place gradually and incrementally, and is being conducted in accordance with the interests at stake. Issues of Canadian national interest have been discussed in both the bilateral format and in the multilateral context, including, for example, at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and in the United Nations Human Rights Council. Canada’s engagement with Russia will continue to include clear messages regarding Russia’s unacceptable actions in Ukraine and the maintenance of sanctions until Russia implements the Minsk agreements in full. Canada has announced the deployment of troops to Latvia for a mission of deterrence against Russian aggression.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs utilized his full bilateral meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on the margins of the ASEAN regional forum in July to speak clearly and frankly to Russia about the unacceptability of Russia’s action against Ukraine, and to make plain to Russia Canada’s expectation that Russia deliver on its Minsk commitments and demonstrate respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He also engaged in firm discussions on Syria and NATO, and used the meeting to advance Canada’s interest, including with regard to the Arctic and counterterrorism.

Question No. 314--
Hon. Tony Clement:
With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ stated intention to reengage with Iran following the cutting of diplomatic ties in 2012: (a) can the government confirm that officials from Global Affairs Canada have been in contact with officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to reengaging in diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, at what levels are the talks between Canada and Iran being held; (c) is the evaluation or analysis of reopening a Canadian mission in Tehran complete; (d) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, what are the details of the evaluation; (e) if the answer to (c) is in the negative, what is the status of the evaluation; (f) has a security audit been conducted on the safety of Canadian personnel in a future mission in Tehran; (g) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, what are the expenses so far for the evaluation or analysis mentioned in (c); and (h) if (f) is in the affirmative, what are the expenses so far for the security audit mentioned in (f) and have stakeholders such as Iranian-Canadians been consulted in relation to the reopening of a mission in Tehran?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), officials from Global Affairs Canada, GAC, have had preliminary discussions with officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran, as publicly stated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This government is committing to re-engaging with Iran in a responsible and step-by-step manner. This is a harder path than the one chosen by the previous government, but it is the best way to make real progress in promoting human rights and protecting Canada’s friends and allies.
With respect to (b) and (e), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that the disclosure of certain information could be injurious to the conduct of international affairs.
In response to (c), no. Discussions on re-engagement are at their preliminary stages. There is no precise timeline for the potential re-establishment of a Canadian diplomatic presence in Iran.
Part (d) is not applicable as the answer to (c) is not in the affirmative.
In response to (f), the safety and security of Canadian personnel is of paramount importance and will be a key consideration in any decision to re-establish a Canadian diplomatic presence in Iran. There is no precise timeline for the potential re-establishment of such a presence in Iran.
Part (g) is not applicable as the answer to (c) is not in the affirmative.
Part (h) is not applicable as the answer to (f) is not in the affirmative on the question of a security audit. GAC has not organized consultations on the reopening of a Canadian mission in Tehran.

Question No. 319--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the additional $331.5 million in humanitarian funding announced by the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie on May 24, 2016: (a) what agencies are receiving this new funding; (b) what process was used to determine which agencies would receive this funding; (c) what process was used to determine how much funding was allocated to each agency; (d) was this funding targeted to specific regions or countries; and (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, what process was used to determine targeting of the funding?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the agencies receiving this new funding include United Nations agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
United Nations agencies receiving funding include: World Food Programme, WFP; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR; United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF; International Organization for Migration, IOM,; Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA; and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO.
Non-governmental organizations receiving funding include: Action Contre la Faim, ACF; ACTED; Adventist Development and Relief Agency, ADRA, Canada; CARE Canada; Canadian Lutheran World Relief, CLWR; Concern Worldwide; Development and Peace; Hope International Development Agency; L’Oeuvre Léger; Médecins du Monde Canada, MdM; Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF; Norwegian Refugee Council, NRC; Oxfam Canada; Oxfam-Québec; Save the Children Canada; World Relief Canada; and World Vision Canada.
In response to (b), the process whereby agencies are selected for funding involves an assessment of multiple factors.
First, an agency’s project proposal or funding appeal is assessed to determine whether their proposed response addresses prioritized humanitarian needs and is appropriate given the context, as well as their level of access to vulnerable populations.
Second, agencies are assessed based on their level of in-country experience, track record for delivering results, technical and logistical capacity, and support for coordination efforts and leadership in key sectors of the response.
Additional considerations include the degree to which an agency’s proposed response is aligned with their organizational strengths, their integration of gender and environmental concerns, and their overall value-added relative to other agencies.
Third, the capacity and performance of the agency at the global level, particularly its history of delivering results with previous Global Affairs Canada funding, is reviewed to inform the country-level assessment. These multiple assessments are then combined to determine the degree to which an agency is best placed to respond to identified humanitarian needs relative to other actors.
Global Affairs Canada gathers and analyzes information on an ongoing basis from various sources to ensure that recommendations are evidence-based and represent an appropriate use of Canadian public funds. Consultations are also undertaken with relevant divisions within the department and with field missions, drawing on the depth of their country knowledge and situational awareness.
The decision to allocate funding across United Nations agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and non-governmental organizations allows Global Affairs Canada to take advantage of their respective comparative advantages. Moreover, funding diverse actors in a humanitarian response helps Global Affairs Canada manage risk by ensuring that if any one project experiences challenges in being fully implemented, overall humanitarian activities are able to continue.
In response to (c), the process for determining funding levels varies according to the type of agency. Larger United Nations organizations, such as the World Food Programme as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross, have a greater capacity to quickly absorb funding to scale up operations. They therefore issue larger funding appeals that cover their countrywide or regional responses and can be on the order hundreds of millions of dollars. Global Affairs Canada’s contribution to these appeals is based on Canada’s traditional burden share of the international donor response, which typically ranges from two to three per cent. The level of this contribution will also depend on the relative capacity of an agency in a given context, the degree to which their response is aligned with priority needs, and their ability to access affected populations. In contrast, non-governmental organizations issue specific project proposals to Global Affairs Canada that have a more narrow geographic focus and range of activities. These proposals seek relatively smaller amounts of funding from Global Affairs Canada, which typically serves as the primary and often only government donor to a project.
In response to (d) and (e), Canada’s humanitarian assistance is provided according to need. Global Affairs Canada allocates funding in a way that is proportional to the levels of need across crises and does not target any specific region or country on any other basis.
The total allocation to a given country is based on the size of the financial requirement outlined in the United Nations humanitarian appeal, an analysis of the scale of needs relative to other crises, the operational capacity of agencies on the ground, as well as their ability to reach affected populations. Canada’s needs-based approach is consistent with its commitment to the principles and best practices of good humanitarian donorship.

Question No. 321--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the instructions laid out in the mandate letter of the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie to consult regarding the creation of a new policy and funding framework to guide Canada’s aid decisions: (a) what international aid organizations have been consulted; (b) how many Canadians participated in these consultations as individuals; (c) what is the governments’ definition of “sustainable growth in the developing world”; and (d) what process will be undertaken to determine how funding will be allocated to projects that will encourage sustainable growth in the developing world?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since the launch of the public consultation phase of the international assistance review on May 18, 2016, we have consulted a broad spectrum of partners and individuals both in Canada and abroad, such as civil society organizations, United Nations agencies, other international bodies and other governments. The thousands of people consulted were Canadian and non-Canadian, and included civil society organizations, universities and academia, private sector entities, think tanks, foundations, donor and partner governments, aboriginal groups, youth, consultants in the field of international assistance, experts and practitioners, local beneficiaries, as well as international, multilateral, regional and global organizations. While the public consultation period closed on July 31, 2016, our work continues. We are analyzing the many recommendations that we have received in order to shape our future policy, programming, and funding framework. A report on what and from whom we heard will be published in the coming months.
Below are the details on public participation per consultation type: nine high-level events in Canada attended by 575 individuals, including representatives from 177 institutions; 1,213 written submissions through the web portal from Canadians and non-Canadians, including those writing as individuals and on behalf of organizations; 8,043 petition emails received from three different campaigns; and Canadian missions in over 40 countries hosted 220 consultation events; and over 35 working level meetings with civil society organizations, experts, and other government departments organized by Global Affairs in Canada.
With regard to (b), the consultation period closed on July 31, 2016, and numbers are still being tallied. As of July 29, 2016, estimates indicate that over 15,000 people, including Canadians and international stakeholders, have participated in public consultation activities both in Canada and abroad.
With regard to (c), economic growth refers to the increase in a country’s economic output as measured by its gross domestic product, GDP. Broad-based, sustainable growth means taking targeted steps to deepen the reach of economic growth to include the poor, marginalized groups, women and youth. Distribution of growth is important. High and rising inequality can reduce the potential for growth and limit its effect on poverty reduction, an important consideration for government interventions. Environmental sustainability is an essential part of sustainable growth because environmental degradation affects the health and incomes of the world's poorest people.
With regard to (d), to support Canada’s international assistance review, the government reached out to partners, both in Canada and abroad, to discuss how the government can respond better to the challenges and opportunities presented by the new global context, including the prioritization of sustainable economic growth in developing countries. The government will draw from the outcomes of the international assistance review when considering the future allocation of resources. As new priorities emerge, the government will continue to apply a robust lens to all programming decisions to ensure that Canada’s contributions have a real and sustainable impact.

Question No. 322--
Hon. Peter Kent:
With regard to the Global Affairs Canada's international development program and in light of statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in March, 2016: (a) has the Department reached a decision regarding the resumption of humanitarian aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), and if so, what is the sum UNRWA should expect to receive; and (b) will the Department have a protocol in place to follow up with the relevant UNRWA representatives to ensure the funds are not mismanaged?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the department has made a recommendation regarding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA. No decisions have yet been finalized.
With regard to (b), if Canada were to provide funding to UNRWA, then Global Affairs Canada would apply the same enhanced due diligence measures that are in place for other organizations that implement Canada’s assistance in the West Bank and Gaza. These measures are outlined below.
Global Affairs Canada’s approach to enhanced due diligence for assistance to West Bank and Gaza includes the following. Enhanced due diligence is an essential element in programming and risk management for Global Affairs Canada’s West Bank and Gaza development program. Responsibility for oversight of projects that receive Canadian funding is shared between Global Affairs Canada and the implementing organizations, through up-front due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and audits, evaluations and other reporting.
Most of the due diligence occurs at an early stage in the decision-making process by making strategic choices to engage experienced multilateral, international, and Canadian partner organizations, with an on-the-ground presence, and with strong anti-fraud, anti-corruption, monitoring, and audit and evaluation practices. They are neutral actors with non-political mandates and they adhere to humanitarian principles. As part of Global Affairs Canada’s approach to risk management, a fiduciary risk assessment of the partner is conducted before recommending approval of a project. Potential operational and development risks are also assessed. All proposed programming is thoroughly examined to be consistent with Canadian values and to meet the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
For all assistance projects in the West Bank and Gaza, Global Affairs Canada follows enhanced due diligence procedures to ensure compliance with Canada’s anti-terrorism policy and legislation. This includes the following measures: systematic screening of organizations and their key decision-makers against Government of Canada terrorist lists; clear anti-terrorism requirements and clauses within all funding instruments; clear definitions of the partner’s obligations, roles, and accountabilities for selecting and screening sub-partner organizations; the identification, within each funding instrument, of all of the organizations involved in a project; and ensuring that Global Affairs Canada must approve any proposed changes to the partner organizations involved.
Once a project is operational, monitoring is conducted both by Global Affairs Canada officials in the West Bank and by implementing partners in the field. Global Affairs Canada officials based in Ramallah closely monitor project activities and results through regular site visits, including sites managed by sub-partner organizations; maintain dialogue with implementing partners; and engage with representatives of like-minded donor governments that support similar initiatives or work with the same organizations. Global Affairs Canada also contracts third-party professionals to provide monitoring services to departmental officials. Partner organizations are accountable to Global Affairs Canada for: monitoring their sub-contractors and local counterparts; validating end-use of materials; following authorized procurement procedures; providing regular reporting; and undertaking audits and evaluations.
Monitoring and oversight is conducted by Global Affairs Canada officials and implementing partners. Information collected through regular monitoring ensures that any necessary adjustments can be made immediately, that risks can be managed on an ongoing basis, and that results are being achieved for intended beneficiaries.
Each funding instrument requires partner organizations to provide regular reporting on work plans and activities, financial records, and results achieved. As mentioned above, Global Affairs Canada officials closely monitor projects and partners, and 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.

Question No. 323--
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to Public Services and Procurement Canada: (a) what were the total costs incurred as a result of changing the Department’s name; and (b) what related costs were incurred to reflect the Department’s new name, and specifically, what was spent on (i) signage, (ii) stationary, (iii) business cards, (iv) promotional materials?
Response
Hon. Judy Foote (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the answer is $545. With regard to (b)(i), it is $545;
With regard to (ii) zero;
With regard to (iii) zero; and
With regard to (iv) zero.

Question No. 326--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the government’s projection presented on page 235 of Budget 2016 showing a 21% increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021: (a) upon what basis is the government’s projection based; and (b) how much of this forecasted increase will result from an increase in the GST rate?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the government’s projection of goods and services tax, GST, revenues published in Budget 2016 is based on projected growth in taxable consumption, projected growth in the GST/harmonized sales tax credit, and year-to-date results. Overall, GST revenues are projected to grow broadly in line with the outlook for nominal growth of the gross domestic product, GDP.
With regard to (b), the federal GST rate of 5% is maintained over the projection period; therefore, none of the increase in GST revenues is due to a change in the federal GST rate.

Question No. 328--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and specifically, the section which called for the review of the previous government's changes to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Protection Acts, upon what harms or assertions of harm attributed to the previous government’s changes to these two Acts has the government drawn its motivation for mandating a review?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during the legislative process leading up to and since the Fisheries Act was changed in 2012, indigenous groups, stakeholders, and the public have expressed concern with the changes and how they were implemented. Indigenous and environmental groups in particular have argued that the changes weakened fish habitat protections. In particular, many Canadians have raised concerns about the process for legislative change and the lack of consultations.
To address these concerns, the Government of Canada has committed to review the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act and to hold an open discussion on how to protect the aquatic environment and ensure the sustainability of Canada’s fisheries. Consultation will be at the core of this review. The government believes that rebuilding trust begins with a coordinated, open, and transparent process that incorporates scientific evidence, engages parliamentarians, and takes into account input from indigenous people, provinces and territories, and a range of stakeholders, including the public, industry, and environmental groups.

Question No. 329--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the advice issued by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner which called for the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to refrain from participating in any discussions or decision-making processes and any communication with government officials regarding J.D. Irving Ltd., what current matters under the purview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard will this prevent the Minister from overseeing on Canada’s (i) eastern coast, (ii) western coast, (iii) and northern coasts?
Response
Mr. Serge Cormier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the request of the minister, the minister’s office and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including the Canadian Coast Guard, working in conjunction with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, have identified areas of possible intersection between departmental policy and operations and the application of the minister’s conflict of interest screen pertaining to matters related to his friend James D. Irving and J.D. Irving Limited.
The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s findings and the agreed upon compliance measures are posted on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s website at www.ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca.

Question No. 334--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to the ongoing Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus outbreak and scientific studies carried out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: (a) what are the details of the study which explicitly outlined the emergency regulatory protocols and measures with respect to washing hog transport trailers; and (b) what factors contributed to the statements by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on June 2, 2016, that emergency regulatory protocols and measures with respect to washing hog transport trailers were no longer needed in Manitoba?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, it is a legislative requirement under the Health of Animals Regulations that certain swine trucks be cleaned and disinfected prior to entering Canada from the U.S. This science and risk-based requirement has been in place since the 1990s.
After an outbreak of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, or PEDv, in 2014, several industry stakeholders in Manitoba raised concerns about the quality of truck-washing facilities in the U.S. In March 2014, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, implemented a temporary exemption from the regulations at two specific border crossings in Manitoba. The exemption, or the "emergency regulatory protocols and measures" referred to in part (a), was not based on a study, but was implemented in order to allow time to evaluate industry’s concerns.
This exemption allowed the limited number of swine trucks entering Canada from the U.S. at these two crossings to be cleaned and disinfected post-entry. At all other border crossings into Canada, empty swine trucks returning from the U.S. still had to be cleaned and disinfected before entering Canada, as per the Health of Animals Regulations.
Regarding part (b), in June 2015, the CFIA performed a scientific review of documents provided by the swine industry. The evidence that was presented in these documents and in the published scientific literature was not sufficient to conclude that U.S. truck-wash facilities are inferior to Canadian facilities in reducing the probability of introduction of foreign animal diseases into Canadian swine farms.
As a result, the CFIA made a decision to discontinue the temporary exemption and require all trucks entering Canada to meet the cleaning and disinfection requirements in the regulations.

Question No. 336--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Business Risk Management Programs located within the electoral district of Perth—Wellington for each program year of Growing Forward 2: (a) what categories of participant information are tracked and retained in databases or other electronic methods of information storage by the government; (b) how many farms in Perth—Wellington participated in the AgriInvest program broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; (c) what was the total value of all deposits into the AgriInvest program by all participants; (d) how many farms participated in the AgriStability in Perth—Wellington program broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; (e) what is the median reference margin of AgriStability participants in Perth—Wellington broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; (f) how many farms in Perth—Wellington received payments from the AgriStability program broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; (g) what was the total value of payments from the AgriStability program; (h) how many farms in Perth—Wellington received payments from the AgriRecovery program broken down by (i) program year, (ii) municipality, (iii) commodity group; and i) what was the total value of payments from the AgriRecovery program?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, is unable to provide the detailed information requested as program delivery and financial systems do not record transactions by electoral district. Also, the agri-stability and agri-recovery programs are delivered by the provincial government in many jurisdictions, including Ontario. As such, AAFC does not have detailed program participant information related to those programs for the province. Where AAFC delivers business risk management programs, program delivery systems track and retain a participant’s identification and contact information, their production and financial records as required for the program, along with the benefit calculations for the years they participate.

Question No. 340--
Mr. Bob Zimmer):
With regard to judicial appointments: (a) how many candidates have been recommended for appointment by the independent advisory committees between November 4, 2015, and June 15, 2016; and (b) has the Minister of Justice given any formal direction to pause the process of considering potential candidates by advisory committees?
Response
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), 74 candidates were recommended by the independent advisory committees between November 4, 2015, and June 15, 2016.
Regarding part (b), the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, which administers the federal judicial appointments process, has received no direction from the Minister of Justice to pause the process of considering potential candidates by advisory committees.

Question No. 342--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs on May 10, 2016, that the government intends to adopt and implement the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: (a) did the Minister undertake consultations prior to reaching this decision; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, (i) which stakeholder groups were consulted, (ii) which individuals from these groups participated, (iii) where did the consultations occur, (iv) what travel costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder, (v) what per diem costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder, (vi) what accommodation costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder; (c) did the Minister receive any unsolicited views from stakeholder groups, and if so, from which stakeholders; and (d) has the Minister received communications from individual Canadians related to this decision?
Response
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, is concerned, the response is as follows. The Government of Canada’s decision to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples represents the fulfillment of a campaign promise, which was based on extensive engagement with indigenous peoples and other stakeholders from coast to coast both prior to and during the last election. Further, numerous indigenous organizations, communities, and people; industry leaders; and Canadians have publicly called upon the Government of Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Moreover, after eight years of extensive engagement with indigenous and non-indigenous organizations and people in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued their final report and calls to action in 2015. On December 15, 2015, the Prime Minister accepted the final report and affirmed the government’s commitment to implement all 94 calls to action, including the full adoption, without reservation, of the declaration.
The Government of Canada will work in full partnership with first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, as well as with provinces and territories on an action plan to implement the declaration in accordance with Canada's Constitution.

Question No. 343--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the statement by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs on June 7, 2016 regarding audited statements of First Nations governments: (a) what is the process followed by Departmental staff once a request for audited statements has been received from a member of a First Nation; and (b) in what ways have First Nation band members been made aware of this process?
Response
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, is concerned, with regard to the statement made by the minister on June 7, 2016, the response is as follows: for part (a) of the question. Prior to the implementation of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, FNFTA, if a first nation member did not know how to access their first nation’s financial information, or if they were unable to obtain such information from their first nation directly, they would contact the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs to request a copy of the first nation’s audited consolidated financial statements. Where the individual confirmed that access to the audited financial statements was requested and denied, and provided proof of their membership, the departmental official would provide the audited financial statements directly to the member of the first nation. After the introduction of the FNFTA, if a member of a first nation submitted a request to the department for the audited consolidated financial statements of their first nation, INAC would refer them to the departmental website, where all audited consolidated financial statements are posted when they are received by the department, as per the requirements of the FNFTA.
Regarding part (b) of the question, the funding agreement outlined both the requirement for first nations to make the audited consolidated financial statements and other financial schedules required by INAC available to its membership, and the provision for Canada to make the documents available to members where the first nation did not meet its disclosure requirements. The funding agreement model was published on the departmental website, and first nations were also obliged to share the funding agreement with their members. Over the last two years that the act has been in place, INAC has communicated with first nations and first nation members on the act’s various requirements and processes. In addition, this information has been posted on INAC’s website at www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1399312715586/1399312880474.

Question No. 347--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regards to full-time, part-time, contract, and casual employees of Foreign Affairs Canada working abroad, including local and third-country cooperants and advisors, as of June 15, 2016: how many employees did not have a valid security clearance broken down by the country in which they are working?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of June 15, 2016, all Global Affairs Canada full-time, part-time contract, and casual employees working abroad, including local and third-country co-operants and advisers, had a valid security clearance.
Contractors are not employees of the Government of Canada.
Collapse
Aboriginal reservesAboriginal self-governmentAboultaif, ZiadAgreements and contractsAllison, DeanAnimal rights and welfareApplication processArnold, MelAssociations, institutions and organizationsAudits and auditorsBains, Navdeep ...Show all topics
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2016-06-10 12:11
Expand

Question No. 123--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to each meeting of the Treasury Board during the period of November 3, 2015, to April 22, 2016: (a) what was the date of the meeting; (b) where did the meeting occur; (c) who was in attendance; and (d) what was the agenda of the meeting?
Response
Hon. Scott Brison (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to each meeting of the Treasury Board during the period of November 3, 2015, to April 22, 2016: (a) when the House of Commons is in session, the Treasury Board usually sits on Thursday.
In response to part (b) of the question, the information requested is a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council and cannot be provided.
Regarding part (c), the committee members are the President of the Treasury Board, chair; the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, vice-chair; the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Health; the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development; and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Alternate members are the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, and the Minister of Democratic Institutions.
In response to part (d), the information requested is a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council and cannot be provided.

Question No. 129--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the Department of Finance’s estimates relating to the impact of oil prices on government revenues: (a) what information is available on how these estimates are calculated; and (b) does the government make any projections using incremental price increases, and, if so, does the government use $2 increments from $2 to $160 per barrel?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, in Canada, natural resources are owned by the provinces. As such, although royalties are a sizable revenue source for provincial governments, the federal government receives virtually no revenues from resource royalties. Instead, at the federal level, oil and gas extraction impacts federal revenues in three ways.
First is corporate profits and corporate income tax, CIT. When oil prices fall, profits in the industry fall and losses can be experienced. Losses can affect past tax years as firms are able to carry back these losses against taxable income from the prior three years. Firms are also able to carry forward their losses and use them to reduce taxes in future years when oil prices and profits have returned to higher levels.
Second is wages and salaries and personal income tax, PIT. Individuals employed in the oil and gas sector may experience reduced hours or layoffs when firms reduce production and/or expenses. As a result, PIT and GST revenues could also decrease.
Third is other impacts. As a result of layoffs in the sector, federal expenses related to employment insurance benefits may also increase. In addition, lower profits can lead to lower dividend payments, further reducing personal and non-resident income taxes.
Given that the fiscal impacts are indirect, estimating the impact of changes in oil prices on federal government revenues is not a straightforward exercise. The fiscal impacts depend on interrelated factors and will vary depending on the cause of the change in prices as well as the response of individual firms in the sector. For example, if lower prices arise as a result of increased supply, as is currently the case, then the impact on Canada’s economy, and thus federal revenues, would be negative but more limited. This is because demand for oil would be maintained, and may even increase in response to lower prices, such that the same quantity of oil would be sold, albeit at a lower price. If lower prices arise as a result of weaker global demand, then the impact on the economy and federal revenue would be significantly larger. This is because both the price and quantity of oil sold would decline.
The size of the decline in oil prices, and the level from which they fall, or rise, is also important. For example, small price declines from high levels would have little implication for production and investment, while large price declines, which may render certain operations uneconomical, could result in lower production, layoffs, and the cancellation of investment. This would obviously have a bigger impact on federal revenues.
At the aggregate level, the federal government has communicated the changes in federal revenues and expenses from changes in the economic outlook, including changes in the price of oil, in recent budgets and updates.
In response to part (b), no, the government does not make projections using $2 increments from $2 to $160 per barrel.

Question No. 130--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to the changes to Old Age Security (OAS) announced in Budget 2016: what are the details of any research conducted into the (i) impact on government revenues, (ii) impact on the costs and sustainability of the OAS program, (iii) anticipated costs of reversing these changes?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, budget 2016 announced three changes to the old age security program:
an increase to the guaranteed income supplement top-up of $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016;
the cancellation of the provisions in the Old Age Security Act that increase the age of eligibility for OAS benefits from 65 to 67; and
the extension of the provision that currently allows couples who receive the GIS and who have to live apart for reasons beyond their control to receive higher benefits based on their individual incomes, to couples receiving the GIS and allowance benefits. The costs of each measure are as follows.
The chief actuary estimates the cost of the increase to the GIS top-up for single seniors to be $478 million in 2016-17, rising to $669 million in 2017-18, the first full year of implementation.
The chief actuary estimates that cancelling the increase to the age of eligibility will increase OAS program expenditures by $11.5 billion, or 0.34% of gross domestic product in 2029 30, the first year in full implementation.
The increase in the age of eligibility for OAS benefits was scheduled to begin in 2023, with full implementation in 2029. This estimate includes the cost of the increase to the GIS.
However, the net cost to the government will be lower. The Department of Finance estimates that, in 2029-30, revenues from federal income tax from the OAS pension would rise by an estimated $988 million, and additional revenue from the OAS recovery tax would amount to $584 million, for a total of $1.6 billion.
Furthermore, as an offset to the savings associated with the 2012 changes in the age of eligibility, the previous government had committed to compensate provincial/territorial governments for social assistance payments for low-income seniors who would no longer be eligible for OAS benefits at age 65. In addition, federal income support for veterans and aboriginal peoples would have been extended to age 67. These costs had not been estimated.
The Old Age Security Act currently contains a provision that allows couples who are GIS recipients to receive benefits at the higher single rate if the couple is living apart for reasons beyond their control, such as where one spouse lives in a nursing home. Budget 2016 proposes to extend the provision to couples who receive the GIS and allowance benefits. The cost of this measure is estimated at $1 million for 2016-17 and $3 million per year ongoing.

Question No. 131--
Mr. Harold Albrecht:
With regard to projections calculated by the Department of Finance on the costs of servicing government debt over the next 50 years, has the Department calculated the costs associated with servicing the deficit projected in Budget 2016, and, if so, (i) how were these calculations made, (ii) what interest rates were used for the purposes of these calculations?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance has not conducted long-term projections, greater than five years, on the cost of servicing the government’s total stock of interest-bearing debt since the publication of budget 2016, but intends to do so as part of its next fiscal sustainability report, which is typically published in the fall.
The projection of public debt charges up to fiscal year 2020-21, published in budget 2016, includes the debt servicing costs of the entirety of the government’s actual and projected stock of interest-bearing debt. When calculating this projection, the Department of Finance does not attempt to distinguish between the debt charges associated with deficits incurred in particular years and those associated with the underlying stock.

Question No. 138--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, for the period of November 3, 2015, to April 22, 2016: (a) how many funding applications have been submitted; (b) how many funding applications have yet to be processed; (c) how many funding applications have been approved for funding; (d) how many funding applications have been rejected for funding; and (e) what is the total funding amount that has been provided to approved applicants?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), 794 funding applications were submitted to the agency.
With regard to (b), of the applications submitted, 352 had yet to be processed on April 22, 2016.
With regard to (c), 436 funding applications were approved.
With regard to (d), six funding applications were rejected.
With regard to (e), the total funding amount provided to approved applicants is $90.6 million

Question No. 144--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the government’s policy on seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad: (a) under what circumstances will the government seek clemency; (b) when was the current policy adopted; (c) who proposed the current policy; and (d) how was it adopted?
Response
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada will seek clemency in all cases of Canadians facing the death penalty abroad.
With regard to (b), (c) and (d), the Minister of Foreign Affairs proposed the current policy and, after consultation with the Minister of Justice, announced the policy on February 15, 2016. For more information, please see www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2016/02/15a.aspx

Question No. 146--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to Temporary Resident Permits (TRP) and Temporary Work Permits (TWP), for the period from November 3, 2015, to April 22, 2016: (a) how many TRP have been issued for individuals suspected to be victims of human trafficking; (b) how many TRP have been renewed for individuals suspected to be victims of human trafficking; (c) how many TWP have been issued to individuals who are exotic dancers; and (d) how many TWP have been renewed for individuals who are exotic dancers?
Response
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada issued 12 temporary resident permits, or TRPs, to individuals suspected to be victims of human trafficking.
With regard to (b), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not renew any subsequent TRPs for individuals suspected to be victims of human trafficking.
With regard to (c), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not issue any temporary work permits, or TWPs, to individuals who are exotic dancers.
With regard to (d), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not renew any TWPs for individuals who are exotic dancers.

Question No. 151--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the Disability Tax Credit (DTC): (a) what are all the medical conditions that successfully qualified for DTC in the 2015-2016 fiscal year; (b) what is the refusal rate of DTC applications submitted by persons diagnosed with phenylketonuria in the 2015-2016 fiscal year; (c) what is the criteria for denying a DTC application for a person diagnosed with phenylketonuria; (d) what is the number of appeals filed for rejected DTC applications related to phenylketonuria since the beginning of the 2015-2016 fiscal year; (e) what is the average DTC amount claimed for expenses related to phenylketonuria; and (f) what are the measures undertaken by the Canada Revenue Agency to ensure its workers have a good understanding of the medical conditions they are reviewing as part of DTC applications?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the disability tax credit, DTC, is a non-refundable tax credit that helps persons with disabilities, or their supporting persons, reduce the amount of income tax they may have to pay. To qualify, an individual must have a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions, as defined in the Income Tax Act and as certified by a medical practitioner.
More detailed information is available in the CRA publication Tax measures for persons with disabilities - Disability-Related Information 2015, RC4064(E) Rev. 15, which is available on the CRA website at www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4064/rc4064-15e.pdf.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), eligibility for the disability tax credit is not based on a medical condition or diagnosis, rather on the effects of the impairment on a person’s ability to perform the basic activities or daily living, or whether the person is blind or requires life-sustaining therapy. For this reason, the CRA does not collect this information.
With regard to part (c), the CRA determines eligibility for the DTC based on the criteria set out in section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act. These criteria are not based on a medical condition or diagnosis, but rather on the effects of the impairment on a person’s ability to perform the basic activities of daily living, or whether the person is blind or requires life-sustaining therapy.
To be eligible, a medical practitioner must certify that a person has a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions and describe its effects on one of the basic activities of daily living, or provide information indicating the individual is blind or meets the criteria for life-sustaining therapy.
Applications for the DTC are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A person with the same medical condition as another may not experience the same effects. In addition, there may be other factors that contribute to the severity of impairment, such as other medical conditions or circumstances.
With regard to part (d), the information being requested, by diagnosis, is not captured by the CRA as there is no requirement to do so under the ITA.
With regard to part (e), the average amount for expenses related to phenylketonuria is not captured by the CRA.
With regard to part (f), CRA assessors receive extensive training to make eligibility determinations in accordance with the legislation set out in section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act and by consulting with registered nurses, or RNs, employed by the CRA, who serve as resources for all of the tax centres. When required, the RNs will also contact the medical practitioners who have certified the forms for additional information.
CRA assessors all refer to the procedures manual, and quality reviews of eligibility determinations are conducted on a continuous basis to ensure consistency in the administration of the DTC program.

Question No. 158--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the government's planned advertising campaign for Budget 2016, for every instance of an advertisement: (a) what is the medium of the ad; (b) where did or will the ad appear, including but not limited to, location, television station, radio station, publication; (c) what is the duration or size of the ad; (d) when was the ad displayed or when will it be displayed; and (e) what is the cost of the ad?
Response
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance has not purchased any advertising for budget 2016.

Question No. 163--
Mr. David Anderson:
With regard to the details of any consultations undertaken or advice received by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, his office, or his Department, for the period of November 4, 2015, to April 22, 2016, regarding a royal regime for farmer saved seed under the Plant Breeders Rights Act: for each consultation, (i) what was the date, (ii) which people were present, (iii) were there any recorded positions on this issue taken at this meeting?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, did not conduct any consultations with respect to a royalty regime for farmer saved seed under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act between November 4, 2015, and April 22, 2016.

Question No. 170--
Mr. Robert Sopuck:
With regard to the disposition of government assets, for the period of November 4, 2015, to April 22, 2016: (a) on how many occasions has the government repurchased or reacquired a lot which had been disposed of in accordance with the Treasury Board Directive on the Disposal of Surplus Materiel; and (b) for each occasion identified in (a), what was (i) the description or nature of the item or items which constituted the lot, (ii) the sale account number or other reference number, (iii) the date on which the sale closed, (iv) the price at which the item was disposed of to the buyer, (v) the price at which the item was repurchased from the buyer?
Response
Ms. Leona Alleslev (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, PSPC has not repurchased or reacquired a lot that has been disposed of in accordance with the Treasury Board directive on the disposal of surplus materiel in the period indicated.

Question No. 173--
Hon. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the Safe Food for Canadians Act, Bill S-11, 41st Parliament, First session, what is the status of the implementation of regulations related to this Act?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, while developing the new regulatory framework for food safety, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has undertaken extensive engagement with stakeholders.
The CFIA hosted two large forums, the Food Forum in June 2013 and the Healthy and Safe Food Forum in June 2014, along with extensive webinars and opportunities for written input to gather stakeholder feedback on proposals for the next regulatory framework.
In 2015, the CFIA released a revised proposal to solicit further feedback and undertook in-depth engagement with micro and small businesses to better understand the potential burden for these businesses and what they would need to comply with the proposed regulations. The comment period on the preliminary draft text closed on July 31, 2015.
Four years of engagement and analysis with more than 15,500 stakeholders has resulted in over 500 written submissions on the proposed safe food for Canadians regulations. The CFIA has undertaken detailed review of this extensive feedback and is preparing the regulatory package.
Under the regulatory process, www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/gfrpg-gperf/gfrpg-gperf02-eng.asp, the next opportunity to engage on the draft regulations will occur when the regulatory text is published in the Canada Gazette, part I in late fall 2016.

Question No. 174--
Hon. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the findings of scientists at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with respect to sugar: (a) what scientific evidence exists regarding the biological difference between naturally occurring sugar and added sugar in food; (b) what ability does the Department have to detect the difference between naturally occurring sugar and added sugar through standard food testing methods; (c) is the Department aware of any health benefits of a labelling requirement for added sugar on consumer food products, and, if so, what are they; and (d) and is the Department aware of any potential problems that may be encountered in requiring separate labelling for added sugar on consumer food products, and if so, what are they?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to helping Canadians make better food choices for themselves and their families. This includes taking action to improve food labels to ensure that Canadians have the information they need to help them make more informed and healthier choices, including more information on sugars.
With regard to (a), the scientific evidence related to sugar metabolism indicates that there is no biological difference between naturally occurring and added sugar. All sugars present in food are digested and absorbed as one of three monosaccharides, glucose, fructose, and galactose, whether they naturally occur in foods, such as fructose in an apple, or are added to foods, such as fructose in a fruit-flavoured beverage.
With regard to (b), it is not possible to distinguish naturally occurring from added sugars in a food product using standard analytical methods.
With regard to (c), a healthy eating pattern, such as that recommended by Canada’s food guide, leaves limited room for added sugars in the diet. To help Canadians make informed food choices regarding their consumption of sugars, Health Canada proposed two new measures for the labelling of sugars as part of its proposed regulatory amendments to nutrition labelling regulations, published in Canada Gazette, part I, in June 2015.
First, Health Canada proposed that the nutrition facts table include a declaration of the % daily value, DV, for total sugars, based on a DV of 100 grams, to help consumers identify if there is a little sugar, which is 5% DV or less, or a lot of sugar, which is 15% DV or more, in their food.
Second, Health Canada proposed to group sugar-based ingredients, such as molasses, honey, and brown sugar, under the common name “sugars” in the ingredients list. Grouping sugar-based ingredients together provides a clearer indication of the amount of sugars in the food product relative to other ingredients, as ingredients are listed in descending order of their amount in the product.
This would raise awareness of both the sources and the contribution of all sugars, added or naturally occurring, to the total composition of the foods to the consumer.
With regard to (d), analytical methods cannot distinguish between naturally occurring and added sugars, making it a challenge for the verification of information on the nutrition facts table should there be a requirement to declare added sugars. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is responsible for enforcing the regulations, would therefore have to rely on record-keeping to verify compliance with the requirement to declare the amount of added sugars.

Question No. 175--
Hon. Kevin Sorenson:
With regard to the log books for personal use of ministerial executive vehicles, for the period of November 4, 2015, to April 22, 2016: (a) what is the total number of entries for each executive vehicle, broken down by vehicle; (b) what are the dates, time, and length for each entry; (c) what is the trip description, if any, of each entry; (d) what is the identification, if available, of the family member or member of the household that was the driver for each entry; and (e) what is the total number of kilometres travelled for personal use?
Response
Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
:Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) through (e) of the question, the Privy Council Office has no information to provide regarding the log books for the personal use of ministerial executive vehicles for the period of November 4, 2015 to April 22, 2016. When processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, therefore certain information has been withheld on the grounds that it constitutes personal information.

Question No. 177--
Bob Saroya:
With regard to any consultations by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, his staff, or officials at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, concerning amendments to the regulations concerning the humane transport of animals, from November 3, 2015, to April 22, 2016: for each consultation, identify (i) the persons and organizations consulted, (ii) the government officials present, (iii) the date of the consultation, (iv) the positions presented by those consulted?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, between November 3, 2015 and April 22, 2016, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency provided updates to stakeholder groups on the proposal to amend the health of animals regulations regarding humane transportation; however, no consultations took place.
The CFIA has been consulting with stakeholders about the regulatory proposal since 2006. Stakeholders included national industry umbrella organizations, livestock and poultry transporters, and retail organizations, as well as animal welfare and animal rights groups. The CFIA carried out a pre-consultation with targeted groups in 2013, and followed up with two economic questionnaires to over 1,100 individual stakeholders in 2014.
In addition, the CFIA continues to gather data from specific industry groups to validate the cost-benefit analysis portion of the regulatory impact analysis statement.
The proposed amendments will be pre-published in the Canada Gazette, part I, in fall 2016 as outlined in the CFIA forward regulatory plan 2016-18, available at www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/acts-and-regulations/forward-regulatory-plan/2016-2018/eng/1429123874172/1429123874922. This will provide all stakeholders with another opportunity to comment.

Question No. 180--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to court cases between the government and Aboriginal communities and organizations, as of April 22, 2016: (a) how many court cases is the government currently engaged in with First Nations, Métis or Inuit communities or organizations as either an appellant, respondent or intervenor, and what are these cases; (b) how many court cases is the government currently engaged in with First Nations, Métis or Inuit communities or organizations in which the government is the respondent; (c) how much is the government paying to engage in court cases with First Nations, Métis or Inuit communities or organizations as either an appellant, respondent or intervenor, broken down by (i) year, (ii) case; and (d) how many lawyers does the Department of Justice employ to work on Aboriginal court cases?
Response
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this request poses challenges that cannot be overcome.
The information required is not readily available. It would require extensive consultations with all government departments. Each department’s inventory would have to be manually searched, and files dealing with aboriginal claims separated. The large number of files involved make this unfeasible.
Justice lawyers are not assigned to work solely on the types of cases addressed by the question so an accurate response to part (d) is not possible.
Collapse
Albrecht, HaroldAlleslev, LeonaAnderson, DavidAnimal rights and welfareApplication processAtlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyAttorney General of CanadaBains, NavdeepBrison, ScottBudget 2016 (March 22, 2016)Cabinet ministers ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 87--
Hon. K. Kellie Leitch:
With regard to the 2016-2017 Main Estimates for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), specifically the 134% increase in proposed spending on “Internal Services” as compared to the 2015-2016 Main Estimates: (a) what Budget line item will these funds be drawn from; (b) how many Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) will this increase add to the CIHR's payroll; (c) will any added FTEs be permanent employees or contracted for a definite time period, and, if so, how many will there be in each staffing category; and (d) how many additional FTEs will be executive-level?
Response
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Treasury Board Secretariat issued a new guideline on how to report internal services on April 1. To be compliant, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, changed how it captures and reports internal services. The increase of 134% is a direct result of this change in reporting methodology.
In response to (b), no additional FTEs will be added to CIHR’s payroll.
In response to (c), there will be no additional FTEs.
In response to (d), there will be no additional FTEs.

Question No. 88--
Hon. Diane Finley:
With regard to the government hiring consultants, including an American investment bank, to help analyze the feasibility of a $1 billion (U.S.) aid package to Bombardier Inc.: (a) what was the total cost of all American consultants hired; (b) what were the criteria for hiring these consultants; (c) for each consultation in (a), (i) what organizations and individuals were consulted, (ii) what were the dates, (iii) what was the location; (d) what other consultations has the government conducted with other outside sources on this subject; and (e) for each consultation in (d), (i) what was the total cost of other outside sources hired, (ii) what organizations and individuals were consulted as a result?
Response
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is aware of media references about specific firms involved in due diligence work related to Bombardier. Canada’s discussions with Bombardier, including related due diligence work, are covered by non-disclosure agreements due to their commercial sensitivity.
Collapse
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2015-06-05 12:14
Expand

Question No. 1166--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to Health Canada’s drug review process for prescription drugs: (a) what percentage of approved prescription drugs currently on the market had a double-blind study conducted as part of their submissions to Health Canada; and (b) what percentage of prescription drugs approved in 2014 had a double-blind study conducted as part of their submissions to Health Canada?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, part (a) of this question cannot be answered definitively. There are currently 8121 marketed human prescription drugs by drug identification number, DIN, as of April 30, 2015. This number includes both innovative and generic drugs. Many of these various drugs, vaccines and prescription medications were authorized decades ago using a paper-based system. As such, Health Canada databases do not capture detailed information on the evidence used to approve the drugs. A fact sheet on how drugs are reviewed is available at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/activit/fs-fi/reviewfs_examenfd-eng.php.
With regard to (b), the defined scope for this response was all submissions that received a notice of compliance, NOC, in calendar year 2014 that met the criteria for the summary basis of decision, SBD. Please see: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-smd/index-eng.php. This includes all new active substances, all priority-new active substances and all subsequent entry biologics that received an NOC in 2014. A total of 27 submissions were within the scope for calendar year 2014. Of these 27 submissions, 63% contained double-blind clinical studies to support efficacy. Submissions that fall outside the scope of the summary basis of decision project are difficult to search by clinical study due to database and IT limitations.
Collapse
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2014-09-15 15:30
Expand

Question No. 503--
Mr. Malcolm Allen:
With regard to the use of azodicarbonamide in Canada: (a) in what year was Health Canada’s most recent assessment of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products completed; (b) what research and data was used in this assessment; (c) did Health Canada’s most recent assessment of azodicarbonamide include analysis of its chemical by-products semicarbazide and urethane and, if so, what were the results of this analysis; (d) when does Health Canada plan to undertake its next assessment of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (e) what has Health Canada established to be a safe, acceptable daily intake of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (f) what information does the government collect to ensure that Canadians are not exceeding the safe, acceptable daily intake of azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products; (g) how many products containing azodicarbonamide have been approved for sale in Canada; and (h) what labelling requirements has the government established in regard to products containing azodicarbonamide and its chemical by-products?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada completed a thorough safety assessment of the use of azodicarbonamide in 2006.
The 2006 assessment took into consideration the available scientific data as well as the outcomes of scientific research conducted by Health Canada to investigate the safety of azodicarbonamide.
Health Canada’s assessment of azodicarbonamide did take into consideration exposure to one of its main breakdown products, semicarbazide. While Health Canada scientists were aware that small amounts of urethane, or ethyl carbamate, can form in some products associated with azodicarbonamide use, the levels were considered to be consistent with low urethane levels that can naturally form in a number of foods and alcoholic beverages during fermentation.
The results of Health Canada’s studies on semicarbazide demonstrated that manufacturers were using azodicarbonamide according to Canada’s food additive provisions and that the levels of semicarbazide formed did not represent a health risk to consumers.
Health Canada is not aware of any recent scientific evidence that would suggest the current use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive, or exposure to semicarbazide, represents a health concern to consumers. Therefore, there are no plans to undertake another assessment in the near future. Should any scientific evidence indicate that the use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive presents a risk to human health, Health Canada would take appropriate action that could include reassessing the substance and amending the provisions that permit its use.
No acceptable daily intake has been established for azodicarbonamide or its chemical by-products, as the results of Health Canada’s initial assessment and most recent reassessment have deemed such a level unnecessary.
In addition, following the 2006 evaluation, it was concluded that there was a very large margin of safety between doses associated with adverse effects in experimental animals and the maximum dietary exposure for Canadians. Therefore, an acceptable daily intake was also not established for semicarbazide.
Currently, azodicarbonamide can be used as a food additive in bread, flour or whole wheat flour at a maximum level of 45 parts per million, or ppm, in the flour. The regulatory provisions for the use of azodicarbonamide as an additive are “enabling” provisions, meaning that food manufacturers can choose to use azodicarbonamide, provided they do so in accordance with its legal conditions of use, however, they are not obligated to use it.
When used according to the stated conditions in the Food and Drug Regulations, exposure to either azodicarbonamide or its breakdown products, semicarbazide and urethane, do not represent a health risk to consumers. It is the responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to ensure that all food additives approved for use in Canada comply with their stated conditions of use.
When offered for sale, flour and whole wheat flour must carry a list declaring all ingredients, including any food additives contained within, such as azodicarbonamide.

Question No. 504--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to Parks Canada’s Parks Passport program: (a) for the time period of 2010 to 2013, broken down by month and year, (i) how many students registered for the program, (ii) of those who registered, how many attended, (iii) from what schools, (iv) in which region and city; and (b) broken down by region, province and year, which parks participated in the program?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, between 2010 and 2013, Parks Canada mailed 1,531,749 passes for entry into Parks Canada places to schools with grade 8 or secondary II students, or enough passes to distribute to every eligible student. Once the passes are distributed, no registration is required to validate them. Parks Canada calculated the required number of passes in collaboration with its program partners, based on information provided by school boards about the number of eligible students, including those in split classes, in their schools. The agency has endeavoured to be inclusive of home schooling, private schools, federally funded schools on reserves and charter schools, which are not included in the 347,694 grade 8 or secondary II students reported by Statistics Canada.
The yearly totals are as follows: in May 2010, 390,365 passes were distributed; in April 2011, 381,142 passes were distributed; in March 2012, 380,639 passes were distributed; and in March 2013, 379,603 passes were distributed.
Students are not required to register their pass for use at Parks Canada places. However, based on Parks Canada’s tracking systems, which include point of sale systems and manual procedures, an estimated 17,000 passes were used to enter Parks Canada places between 2010 and 2013.
To respect the privacy of minors, students entering Parks Canada places with a My Parks Pass are not required to provide their school’s details. Therefore, data identifying the schools is not available.
To respect the privacy of Canadians, particularly minors, Parks Canada does not collect personal information from individuals using the My Parks Pass to enter Parks Canada places. Therefore, data on region and city is not available.
All parks and sites administered by Parks Canada participate in the My Parks Pass program through online and in-class activities. All Parks Canada places that charge an entry fee also participate by accepting the pass for free entry and discount.

Question No. 506--
Ms. Peggy Nash:
With regard to gender-based analyses carried out by the Department of Finance: what are the titles, dates and authors of any reports or studies done by the department that provide a gender-based analysis of (i) income splitting, (ii) Tax-Free Savings Accounts, (iii) the Child Arts Tax Credit, (iv) the employee stock option deduction, (v) the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit, (vi) pension income splitting, (vii) partial deduction of meals and entertainment expenses, (viii) partial inclusion of capital gains, (ix) the moving expense deduction, (x) the flow-through share deduction, (xi) cuts to program spending?
Response
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance undertakes gender-based analysis, GBA, on all new policy proposals for ministerial consideration, including tax and spending measures, where appropriate and where data exists.
For each initiative specified in Q-506, the points that follow provide the information available under title, author, and date of publication of the GBA.
With regard to income splitting and pension income splitting, a measure to allow pension income splitting was announced in the tax fairness plan on October 31, 2006, and a GBA for the measure was completed by the Department of Finance. No other measure related to income splitting has been announced or implemented by the Government of Canada. As such, no additional information about a GBA in respect of this proposal is available.
With regard to tax-free savings accounts, this measure was introduced in the budget tabled on February 26, 2008. The GBA for the measure was completed by the Department of Finance in advance of the tabling of the budget.
With regard to the children’s arts tax credit, this measure was introduced in the budget tabled on March 22, 2011. The GBA for the measure was completed by the Department of Finance in advance of the tabling of the budget.
With regard to the employee stock option deduction, this measure was introduced in 1977. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to the children’s fitness tax credit, this measure was introduced in the budget tabled on May 2, 2006. The GBA for the measure was completed by the Department of Finance in advance of the tabling of the budget.
With regard to pension income Splitting--see (i).
With regard to partial deduction of meals and entertainment expenses, this measure was introduced in 1987. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to partial inclusion of capital gains, this measure was introduced in 1972. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to the moving expense deduction, this measure was introduced in 1971. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to the flow-through share deduction, the current flow-through share regime was introduced in 1986, but previous forms of the regime have been allowed by the Income Tax Act since the 1950s. Introduction of the measure predates the government’s 1995 commitment to conduct GBA in respect of new policy proposals.
With regard to cuts to program spending, sponsoring departments and the Treasury Board Secretariat undertook a GBA on savings proposals that informed recommendations to Treasury Board and budget 2012 planned reductions to departmental spending.

Question no 514 --
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada since the department’s creation, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC, was created on December 12, 2006, when the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, part 3 of the Federal Accountability Act, came into force.
The PPSC is an independent organization, reporting to Parliament through the Attorney General of Canada, and is responsible for prosecuting offences under more than 50 federal statutes and for providing prosecution-related legal advice to law enforcement agencies.
Correspondence between the PPSC and other government departments mainly comprises communications between crown counsel and various investigative agencies, and is protected by solicitor-client privilege and/or litigation privilege. As well, in order to identify all correspondence with other government departments, it would be necessary to conduct a manual search of the files and records of all PPSC employees and agents, which is not feasible given the operational and time demands required to do so.

Question No. 517--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to federal non-refundable tax credits for public transit, children’s fitness and children’s arts: how many Canadians who submitted income tax returns did not have a high enough income to be able to use each in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 tax years?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, individual tax filers with taxable income, as reported on line 260 of the general income tax and benefit return, under the basic personal amount do not pay federal income tax.
The figures provided below include all individual filers whose taxable income was less than the basic personal amount. The figures are not limited to those who applied for the above-mentioned credits, as it is expected that some individuals will choose not to claim the credits given that their taxable income is less than the basic personal amount, and claiming any of these credits would not result in additional tax savings. As such, the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, cannot determine how many of these individuals may have been able to benefit from one or more of the above-mentioned credits.
The number of individual tax filers with taxable income less than the basic personal amount for tax years 2011 and 2012 are as follows. As the CRA is currently processing 2013 tax year returns, data is not currently available for that taxation year.
For 2011, the number of filers was 6,636,600, with a basic personal amount of $10,527; and for 2012, it was 6,462,350, with a basic personal amount of $10,822. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10. They are from the CRA T1 Data Mart and include all initially assessed returns processed up to May 2, 2014, that is, the most recent available data.

Question No. 519--
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:
With regard to the Hiring Credit for Small Business, since 2011-2012: broken down by fiscal year up to and including the current fiscal year, (a) what is the total cost of the Hiring Credit for Small Business; (b) what is the total number of small businesses that successfully accessed the hiring credit; and (c) what was the average tax savings for small business owners who successfully accessed the hiring credit?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the 2011 federal budget originally introduced the hiring credit for small business, HCSB. The HCSB was extended in 2012 and expanded and extended again in 2013.
With regard to (a), the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, administers the HCSB as part of its daily operations. As HCSB administration costs are not tracked separately, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested.
With regard to (b), the HCSB was a credit intended to stimulate new employment and support small businesses. Since its introduction, a number of Canadian small businesses have successfully accessed the credit. As the CRA tracks the number of employers who have received the HCSB by taxation year, rather than by fiscal period, its response is limited to information for the following tax years: 2011, 551,940 employers; 2012, 550,609 employers; and 2013, 509,544 employers to date. For 2013, the numbers represent a year to date total. It is anticipated that additional filing and processing of employer returns will increase the total number of employers receiving the credit for 2013.
With regard to (c), the HCSB provides a credit to the taxpayer’s account at a minimum of $2 and a maximum credit of $1,000 based on the taxpayer’s eligibility for the program. The available data focuses on the credit paid to taxpayers and may not fully represent the average tax savings for taxpayers who have successfully accessed the HCSB. The average credit paid to taxpayers by tax year is as follows: 2011, $381.23; 2012, $396.47; and 2013, $422.74 to date. The 2013 HCSB threshold of the employers’ portion of the employment insurance premiums was expanded from $10,000 to $15,000, which potentially has increased the number of taxpayers eligible to receive the maximum credit.

Question No. 529--
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, within the timeframe provided, it would not be possible to manually verify the value of each of the contracts under $10,000 granted by RCMP since January 1, 2013, given the volume of data. As a result, a complete and accurate response could not be produced.

Question No. 544--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to railway grain transportation reporting requirements: for each week in the current crop year, starting August 1, 2013, how much grain was moved, as reported by each of CN Rail and CP Rail from prairie delivery points, (a) to a port for export, indicating (i) the type of grain, (ii) the port in each case; (b) out of country by rail, indicating (i) the type of grain, (ii) the destination in each case; and (c) to final domestic users, indicating the (i) type of grain, (ii) final domestic user in each case?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the grain transportation data forwarded to Transport Canada by CN Rail and CP Rail is provided pursuant to the Canada Transportation Act. Section 51(1) of that act states that “information required to be provided to the Minister pursuant to this Act is, when it is received by the Minister, confidential and must not knowingly be disclosed or made available by any person without the authorization of the person who provided the information or documentation.” Consequently, this confidential information cannot be disclosed.

Question No. 548--
Mr. Frank Valeriote:
With regard to government-wide advertising activities, broken down by department, agency, and institution, since April 1, 2011: (a) how many advertisements have (i) been created in total, broken down by type (cinema, internet, out-of-home, print dailies, print magazine, weekly/community newspapers, radio, television) and by year, (ii) been given an identification number, a name or a Media Authorization Number (ADV number); (b) what is the identification number, name or ADV number for each advertisement listed in (a)(ii); and (c) for the answers to each part of (a), what is (i) the length (seconds or minutes) of each radio advertisement, television advertisement, cinema advertisement, internet advertisement, (ii) the cost for the production or creation of each advertisement, (iii) the companies used to produce or create each advertisement, (iv) the number of times each advertisement has aired or been published, specifying the total number of times and the total length of time (seconds or minutes), broken down by year and by month for each advertisement, (v) the total cost to air or publish each advertisement, broken down by year and by month, (vi) the criteria used to select each of the advertisement placements, (vii) media outlets used to air or publish each advertisement, broken down by year and by month, (viii) the total amount spent per outlet, broken down by year and by month?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b) and (c) iii, (v), (vii), and (viii), information can be found at http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-eng.html.
With regard to (c)(i), (ii), (iv), and (vi), 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 it has negotiated rates. This information can be considered third-party business sensitive information, and may be protected under the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 549--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to foreign affairs, and specifically applications to export military goods or technology since January 1, 2000: (a) in respect of each such application, how many human rights experts were consulted (i) from within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, (ii) from within another department, specifying the department, (iii) from within an overseas diplomatic mission, specifying the mission; (b) for each such application, what methodology was employed to demonstrate that there is no reasonable risk that the goods or technology would be used against the civilian population; (c) in assessing that risk for each such application, were consultations undertaken with any of (i) Amnesty International, (ii) Human Rights Watch, (iii) the United Nations, (iv) any other external organization, specifying the organization; and (d) will the government revoke an export permit granted under such an application if there are new or mitigating circumstances or information that indicate the goods or technology may be used, or may have been used, against civilians or in other violations of human rights or international law or norms?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), and (c), applications for permits to export military goods or technology are assessed against a number of criteria, one of which is assessing the risk that the proposed export could result in human rights violations in the destination country. A number of DFATD divisions, including missions abroad, are involved in the review of permit applications. Consultations are also undertaken with the Department of National Defence and other agencies or departments as needed. Assessing risks of human rights violations is a key consideration during the review process. As part of their responsibilities, officers at our missions abroad and at geographic divisions at DFATD headquarters closely follow human rights issues, meeting regularly with human rights groups and organizations, and accessing information from these groups and organizations, from other non-governmental organizations, and civil society. This information is used to inform the consultation process and assess whether there is a significant risk that an export is likely to result in human rights violations in the destination country.
With regard to (d), officials closely monitor international developments that have the potential to negatively impact regional security, or that are resulting, or are likely to result, in violations of human rights. In cases where the situation changes in a destination country, export permits can be suspended or cancelled should it be determined that the export has become inconsistent with Canada's foreign and defence policies and interests, including on human rights grounds.

Question No. 559--
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux:
With regard to government answers to written questions: (a) what is the rationale for the policy of the Privy Council Office not to release tabular or written material prepared in response to written questions in the native digital format in which it was prepared; (b) on what dates was this policy (i) established, (ii) revised; and (c) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of any orders, memoranda, directives, or other documents in which this policy has been set forth?
Response
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, except for those questions requiring an oral answer pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the government’s answers to questions on the order paper are contained in documents tabled in Parliament that bear a minister’s or parliamentary secretary’s signature. Any other version of a response is considered a draft and unofficial.

Question No. 568--
Mr. Murray Rankin:
With regard to the DSC/Fiscal Arbitrator tax scheme: (a) when did the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) initially execute an investigation; (b) when did the CRA post a warning to the public; (c) how many citizens owed funds to the CRA, broken down by (i) province, (ii) region; (d) what were the (i) original amounts owed, (ii) penalties owed, (iii) interest owed; (e) what was the range of penalties; (f) as of June 5, 2014, how much (i) is still owed, (ii) how much has been paid, (iii) how many have paid the full balance, (iv) how many have paid a partial balance, (v) how many have not paid towards the balance; (g) how many have filed for bankruptcy and, as a result of bankruptcy, how much has been lost to the CRA in interest and penalties; (h) in total, how many files (i) received refunds, (ii) declined a refund; and (i) what would be the total amount owing had all files received a refund?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Section 241 of the Income Tax Act precludes the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, from providing taxpayer-specific information or information that would identify specific taxpayers; therefore, the CRA will not comment on an investigation that it may or may not be undertaking.
With regard to (b), on an ongoing basis, the CRA provides information to Canadians on tax matters, including warnings to beware of groups or individuals who conspire, counsel, and promote tax avoidance schemes. The CRA continues to issue substantial public warnings about tax schemes and inform Canadians about how to protect themselves from fraud through tax alerts, news releases, and fact sheets–all of which can be found on the CRA website--as well as through outreach and partnerships with stakeholders.
Information on these schemes and how to identify and avoid them is readily available to anyone seeking it. Through these various media the CRA also informs Canadians about the consequences of participating in and promoting various schemes, how to report participation in a scheme they become aware of, and how to come forward using the voluntary disclosures program to correct past tax mistakes before criminal and financial consequences occur.
When a conviction related to an illegal tax avoidance scheme occurs, the CRA issues a regional conviction news release to inform the Canadian public in order to help others who may have unknowingly participated in similar schemes and to deter others from participating. More information on convictions that have occurred within the last year is available on the CRA website.
Under certain circumstances, including when it may provide a more timely warning of ongoing schemes, the CRA issues news releases when charges are laid. The CRA has also provided interviews to the media to inform the Canadian public about participating in tax schemes, including the risks and costs they could incur and how to identify them and avoid taking part.
Specifically to warn taxpayers of schemes and fraud, in 2006 the CRA created tax alerts—a warning issued to the media, posted to the CRA website, and issued through an e-mail list and RSS feed. Some tax alerts have made specific reference to schemes involving fictitious business losses, while others have been broader, encompassing a call to action to seek independent advice from a trusted tax professional before becoming involved in a scheme or arrangement. Many of these alerts have reminded Canadians that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
The CRA also collaborates with the Competition Bureau and the RCMP in its yearly promotion of Fraud Prevention Month. The CRA issues a yearly fraud prevention news release that reminds Canadians to protect themselves and leads them to the CRA’s website, where a comprehensive web resource provides them with further details. Other products such as fact sheets and checklists on how Canadians can protect themselves have accompanied those releases.
In addition to the yearly Fraud Prevention Month promotion, the CRA has also issued several other warnings about fraud or schemes. These have been distributed using News Canada articles, news releases, and tax tips during income tax filing season, and through the CRA’s Twitter feed, which prominently features tweets on schemes, scams, and fraud. Regardless of the exact nature of the warning, web links to information on a variety of schemes and fraud are provided. Promoting those resources helps visitors learn about how to protect themselves on a variety of fronts.
With regard to parts (c) through (i), the CRA routinely audits questionable business losses. The CRA does not track information by specific tax scheme, such as DSC and Fiscal Arbitrators. Furthermore, section 241 of the Income Tax Act precludes the CRA from providing taxpayer-specific information or information that would identify specific taxpayers.

Question No. 571--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) have there been any reports written on seismic testing and the effects on fish stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence since 1996; and (b) have there been any reports written on seismic testing and the effects on fish stocks off Newfoundland and Labrador since 2006?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the potential impact of seismic testing on fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea turtles has been an area of study for many years. Researchers within Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as well as others within Canada and internationally, have conducted numerous studies, ranging from laboratory-scale experiments looking at effects on the physiology, behaviour, and survivorship of individual animals up to large-scale field studies looking at changes in fish stocks and fish catches before, during, and after seismic surveys. This includes research reports, summaries of broad syntheses, environmental impact statements, and the Canadian Statement of Practice, which guides the applications of seismic surveys. Most of these studies are applicable to all locations. In addition, there have been some reports produced on the specific areas mentioned:
With regard to (a), in the Gulf of St. Lawrence there have been reports produced on potential impacts of seismic testing as part of DFO’s review of proposed development projects.
With regard to (b), in the waters off Newfoundland and Labrador there have been reports produced as part of the review of developments proposals, and also some reports on research conducted on lobster, crabs, and fish in local waters.

Question No. 572--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Articles 39 and 40 of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Conservation and Enforcement Measures: what have been the outcomes of citations issued in Canadian waters to foreign fishing vessels over the past five years?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as the port citations were only just issued in May of this year, the Government of Canada has not yet been informed of the outcome by the vessels’ home countries.

Question No. 574--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: have there been any studies on the infrastructure at Cape Spear Lighthouse National Historic Site or Fort Amherst National Historic Site since 2000?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage has not conducted any studies on the infrastructure at Cape Spear Lighthouse National Historic Site or at Fort Amherst National Historic Site since 2000.

Question No. 588--
Ms. Yvonne Jones:
With regard to corrections, since November 27, 2012: (a) has any department or agency conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter, pertaining to (i) the Baffin Correctional Centre in Iqaluit, Nunavut, (ii) correctional services in Nunavut in general; (b) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of each such review or assessment; (c) has any department or agency conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter, pertaining to (i) Her Majesty’s Penitentiary in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) correctional services in Newfoundland and Labrador in general; and (d) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of each such review or assessment?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), and (b), the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, or PS, has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to the Baffin Correctional Centre or any other correctional services in Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.
With regard to (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (d), PS has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to Her Majesty’s Penitentiary or any other correctional services in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a provincial institution, not a federal institution.
With regard to (a)(i), since November 27, 2012, Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, has not conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter pertaining to Baffin Correctional Centre in Iqaluit, Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.
With regard to (a)(ii), the last review of the Exchange of Service Agreement, or ESA, between CSC and the Territory of Nunavut was completed in April 2012 and is in effect until March 2018; there have been no further reviews of the ESA since November 27, 2012.
With regard to (b), there have been no further reviews of the ESA since November 27, 2012. As a result, there are no dates and file reviews between CSC and the Government of Nunavut to report.
With regard to (c)(i), since November 27, 2012, CSC has not conducted any review or assessment of physical conditions, practices, policies, or any other matter pertaining to Her Majesty’s Penitentiary in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a provincial institution, not a federal institution.
With regard to (c)(ii), in January 2012, in accordance with the provision of the ESA between CSC and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a review of the ESA was completed to enable CSC to measure the results achieved against objectives set forth in the ESA.
With regard to (d), this review focused on the continued relevance of the ESA, whether the agreement is effective in meeting its objectives within budget and without unwanted outcomes, whether it is cost-effective, and whether it was implemented as designed.
While this review did not focus solely on provincial corrections, it was concluded that the ESA has, in all key areas, been implemented as intended. It is fair to say that the success of the program initiatives and many others is due to the high level of collaboration and co-operation between the two jurisdictions at all levels.
The details, including dates and file numbers, of each discussion between CSC and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are not readily available.
With regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), and (b), since November 27, 2012, the RCMP has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to the Baffin Correctional Centre or any other correctional services in Nunavut. This is a territorial institution, not a federal institution.
(c)(i)(ii)(d) With regard to (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (d), since November 27, 2012, the RCMP has not conducted any review or assessment pertaining to Her Majesty`s Penitentiary in St. John’s or correctional services in Newfoundland and Labrador in general.

Question No. 607--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to Marine Atlantic Incorporated and the recent decision to eliminate two vessels crossing per week between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and Labrador and North Sydney, Nova Scotia: (a) what consultations took place between Marine Atlantic and stakeholder groups in Newfoundland and Labrador, including names of stakeholders and how the consultations took place; (b) what were the established thresholds that had to be met before crossings were cancelled; and (c) what is the projected financial benefit or loss to Marine Atlantic for cancelling these crossings?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), no formal consultations took place between Marine Atlantic and stakeholder groups in Newfoundland and Labrador; however, the corporation did have regular informal discussions with members of various stakeholder groups in advance of the schedule change. These discussions centred around decreasing traffic levels with the corporation and trying to better understand the amount of traffic that commercial operators planned on moving during the summer.
With regard to (b), the decision to change the schedule was not based on specified traffic thresholds. The corporation’s traffic has been declining, leading to revenues that were less than anticipated. Marine Atlantic recognized that it needed to change the schedule in order to better match traffic demand with available capacity and to ensure that the corporation could continue to meet its budgetary obligations.
With regard to (c), the projected savings from the 2014 summer schedule changes are approximately $4.13 million.

Question No. 608--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to the evaluation of options to sustain a Canadian Forces Fighter Capability: (a) has an assessment been made of the capacity of Canada’s CF-18 fleet to contribute to operations beyond 2020; (b) what are the associated costs determined by this calculation, including necessary upgrades to maintain safe and effective operations of each plane, broken down by (i) type of upgrade, (ii) cost; (c) how many CF-18s out of Canada’s current fleet could be upgraded; and (d) what is the estimated new operational timeframe of all planes in part (c), broken down by individual aircraft in the fleet?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as part of the evaluation of options, the CF-18 fleet was assessed for its ability to contribute to operations beyond 2020. The assessment also outlines the rough order magnitude cost estimate to maintain safe and effective operations from an airworthiness, regulatory, and operational relevance perspective.
Ministers are reviewing a number of reports from the evaluation of options, including fighter capabilities, industrial benefits, costs, and other factors related to the decision to replace Canada's CF-18 fleet.

Question No. 609--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Transport on May 13, 2014, to strengthen world-class tanker safety systems: (a) what evidence, studies, research, discussions, advice or other methods were used to support the establishment of regional planning and resources to better respond to accidents in each of the following locations, (i) Southern British Columbia, (ii) Saint John and the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick, (iii) Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia, (iv) the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and (b) what evidence, studies, research, discussions, advice or other methods were used to not support the establishment of regional planning and resources to better respond to accidents in Placentia Bay and the South Coast of Newfoundland?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, area response planning was approved as an overarching approach and will be implemented through a phased approach, starting in four areas: the southern portion of B.C; Saint John and Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick; Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia; and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Quebec.
A pan-Canadian risk assessment entitled “Risk Assessment for Marine Spills in Canadian Waters” was conducted by GENIVAR. It was used to determine the areas where area response planning would initially be implemented. Other criteria used in identifying these areas include a high level of risk, geographic coverage, and the involvement of all four certified response organizations, those being Atlantic Emergency Response Team, Eastern Canada Response Corporation Ltd., Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, and Point Tupper Marine Services Ltd. Involving the response organizations will allow each to work within the new area response planning model, test new response standards and techniques, and determine the operational and financial impact of implementing area response planning nationally.

Question No. 615--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA): what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and CBSA from July 2013 to present, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, a preliminary search was done in ccmMercury, the file tracking system of the CBSA, to find the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and the CBSA from July 2013 to June 12, 2014. As a result of the volume and the processing required to provide the detail requested, the CBSA cannot produce a response by the specified deadline.

Question No. 616--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the inventory of protests or demonstrations maintained by the Government Operations Centre: (a) which government departments or agencies are involved in the surveillance of public demonstrations; (b) when did the surveillance measures begin; (c) what government resources are employed in the surveillance; (d) for each department or agency, how many staff members have participated in the surveillance reporting system in each fiscal year since surveillance began; (e) what have been all the costs of implementing the surveillance; (f) how long are these surveillance measures intended to last; (g) which government department or agency maintains the data on the protests; (h) how long is such data retained; (i) who are the partners with whom it is shared; and (j) under what authority is it shared?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) through (f), the Government Operations Centre does not conduct surveillance operations.
With regard to (g), the role of the Government Operations Centre, on behalf of the Government of Canada, is to support response coordination of events affecting the national interest. The Government Operations Centre seeks to maintain situational awareness of those demonstrations that may develop into events affecting the national interest. Situation reports are retained in accordance with the record-keeping accountability requirements of the Library and Archives of Canada Act.
With regard to (h), information obtained by the Government Operations Centre is retained for 10 years in accordance with the record-keeping accountability requirements of the Library and Archives of Canada Act.
With regard to (i), the Government Operations Centre works with all federal departments and agencies to ensure a whole-of-government response capability. It facilitates information-sharing for potential and ongoing events with other federal departments, with provinces and territories, and with its partners through regular analysis and reporting. Requests for information are part of the information-sharing process.
With regard to (j), information collected and situation reports prepared on events affecting the national interest are shared under the authority of the Emergency Management Act and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act.

Question No. 617--
Mr. David McGuinty:
With regard to the telephone survey of nearly 3,000 Canadians conducted by the Reid Group regarding prostitution and delivered to the Department of Justice on February 10, 2014: (a) why is the Department refusing to disclose the information it contains; (b) did the Minister of Justice take the findings of this survey into account in the drafting of the new bill; (c) why did the Minister of Justice not see fit to publish the survey results; and (d) what organizations inside or outside government have received a copy of the survey results?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (c), the department respects the Government of Canada policy with regard to the undertaking of public opinion research and has delivered the results of this work and the related data to Library and Archives Canada for public release in accordance with the policy. The material is publicly available on the public opinion research reports website.
With regard to (b), the Minister of Justice does not rely on just one source of information as a basis for informing his decisions. The information collected from the telephone survey on prostitution was a single tool completed to provide the minister with information for use at his discretion.
With regard to (d), no organizations inside or outside of government received an advance copy of the survey results.

Question No. 623--
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): since June 27, 2011, has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or members of the RCMP Senior Executive Committee issued directives or suggestions in order to forbid or discourage RCMP offices or members of the RCMP from (a) providing letters of support to the CRTC on applications or processes that are or were before the CRTC; and (b) communicating with the Minister of Public Safety’s office with regard to applications or processes that are or were before the CRTC and, if so, what are the (i) names of the individuals or office that issued such a directive or suggestion, (ii) dates when the directives or suggestions were issued, (iii) individuals or departments to whom the directives or suggestions were issued, (iv) details as to the content of the directives or suggestions?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), a member of the RCMP senior executive committee instructed RCMP members and employees to refrain from providing letters of support to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, on applications or processes that are or were before the CRTC. The answer to (i) is Executive Director of Public Affairs Daniel Lavoie. The answer to (ii) is February 20, 2013. The answer to (iii) is the RCMP national communications services and communications group of “C” Division, Quebec. The answer to (iv) is that it was to remind those individuals, mentioned in response to (iii), that it would not be appropriate for an RCMP representative to endorse an application before the CRTC as the CRTC is a regulatory organization of the federal government.
With regard to (b), the RCMP did not issue directives or suggestions in order to forbid or discourage RCMP offices or members of the RCMP from communicating with the office of the Minister of Public Safety with regard to applications or processes that are or were before the CRTC.

Question No. 627--
Ms. Chrystia Freeland:
With regard to government funding in the province of Ontario, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province, specifying for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, namely the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding she would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 629--
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe:
With regard to refugees: (a) as of June 11, 2014, how many of the 200 Syrian refugees the government committed to resettle were in Canada; (b) what was the average processing time in 2014 for applications for privately sponsored refugees; and (c) what was the average processing time in 2014 for applications for privately sponsored refugees from Syria?
Response
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is concerned, the Government of Canada is deeply concerned about the crisis in Syria and will continue to do what it can to best help the Syrian people. Canada has a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those truly in need. We have one of the most fair and generous immigration systems in the world. We welcome about one out of every 10 of all resettled refugees globally, more than almost any industrialized country in the world. Canada is one of the world’s largest providers of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees. To date, Canada has committed more than $630 million in humanitarian, development and security assistance to the Syrian crisis.
In response to the June 2013 UNHCR appeal for assistance with extremely vulnerable cases, Canada committed to permanently resettling 1,300 Syrian refugees by the end of 2014, 200 refugees through the government-assisted refugees, or GAR, program and 1,100 through the private sponsorship of refugees, or PSR, program.
It was only in late 2013 and early 2014 that the UNHCR began to call for increased resettlement efforts as an expression of international solidarity and burden-sharing while providing much needed protection to the most. To meet Canada’s commitment the UNHCR began referring cases to Canada in late 2013.
In total, since the start of the Syrian conflict, Canada has received over 3,070 applications from Syrians seeking Canada’s protection through the asylum and resettlement programs and we have provided protection to more than 1,230 Syrians.
As of June 11, 93 Syrian refugees out of the 200 that the government committed to resettle had arrived in Canada. As of July 2, as the minister confirmed to The Globe and Mail, 177 Syrian refugees of the 200 the government had committed to resettle had arrived in Canada. That number continues to rise. CIC reports processing times on a 12-month rolling period, based on the calendar year, so 2014 processing time data is not yet available. CIC also does not report processing times based on a client’s country of origin but rather by processing centre. As such, this information is not available. That said, robust backlog, and wait time reduction strategies and resources have been implemented to reduce processing times generally.
Current processing times vary depending on the category. To see our processing times, please visit our website: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/perm-other.asp.
Processing times have begun to improve, and where working inventories have been established, cases are being put into process quickly. We continue to work toward processing times at all missions of 12 to 18 months for newly received PSR cases.
The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. CIC continues to work as effectively as possible to resettle refugees given operational and security limitations.
Canada is working closely with the UNHCR and resettlement countries to determine how best to respond to the needs of Syrian refugees, given the overwhelming scale of the displacement. Canada is reviewing an additional request from the UNHCR for Syrian resettlement as part of our broader response to this crisis. The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. CIC continues to work diligently and as effectively as it can to resettle as many refugees as possible.

Question No. 631--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With respect to an accidental release in March 2011 of industrial wastewater from a Suncor oil sands project into the Athabasca River: (a) when did the government of Alberta notify the federal government of the spill; (b) was the notification in (a) done pursuant to the Canada-Alberta Environmental Occurrences Notification Agreement; (c) what fines did the federal government impose for this violation of the Fisheries Act; (d) what non-monetary penalties did the federal government impose for this violation of the Fisheries Act; (e) if fines or non-monetary penalties were not imposed, for what reasons were they not imposed; and (f) with regard to the federal government’s investigation of the incident, (i) on what date was the investigation opened, (ii) on what date was the investigation closed and (iii) what was the reason for the closing of the investigation?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to part (a) is on Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 4:43 p.m.
In regard to part (b), yes, the Alberta CIC notification centre sent a summary email of the occurrence and a link to the full Suncor report to an Environment Canada environmental emergencies officer in the Edmonton office. The CIC notification reference number was 245344.
Regarding (c), the answer is none.
Regarding (d), the answer is none.
With regard to (e), information gathered during this investigation has determined that Suncor has been operating their wastewater system diligently and that the March 21, 2011, incident could not have been reasonably foreseen. Consequently, no charges were laid against Suncor. On November 8, 2011, the file was approved for closure, with no recommended enforcement action.
The answer to (f)(i) is on March 25, 2011; and (f)(ii) is November 8, 2011. Finally, (f)(iii), was answered in the response to (e).

Question No. 632--
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia:
With respect to the government’s response aimed at ensuring the safety of drug compounds to the under-dosing of chemotherapy drugs, discovered on March 20, 2013 at four Ontario hospitals: (a) what actions have been taken, with (i) drug compounders, (ii) each of the provinces and territories, in order to establish a federal regulatory framework for this sector; (b) what steps remain to be taken to successfully establish a comprehensive federal regulatory regime for drug compounders, similar to that which exists for drug manufacturers; (c) what new rules will be included with regard to purchasing protocols for compounding inputs; (d) will these protocols be equivalent to those for manufacturers; (e) how will compliance with the rules in (c) be monitored and enforced; (f) how does the government monitor and enforce manufacturing and purchasing protocols for drug manufacturers; and (g) how does the government ensure that monitoring and compliance are sufficient to ensure the safety of all Canadians who consume medications?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, since the under-dosing incident, Health Canada has undertaken these actions.
First, on April 19, 2013, Health Canada published the “Interim Regulatory Oversight of Admixing and Compounding” statement, allowing organizations involved in these activities to continue providing these services, if they meet certain conditions, while the department and the provinces and territories, or PTs, worked together to determine the long-term oversight of these activities.
Second, Health Canada convened the Ad Hoc Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Admixing and Compounding to collaboratively work toward two goals: to examine the scope and extent of hospital pharmacy outsourcing of drug compounding and admixing across Canada; and to determine the appropriate oversight of these activities. Health Canada also convened a sub-working group to bring clarity to the delineation between federal and PT oversight of these activities.
With regard to part (b), Health Canada has also been working collaboratively with key stakeholders such as the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities and the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists to determine how best to achieve regulatory clarity to enhance patient safety, and improve predictability and transparency going forward.
In regard to (c), (d), and (e), our government is determined that Canadians will have tough, effective regulations for drug safety. Health Canada has been actively working on a proposal for a federal approach to commercial compounding and initiated consultations in June 2014 to gain feedback from PTs and other key stakeholders on elements of the proposal and its implementation.
In regard to (c), details will be developed during the regulatory process in consultation with stakeholders.
In regard to (d), the proposed regulatory requirements would be proportional to the level of risk associated with the type of activity in question.
In regard to (e), proposed federal regulations would be an extension of existing regulatory frameworks governing the manufacturing of drugs, and Health Canada would develop an appropriate compliance and enforcement approach based on existing processes and procedures.
In regard to (f), Health Canada conducts routine inspections on a risk-based cycle to monitor compliance with the regulatory requirements, including the requirement to have and follow appropriate protocols related to the manufacturing of drugs. When non-compliance is identified, Health Canada verifies the corrective action taken by the manufacturer and takes appropriate enforcement action to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
In regard to (g), Health Canada administers an inspection program to regularly monitor the compliance of drug manufacturers with the regulatory requirements. Policies, guidelines and procedures related to the inspection program are regularly reviewed and audited to support continuous improvement so that Health Canada’s inspection program provides effective oversight to help protect the health and safety of Canadians. The department also participates in ongoing assessment activities with international partners to confirm the international equivalence of the Canadian inspection system.
Health Canada is also enhancing the integrity of the health product supply chain in Canada by educating stakeholders and improving the oversight of the ingredients found in health products in accordance with the new active pharmaceutical ingredients regulations. In addition to the existing measures in place to protect the health and safety of Canadians, our government is enhancing patient safety by C-17, Vanessa’s Law, which will require the reporting of adverse drug reactions by health institutions, mandatory recalls of unsafe drugs, and increased fines and penalties.

Question No. 633--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada: what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and the Correctional Service of Canada from July 2013 to present, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?
Response
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, CSC is unable to respond to the request within the given timeframe. There are variations in the manner with which ministerial briefings and departmental correspondence are tracked and CSC’s electronic document tracking database cannot be used to produce the requested information; therefore, an electronic search for the requested records is not possible. As a result, a manual search of files would be required in order to respond to this request. System limitations and the amount of resources that would be required for such a search prevent CSC from providing a full and consistent response to the request.

Question No. 634--
Hon. Mark Eyking:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Nova Scotia, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 635--
Ms. Judy Foote:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding she would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 637--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of New Brunswick, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 639--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of British Columbia, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.

Question No. 641--
Mr. Marc Garneau:
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Quebec, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, due to the large volume of information involved, the government’s long-standing practice with regard to questions relating to total grants and contributions is to provide an answer for one federal electoral district per question. The government invites the member to specify for which individual riding he would like the requested information and ask the corresponding question.
Collapse
AdvertisingAglukkaq, LeonaAgreements and contractsAlexander, ChrisAllegations of fraud and fraudAllen, MalcolmAmbrose, RonaAndrews, ScottAnswers to Written Questions on the Orde ...Arms controlAthabasca River ...Show all topics
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2014-03-24 15:23
Expand

Question No. 198--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to applications received from Saskatchewan for Western Economic Diversification Canada’s Western Innovation (WINN) Initiative: (a) how many applications were received for the first intake, completed on December 8, 2013; (b) how many are complete and meet the program’s criteria, and how much funding did they request; (c) how many proceeded to stage two of the application process, and how much funding did they request; (d) how many passed stage two, and how much funding did they request; (e) how many applications did the department expect to receive from Saskatchewan, (i) how many did it expect to proceed to stage two, (ii) how much funding did they expect be to requested at each stage; (f) what research was done to determine the need for the program in Saskatchewan; (g) did the department find that the demand for the financing available through WINN was not being met by the private sector in Saskatchewan; and (h) how many of WINN’s contributions does the government plan to be repaid in ten years?
Response
Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and the number of applications received from Saskatchewan for the western innovation initiative, WINN, Western Economic Diversification Canada has received 18 WINN applications for the first intake completed on December 8, 2013.
The approval process for applications is still ongoing. We will be in a position to provide final figures once the approval process is complete in late spring or early summer of 2014.

Question No. 207--
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (NAPWPS) released on October 5, 2010: (a) will the government issue annual reports on this plan, (i) if so, when will the annual reports for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 be issued, (ii) if not, why not; (b) what plans have been made for the mid-term review, particularly the scope, terms of reference, dedicated resources and schedule; (c) will Canadian civil society organisations be consulted or involved in conducting the mid-term review, (i) if so, when will these consultations begin, (ii) if not, why not; (d) what section, program or directorate within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development structure is responsible for coordinating the implementation of the NAPWPS; (e) in terms of previous commitments and new commitments, what resources have been committed and disbursed to support the implementation of the NAPWPS, broken down by fiscal year and department; and (f) will the government commit to making public the results of the mid-term review?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government tabled the 2011-12 “Progress Report on Canada’s Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security” in Parliament on January 31, 2014. The government tabled the 2012-2012 report in Parliament on March 7, 2014.
The government is considering options for the mid-term review prescribed in the action plan. The review will be led by the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, START, in DFATD in consultation with action plan partner departments and agencies. The government has under consideration options for consultation with Canadian civil society as part of the mid-term review.
DFATD’s Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force coordinates the government-wide response to the implementation of the Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security. The resources committed and disbursed to support implementation are being detailed through the annual reporting process, including the 2011-12 progress report tabled on January 31, 2014.

Question No. 220--
Ms. Annick Papillon:
With regard to the storage of wood pellets and the risk of fire: (a) what safety precautions does the government require federally regulated companies to take to prevent fires; (b) how often are these facilities inspected; (c) what risk assessment carried out by the government was completed with respect to the storage of wood pellets; (d) when were these assessments, if any, completed, what were the findings and which of these studies have been released; and (e) what analyses were completed to study the government’s potential liability in the event of an emergency or major accident on a federally regulated site where wood pellets are stored?
Response
Hon. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), while there are no specific provisions related to the outdoor storage of this material, the Canada occupational health and safety regulation XIX, hazard prevention program requires that an assessment be conducted of any hazards related to working with this material, and the development of safe work procedures to protect employees from these hazards. In addition, regulation XVII, safe occupancy of the work place, requires procedures be put into place to prevent fire and to protect employees in the event of emergency fire situations.
With regard to (b), all workplaces with over 20 employees are fully or partially inspected each month by the local health and safety committee. This is done to make sure that every workplace is inspected in its entirety at least once a year, in accordance with subsection 135(7) of the Canada Labour Code. Health and safety officers will intervene when necessary, in accordance with the internal complaint resolution process provided for in section 127.1 of part II of the Canada Labour Code.
With regard to (c) and (d), while risk assessments of the storage of wood pellets are not part of the labour program’s mandate, the labour program does conduct proactive activities to ensure that employers are in compliance with part II of the Canada Labour Code.
With regard to (e), the labour program does not compile a list of businesses that store wood pellets. Our role is to ensure that the employer complies with part II, section 125(1), specific duties of the employer, of the Canada Labour Code.
As per part II of the Canada Labour Code, it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure the health and safety of all employees at their worksite(s) by developing emergency procedures.
The Canada Industrial Relations Board has no involvement in the regulation and inspection of the storage of wood pellets and the risk of fire. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has no involvement in the regulation and inspection of the storage of wood pellets and the risk of fire.

Question No. 232--
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
With regard to Canadian government oil sands advertising in the United States: (a) in which states did the government purchase advertising; (b) how many advertisements were purchased; (c) what form of advertisements were purchased; (d) what was the duration of the advertising; (e) how much was the cost per advertisement; and (f) what was the projected reach of the advertisement?
Response
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board, and the Northern Pipeline Agency are not engaged in an oil sands advertising campaign in the United States.

Question No. 243--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to Health Canada's approval to Mylan Pharmaceuticals to produce a generic Suboxone treatment: (a) what frameworks exist to ensure that pharmaceutical companies whose drugs are granted approval for use in Canada conduct business in a way that is responsible and accountable to Canadians; (b) does the Department have a framework in place to properly screen for, and assess, conflicts of interest involving manufacturers of prescription drugs that produce both an addictive medication as well as producing its addictive treatment, and, if so, can the department withdraw an approval until the conflict of interest is resolved; and (c) will the Minister of Health ensure that no pharmaceutical company is permitted to bill taxpayers for both a highly addictive drug, and the treatment for the addiction that can result?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the serious public health and safety issues associated with the abuse and misuse of prescription drugs and the burden it is placing on Canadian families and communities.
In the October 2013 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada made a commitment to expand the scope of our national anti-drug strategy to include addressing prescription drug abuse. In budget 2014, the Government of Canada announced $44.9M in funding over five years in support of this commitment. Working closely with the provinces and territories, and the non-governmental organization community, this expanded scope will enable the government to move forward on key issues, including enhancing prevention and treatment initiatives in communities; improving the evidence-based guidance on the treatment of pain and use of drugs for prescribers and other health care practitioners to support them in providing appropriate care to patients; and engaging in public awareness activities about prescription drug abuse.
Health Canada strives to maintain a balance between the potential health benefits and risks posed by health products available on the Canadian market. Products with identified risks, including addiction, are subject to increased scrutiny, monitoring, and risk mitigation. In Canada, the regulation and monitoring of prescription opioids, such as Suboxone, draws upon two distinct legislative frameworks: the Food and Drugs Act, F&DA, which regulates drugs for safety, efficacy, and quality for its recommended use; and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, CDSA, which controls access to drugs with risk of individual or societal harm.
To prevent undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the drug approval process, the department introduced measures to address real or potential conflicts of interest between drug reviewers and drug manufacturers.
Health Canada is an evidence-based organization.The F&DA require that sponsors provide scientific evidence to support the benefit-risk assessment that underpins drug regulatory decision-making.
Under the drug regulatory framework, manufacturers must obtain authorization to conduct a clinical trial on Canadian subjects. This clinical trial in support of market authorization may also be run outside of the country. Results from clinical trials submitted to Health Canada, regardless of where they are run, must be conducted in accordance with internationally accepted good clinical practice guidelines that help protect the rights and well-being of participants and ensure that the data generated are valid. All clinical trials sites in Canada are subject to monitoring and inspection by Health Canada.
Before a drug is authorized for sale in Canada, it goes through the drug review process in order to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective. For an innovative drug, the standard means to establish safety and efficacy is via clinical trials whereby the sponsor, that is, the individual or organization, must submit a clinical trial application for review. The acceptability of a trial is based on the totality of information and always considers the balance between the anticipated benefits and potential risks to trial subjects. For generic drug reviews, since safety and effectiveness has already been established by the innovator product, a generic drug application needs only to submit bioequivalence studies, usually in volunteers, comparing their product with a Canadian reference product. The results of the bioequivalence studies must meet the standards outlined in published guidance documents. Also, a complete chemistry and manufacturing dossier must be filed. The labelling of the generic product must be the same as the innovator's labelling, that is, for the same uses and restrictions.
Once any new drug is on the market, regulatory controls continue. The distributor must report any new information concerning serious adverse effects and notify Health Canada of any studies that have provided new safety information. Health Canada monitors adverse events, investigates complaints and problem reports, and manages recalls, as needed. A drug can be removed from the market should the benefits of the drug no longer outweigh its risks.
Products containing controlled substances have further oversight through the CDSA. This legislative framework balances access to controlled substances for legitimate medical, scientific or industrial purposes with minimizing the risk of diversion to illicit markets or uses. Narcotics are some of the most controlled substances, and illegal activities with this class of drugs are subject to the maximum penalties under the CDSA.

Question No. 245--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations: (a) how many applications to become licensed producers have been received by Health Canada; (b) from which municipality or township does each application come; (c) how many applications have been approved and in what municipality or township are they located; (d) what has been the cost to Health Canada to implement the new regulations; (e) will there be sufficient supply of medical marihuana as of April 1, 2014 to fulfill the medical needs of current patients and, if not, how will Health Canada ensure that there is no interruption in supply; and (f) once a patient submits their prescription or current license to grow marihuana at home to a licensed producer, will the patient be permitted to switch to a different producer if they find a more competitive price?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Health Canada has received 434 applications under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Ninety applications have been withdrawn at the request of the applicant, refused, or returned because they were incomplete. As of January 29, 2014, Health Canada was processing 344 applications. The treatment of applications received under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations is similar to the process in place for the control of other narcotics in Canada and requires that applicants demonstrate how they meet the requirements of the regulations. The proposed personnel must undergo extensive security checks by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to assess whether or not the applicant poses a risk to the integrity of the control of the production and distribution of cannabis under the act and its regulations, including the risk of cannabis being diverted to an illicit market or use. The applicant must also demonstrate that the activities are not conducted in a dwelling, that sufficient security measures and record-keeping are in place to reduce the risk that cannabis will be diverted, and that the applicant can safely produce cannabis that meets strict quality requirements for their clients.
With regard to (b), Health Canada cannot provide information on the number of applications at the municipal or township level because of privacy considerations. The provincial breakdown of applications processed is as follows: 146 in Ontario, 120 in B.C., 24 in Quebec, 18 in Alberta, 11 in Manitoba, 7 in Nova Scotia, 7 in Saskatchewan, 6 in New Brunswick, 3 in Newfoundland and Labrador, and 2 in Prince Edward Island.
With regard to (c), as of January 29, 2014, Health Canada has issued 8 licences under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Six licensed producers are currently allowed to sell and are listed on Health Canada's website at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php. The six producers that can sell have a production capacity greater than 30,000 kilograms and will be offering various strains of cannabis to clients across Canada. It is important to note that individuals in possession of a valid medical document may register with any licensed producer in Canada. The registration is not done in person and must be done either by mail or online. The product is delivered by the licensed producer to the client’s mailing address, hence promoting accessibility. Health Canada cannot provide information on the location of licensed producers by municipality or township because of privacy and security considerations for the licensed producers themselves. The provincial breakdown is as follows: 4 in Ontario, 2 in Saskatchewan, 1 in Manitoba, and 1 in B.C.
With regard to (d), to date the cost of implementing the new regulations is $1,828,650. The current program, which is set to end on March 31, 2014, cost Health Canada over $16 million in 2011-12 and had been increasing each year.
With regard to (e), Health Canada is monitoring the market closely. A list of authorized producers can be found at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php. These producers have significant production capacity, and most are now accepting orders for marijuana for medical purposes. Conditions are in place for adequate supply to emerge.
With regard to (f), a patient may choose to change licensed producers at any time, provided that the patient obtains and provides a new medical document to the new licensed producer. The licensed producer with whom they initially registered is required to maintain the original medical document as per the regulations. Currently, the price of marijuana for medical purposes is fixed by licensed producers and ranges from $3 to $12 per gram.

Question No. 246--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to the introduction of reforms planned to the grant funding programs of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), including, but not limited to, the proposed “Foundation Scheme”: (a) where and when will interruptions in funding occur, how many positions (researchers, staff and trainees) will be impacted for the 2015 and 2016 funding periods, and what amount of funding would normally be available to applicants during these periods; (b) what steps is the government taking to mitigate any potential funding gaps, or extend the funding, for any highly-qualified personnel and trainees impacted; and (c) does the government intend to allocate contingency funding to CIHR, earmarked for gaps that become evident as the reforms are introduced?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, to reduce the increasing burden on applicants and research institutions in applying for research funding and to foster research excellence, in 2009 the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, launched reforms to its open operating grants program. or OOGP, with the introduction of two basic funding schemes: the Foundation Scheme, which will fund researchers with a documented track record of success over longer periods of time of up to seven years; and the Project Scheme, which is intended to fund projects that can be anywhere from one to five years and will be adjudicated based on the quality and feasibility of the research project being proposed. The proposed reform will ensure that applications will be shorter and more focused on the relevant information needed to support decision-making. The longer durations and larger values of grants awarded through the new Foundation Scheme are also intended to reduce applicant burden and give greater flexibility to investigators for conducting their research projects.
Over the last four years, the research community has been consulted on this matter and has been generally supportive of CIHR’s efforts to implement a more efficient and flexible funding process. Early in the design process for the new open suite of programs, CIHR acknowledged that there would be an impact on the cycle of funding start dates during the transition period and therefore has worked to both minimize the impact and to provide information to the research community as early as possible. CIHR provided the community with the relevant funding opportunities and associated timelines well in advance of the transition period to allow current grant holders to plan for the transition.
A number of measures have been put in place to ensure a smooth transition. For example, CIHR has changed its policy on the submission of grant renewals during the transition period to allow researchers to apply for early renewal without penalty. Researchers have also been encouraged to use various options so that funding in their existing grants is more flexible and covers fixed expenses over longer periods. CIHR has also been working with institutions to identify ways to support researchers during the transition period.
It should be noted that CIHR does not provide unlimited or ongoing funding. CIHR’s competitive processes ensure that only the best projects are funded, and not all researchers can expect to be successful in acquiring new funding on their first attempt as their current grants expire. In fact, in a typical year, approximately 65% of applications submitted to the OOGP, or approximately 3,000, are from researchers who do not have CIHR funding at the time of application.
CIHR is committed to funding the best research possible and is confident that the strategies put in place will successfully support the research community during the transition to the new open funding schemes. These changes will ensure support to a well-trained base of investigators with the skills and expertise needed to conduct innovative research and knowledge translation activities aimed at improving health outcomes of Canadians.

Question No. 264--
Mr. Hoang Mai:
With regard to Canada Post’s Five-Point Action Plan: Ready for the Future: (a) when was the government first made aware of the initiative; (b) on what date was Transport Canada first informed of the initiative; (c) were any instructions or comments given by Transport Canada to Canada Post during the process of corporate planning and, if so, what were they; (d) how did Transport Canada analyze Canada Post's corporate plan, (i) how long did it take, (ii) what were Transport Canada’s conclusions, (iii) were any recommendations made and, if so, what were they, (iv) was a deadline for the review and analysis ever established and, if so, what was the deadline; and (e) what approvals were needed by the Department of Finance, (i) when was the Department of Finance first contacted on this matter, (ii) what, specifically, was its response, (iii) was a deadline for the review and analysis ever established and, if so, what was the deadline?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Canada Post has a very good track record of keeping the Government of Canada informed of its financial situation. For some time, the government has been aware of the impact of declining mail volumes on the corporation’s ability to remain financially self-sustaining as mandated. Canada Post has also kept the public apprised of its situation through public release of its annual reports, quarterly reports, and corporate plan summaries. In 2012, Canada Post delivered one billion fewer letters than it did in 2006.
As a crown corporation that operates at arm’s length from the government, Canada Post is responsible for the management of its own operations, including the planning of how it will operate in the future. The government supports Canada Post’s efforts to fulfill its mandate of operating on a self-sustaining financial basis in order to protect taxpayers while modernizing its business and aligning postal services with the choices that Canadians are making.
With regard to (b), Canada Post is an arm’s-length crown corporation that is responsible for the management of its present and future operations. The Minister of Transport tables Canada Post’s annual corporate plan summary to Parliament, and the Department of Transport is aware of Canada Post’s declining financial situation. Transport Canada also supports the corporation’s efforts to return to financial self-sufficiency and modernize its business to align postal services with the choices of Canadians.
With regard to (c) and (d), as a crown corporation that operates at arm’s length from the government, Canada Post is responsible for its own corporate planning. By regulation, Canada Post is required to submit its annual corporate plan to the minister. As such, Transport Canada does not instruct Canada Post.
Transport Canada reviewed the corporate plan to ensure its compliance with applicable legislation and regulations as well as to assess its alignment with government priorities. As per the Access to Information Act, details of the analysis, recommendations, and any related information are considered cabinet confidence and cannot be disclosed.
With regard to (e), Canada Post is a crown corporation that operates at arm’s length from the Government of Canada. As such, the corporation is responsible for the management of its present and future operations. Finance Canada has been aware of Canada Post’s declining financial situation through the tabling of the corporation’s annual reports in Parliament, as well as through quarterly reports and corporate plan summaries.
Under section 127 of the Financial Administration Act, when a crown corporation intends to borrow, the Minister of Finance may require that his recommendation, in addition to that of the appropriate minister, be obtained before a corporate plan is submitted to the Governor in Council for approval. The Minister of Finance has exercised this authority with respect to Canada Post.

Question No. 268--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to the operations of the Halifax Port Authority (the Authority): (a) what was the total loss incurred by the Authority as a result of the bankruptcy of American Feeder Line; (b) what were the total bad debts of the Authority in each of the last five years; (c) what are the costs and revenues respecting the Halifax Port Authority’s management of the Halifax Seaport Farmers Market; (d) what are the costs and revenues with respect to the Nova Scotia College of Art & Design lease with the Authority; (e) what are the aged account receivables of the Authority for each of the last five years; (f) what charities and community programs has the Authority contributed to and in what amount in each of the last 5 years; (g) what travel expenses were incurred by each member of the board of the Authority and the top five staff of the Authority in each of the last five years, and in each case what destinations were involved in the travel; (h) for the last five years, how many metric tonnes of goods moved between the mid-west of the United States of America and (i) China, (ii) India, (iii) Vietnam via the Port of Halifax; (i) what offices or operations does the Authority maintain outside of Halifax and what is the total cost per year of maintaining these offices; (j) what dollar amount is paid to directors of the Authority for meetings and other duties; (k) what is the total dollar amount paid to all directors of the Authority for each of the last five years; (l) what specific club memberships and professional fees are paid for each staff member and member of the Authority board; (m) are barrister society fees currently paid for the Authority president, or have they been in the past, and how much was this fee for each of the last five years; (n) what was the revenue collected by the Authority for each of the last five years, broken down as follows: income related to the two container terminals and their shipping line customers, leases, wharfage and harbour dues; (o) what was the number of Authority employees on August 1 for each of the last five years; and (p) what was the number of Authority contract employees on August 1 for each of the last five years?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Halifax Port Authority is a self-governing entity that operates at arm’s length from the crown and is fully responsible for administering, managing, and operating, on a stand-alone basis, the Port of Halifax, for which it is accountable. Transport Canada does not receive third party financial information from the Halifax Port Authority.
Therefore, all questions pertaining to the administration, management, and operations of the Port of Halifax should be addressed directly to the Halifax Port Authority.

Question No. 293--
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach:
With regard to procurement contracts signed by the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC): (a) what are the limits imposed by the national treatment principle in the free trade agreements that Canada has signed for procurement contracts for food and all other types of goods; (b) what are the procurement thresholds for each free trade agreement below which national treatment does not apply; (c) what are the procurement thresholds set out in the Agreement on Internal Trade; and (d) of all the food procurement contracts signed by PWGSC, what proportion have a total value below the thresholds allowed under the free trade agreements?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the trade agreements do not have limits on their national treatment provisions, which are obligations under the agreements. For procurement that is covered by the trade agreements, Canada cannot give preference to Canadian companies.
With regard to (b), for food procurements as well as for all other types of goods, the threshold for the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, is $25,200 Canadian—that is, procurement of food, when the estimated value is $25,200 Canadian or above, is subject to the agreement. The threshold for food procurement for all other international trade agreements is either the same as NAFTA's or higher. However, when food procurement is covered by any other international trade agreements, it is also covered by NAFTA, and the lowest applicable threshold is the one used to determine whether Canada, when doing a covered procurement, could give preference to Canadian companies.
With regard to (c), for food procurements and for all other types of goods, the threshold for the Agreement on Internal Trade is $25,000.
With regard to (d), procurement valued at $25,000 and over is subject to one or more trade agreements.
Over the past three fiscal years, or FY, the proportions of food procurement contracts signed by PWGSC and valued below $25,000 were as follows. In FY 2012-13, PWGSC awarded nine food procurement contracts valued below $25,000. The total value of these contracts was $112,494, which represents 0.64% of the $17,706,930 total value of all food contracts in that fiscal year.
In FY 2011-12, PWGSC awarded 11 food procurement contracts valued below $25,000. The total value of these contracts was $151,423, which represents 2.3% of the $6,536,876 total value of all food contracts in that fiscal year.
In FY 2010-11, PWGSC awarded 11 food procurement contracts valued below $25,000. The total value of these contracts was $169,636, which represents 0.53% of the $32,202,897 total value of all food contracts in that fiscal year.
Collapse
Agreement on Internal TradeAmbrose, RonaBaird, JohnBituminous sandsBlock, KellyBoard of directorsCanada Post CorporationCanada Post’s Five-point Action PlanCanada's Action Plan for the Implementat ...Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchCommunity mail boxes ...Show all topics
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2014-01-27 15:29
Expand

Question No. 102--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-Being (NDPHS): (a) on what date did the government commit to participate in the Partnership; (b) what was Canada’s committed annual financial contribution; (c) has Canada ever made a financial contribution to the NDPHS and, if so, how much; (d) what groups and organizations did the government consult in its decision to withdraw from the NDPHS; (e) has the government received any form of communication from other members of the NDPHS regarding Canada’s withdrawal from the Partnership; and (f) was the Minister of Health ever advised on withdrawing from the NDPHS by her department and, if so, what was the department’s recommendation?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-being, NDPHS, was established through the Oslo declaration on October 27, 2003. Canada participated in the adoption of the declaration.
With regard to (b), in September 2004, at the second NDPHS meeting of the committee of senior representatives a voluntary financing model for the NDPHS secretariat was agreed upon. Under this model, Canada was scheduled to contribute 8% of the secretariat budget. As countries--France, Denmark--withdrew from the NDPHS, Canada’s contribution grew to almost 12%, or 38,517 euros in 2011.
With regard to (c), Canada contributed to NDPHS between 2004 and 2011, with the amounts varying depending on the secretariat’s budget and the percentage requested from Canada. Over the course of eight years, Canada contributed 217,871 euros.
With regard to (d), Health Canada held interdepartmental consultations with the departments that had been engaged in the work of NDPHS. These included the Public Health Agency of Canada, Correctional Services Canada, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Health Canada also consulted the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, ITK, the national Inuit organization in Canada, as well as the Assembly of First Nations.
With regard to (e), the response is no.
With regard to (f), yes, Health Canada’s recommendation was to withdraw from the NDPHS, noting Canada’s limited engagement in NDPHS activities and overlap in programming with other key multilateral organizations that Canada is actively engaged with, including the World Health Organization; the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO; and UNAIDS.

Question No. 109--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the news release dated May 8, 2013, in which the Minister of National Revenue announced “new measures” to fight overseas tax evasion including “An additional $15 million in reallocated CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) funds that will be used to bring in new audit and compliance resources dedicated exclusively to international compliance issues and revenue collection identified as a result of measures outlined in Economic Action Plan 2013”: (a) what, specifically, are these “new audit and compliance resources”; (b) what is each projected to cost; and (c) from where, within the CRA, will the $15 million be “reallocated”?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the additional $15 million over five years in reallocated Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, funds will be used to bring in new audit and compliance resources to address international compliance issues and revenue collection identified as a result of measures outlined in economic action plan, EAP, 2013. The new audit and compliance resources will be used to hire additional audit staff to target the high-risk workload and to counter international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. The new audit and compliance resources in respect of the additional $15 million in reallocated CRA funds, together with the $15 million that was announced in EAP 2013 in support of the electronic funds transfer measure, will be implemented over time as the EAP 2013 measures come into force.
The new audit and compliance resources will complement the EAP measures to enable the CRA to more effectively address international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. Specifically, the new audit and compliance resources will be used to undertake the highest risk cases of international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance identified as a result of enhanced business intelligence tools, treaty exchanges, and other information sources; to pursue additional high risk international cases; and to fund other directly related program specific costs, such as appeals and revenue collection.
These resources will be phased in over the course of the five-year period commencing within the next year.
With regard to (b), as was mentioned in response to (a), as of the date of the question, new resources will be implemented over time as the EAP 2013 comes into force, phased in over a five-year period. As a result, the CRA is unable at this time to confirm the specific breakdown of the projected cost by audit and compliance resources beyond the $15 million figure cited.
With regard to (c), the $15 million will be reallocated from within existing CRA funding as approved by Parliament and Treasury Board. It is a common practice to monitor spending across all programs and activities and, where operational efficiencies can be realized, to reallocate savings to high priority activities accordingly.

Question No. 111--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to the Privy Council Office, and to the following documents: the Information to Obtain a Production Order and a Sealing Order, made on June 24th, 2013 by Corporal Greg Horton of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Ottawa, Ontario, before Chantal Dominique Marie Lurette, a Commissioner for the Taking of Oaths in the Province of Ontario, in which he states he has reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that offences contrary to an Act of Parliament have been made by Michael Duffy; the statements made in the Senate by Senator Michael Duffy on October 22, 2013, and statements made to the press on October 21, 2013 in Ottawa by Donald Bayne, a lawyer of that city acting on behalf of Senator Duffy: (a) does the Access to Information Directorate of the Privy Council Office still conclude that no records exist with regard to Access to Information requests A-2013-00231, A-2013-00232, A-2013-00233, A-2013-00075, A-2013-00076, A-2013-00077, A-2013-00080, A-2013-00085, A-2013-00099, A-2013-00101, A-2013-00103, A-2013-00104, A-2013-00105, A-2013-00106, A-2013-00113, A-2013-00114, A-2013-00116, A-2013-00120, A-2013-00125, A-2013-00126, A-2013-00131, A-2013-00132, A-2013-00139, and A-2012-00751; (b) will the Directorate re-examine the handling of those requests in light of the new information outlined above; (c) did the Privy Council Office formerly hold records which would have satisfied one or more of those requests; (d) if so, were the records transferred, removed, or destroyed; (e) if transferred or removed, to whose custody or control were they transferred or removed; (f) if destroyed, when were they destroyed, on what date or dates was the destruction approved, and what is the file number of any order, instruction, directive, or authorization concerning their transfer, removal, or destruction?
Response
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office, PCO, offers non-partisan, objective policy advice and information to support the Prime Minister and cabinet. For more information on PCO’s mandate please visit pco.gc.ca.
Subsection 4(1) of the Access to Information Act states:
“Subject to this Act, but notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, every person who is (a) a Canadian citizen, or (b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to any record under the control of a government institution.”
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) clearly states that the Prime Minister’s Office and ministerial offices are not part of the “government institution” for which they are responsible, thus exempting these offices from the provisions of the Access to Information Act.
PCO did not advise the Prime Minister on this matter. Therefore, it is not unexpected that records were not found within PCO with regard to access to information requests A-2013-00231, A-2013-00232, A-2013-00233, A-2013-00075, A-2013-00076, A-2013-00077, A-2013-00080, A-2013-00085, A-2013-00099, A-2013-00101, A-2013-00103, A-2013-00104, A-2013-00105, A-2013-00106, A-2013-00113, A-2013-00114, A-2013-00116, A-2013-00120, A-2013-00125, A-2013-00126, A-2013-00131, A-2013-00132, A-2013-00139, and A-2013-00751.

Question No. 112--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With respect to Senate motions No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 seeking to suspend Senators Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin without pay: (a) was the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) or the Privy Council Office (PCO) consulted or involved in the drafting of the motions, and, if so, who was involved; (b) what are the details of the emails, briefing notes, reports or other documents that were prepared by, or provided to, the PMO or the PCO for the purpose, in whole or in part, of drafting the motions, specifically the titles or files or reference numbers of those documents; (c) what meetings have the PMO or the PCO had, or been involved in, regarding, in whole or in part, the motions; (d) who attended the meetings in (c); (e) what are the details of the emails, briefing notes, reports or other documents that were prepared for or provided, in whole or in part, at these meetings, specifically the titles or files or reference numbers of those documents?
Response
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office was not consulted or involved in the drafting of Senate motions No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4.

Question No. 113--
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
With regard to contracts that have been entered into by the government, which require the other contracting party to provide “industrial regional benefits” or other similar offsets across the country, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many have there been; (b)what were the specific commitments made in each case; (c) what is their individual and cumulative dollar value; (d) in which provinces were each of the said benefits/offsets to accrue; and (e) in each case, to what extent have the commitments been honoured?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to contracts that have been entered into by the government that require the other contracting party to provide industrial regional benefits or other similar offsets across the country, since January 1, 2006, Industry Canada reports the following.
In response to (a), the projects are listed on the Industrial Regional Benefits, IRB, website, www.ic.gc.ca/irb.
In response to (b), in 54 of the contracts, the contractor’s IRB commitment is 100% of the contract value. In 2 contracts, the IRB commitment is 80% of the contract value.
In response to (c), the IRB obligation value for these contracts is available on the IRB website, www.ic.gc.ca/irb.
In response to (d), while there are IRB commitments and activities occurring in all provinces in Canada, provincial statistics are not tracked and reported.
In response to (e), contractors report to Industry Canada annually on their IRB activities. All contractors are on track to meet their IRB obligations by the end of their contract.

Question No. 118--
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:
With regard to pensioners’ contributions to the Public Service Health Care Plan (PSHCP) for retired public servants: (a) does the government intend to double or increase plan premiums; (b) is it accurate to say that PSHCP contribution rates (as a percentage for the pensioner and the government) are the result of an agreement between these two parties and, if so (i) when was this decision made, (ii) what is the rationale for this possible increase, (iii) how will the government go about implementing it; (c) what real savings will result from this premium increase; and (d) have studies been carried out in this regard, (ii) what were the findings?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, budget 2013 identified the Government of Canada’s intention to continue to ensure that the public service is affordable, modern and high-performing. To help do this, the government also indicated that it would examine overall employee compensation and pensioner benefits. Discussions are under way on the public service health care plan in a forum that includes bargaining agents and the National Association of Federal Retirees to ensure that retiree health benefits remain financially sustainable and comparable with other private and public sector organizations. At this time, no specific decisions through this forum have been made.

Question No. 125--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office: (a) how many records exist regarding the letter of understanding between the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy regarding the payment of $90,127 to cover Senator Duffy’s living expenses; and (b) what are the details of each record?
Response
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office, PCO, offers non-partisan, objective policy advice and information to support the Prime Minister and cabinet. For more information on PCO’s mandate please visit pco.gc.ca.
The PCO has no records of information regarding a letter of understanding between the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy.

Question No. 126--
Mr. Justin Trudeau:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, what are the details of the letter of understanding between the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy regarding the payment of $90,127 to cover Senator Duffy’s living expenses?
Response
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office, PCO, offers non-partisan, objective policy advice and information to support the Prime Minister and cabinet. For more information on PCO’s mandate please visit pco.gc.ca.
The PCO has no records of information regarding a letter of understanding between the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy.

Question No. 128--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what programs does the Fish, Food and Allied Workers’ (FFAW) union administer for DFO; (b) does the FFAW have any contracts with DFO; (c) does the FFAW administer the Dockside Monitoring Program for DFO; (d) does the FFAW receive any money for administering this contract; (e) does the FFAW administer the Stewardship Fisheries for DFO; and (f) does the FFAW receive money for administering this contract?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the FFAW delivers the cod sentinel survey; the fisheries science collaborative program, FSCP; and post-season snow crab pot surveys, the aquaculture impact on lobsters and crab in Connaigre Bay and Eastport lobster marine protected area.
The FFAW applied for and received funding under the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures, ALSM, program and administers it on behalf of lobster harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador.
With regard to (b), while these are not contracts, under the ALSM program, DFO and the FFAW signed contribution agreements. The remaining programs listed above are administered via contracts from DFO through PWGSC.
With regard to (c), the FFAW does not administer the dockside monitoring program for DFO.
With regard to (e), no, the FFAW does not administer any stewardship fisheries for DFO.
With regard to (d) and (f), it is not applicable.

Question No. 135--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to the Respect for Communities Act: (a) how many of the following were consulted in the development of the legislation, (i) health care providers, (ii) front-line service providers, (iii) medical research professionals specializing in addictions treatment, (iv) medical research professionals specializing in concurrent mental health and addictions treatment, (v) police departments, (vi) police officers; (b) of the organizations mentioned in the answer to (a), who from each organization was involved; (c) over what time period did the consultations take place; (d) which ministries were involved in the development of the legislation; and (e) from those ministries listed in the answer to (d), who from each ministry was consulted?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2, the respect for communities act, was developed further to the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding InSite.
In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada set out five factors that the Minister of Health must consider when assessing any future applications of this nature, including evidence, if any, of the impact of such a facility on crime rates; the local conditions indicating a need for such a supervised injection site; the regulatory structure in place to support the facility; the resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support or opposition. Bill C-2 builds and expands upon these factors, setting out criteria that applicants would need to address when seeking an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with illicit substances at a supervised consumption site.
The proposed legislation was designed to allow for a range of stakeholders to provide their opinion on an exemption application for a specific supervised consumption site. For example, letters of opinion would be required from provincial/territorial ministers responsible for health and public safety, local government, the lead public health official in the province, and the head of the local police force.
Individual Canadians would be engaged directly through the proposed authority to allow the Minister of Health to publicly post a notice of application regarding proposed supervised consumption sites. Once posted, members of the public would have 90 days to provide comments to the minister.
Applicants would also have to provide a report of consultations with professional licensing authorities for physicians and nurses. The applicant would also have to consult community stakeholders and provide to the minister, among other things, a description of how any relevant stakeholder concerns would be addressed.
By addressing the criteria set out in the proposed act, applicants would provide the Minister of Health with information needed to balance public health and public safety considerations in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when assessing such applications.
In the development of the proposed legislation, Health Canada consulted with Public Safety Canada, Justice Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and central agencies.

Question No. 136--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
On what date and in what manner did the government receive a payment from Mike Duffy or his associates for expense claims?
Response
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office has no information regarding a payment from Senator Mike Duffy or his associates for expense claims. The Senate would have information about payments it has received.

Question No. 138--
Mrs. Anne-Marie Day:
With regard to jobs in the public service between May 2011 and September 2013, broken down by department, located in the ridings of (i) Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier, (ii) Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles, (iii) Louis-Hébert, (iv) Louis-Saint-Laurent, (v) Québec, (vi) Beauport–Limoilou: (a) how many positions were cut; and (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were hired?
Response
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Public Service Commission does not collect data with respect to how many positions were cut in the federal government.
With regard to (b), the commission’s information systems do not capture public service hiring information by federal riding.

Question No. 145--
Mr. Sean Casey:
With regard to the Privy Council Office, and to the following documents: an e-mail, dated December 4, 2012, between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy, tabled in the Senate on October 28, 2013 as Sessional Paper No. 2/41-112S; e-mail correspondence, dated February 11, 2013, between Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright, tabled in the Senate on October 28, 2013 as Sessional Paper No. 2/41-113S; an e-mail, dated May 15, 2013, between Senator Duffy and Chris Woodcock, referenced on the CBC News Network program “Power and Politics“ on October 28, 2013, and published on the program's Web site; and the statements made in the Senate by Senator Michael Duffy on October 28, 2013: (a) does the Access to Information Directorate of the Privy Council Office still conclude that no records exist with regard to Access to Information requests A-2013-00231, A-2013-00232, A-2013-00233, A-2013-00075, A-2013-00076, A-2013-00077, A-2013-00080, A-2013-00085, A-2013-00099, A-2013-00101, A-2013-00103, A-2013-00104, A-2013-00105, A-2013-00106, A-2013-00113, A-2013-00114, A-2013-00116, A-2013-00120, A-2013-00125, A-2013-00126, A-2013-00131, A-2013-00132, A-2013-00139, and A-2012-00751; (b) will the Directorate re-examine the handling of those requests in light of the new information outlined above; (c) did the Privy Council Office formerly hold records which would have satisfied one or more of those requests; (d) if so, were the records transferred, removed, or destroyed; (e) if transferred or removed, to whose custody or control were they transferred or removed; (f) if destroyed, when were they destroyed, on what date or dates was the destruction approved, and what is the file number of any order, instruction, directive, or authorization concerning their transfer, removal, or destruction?
Response
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office, PCO, offers non-partisan, objective policy advice and information to support the Prime Minister and Cabinet. For more information on PCO’s mandate, members may visit pco.gc.ca.
Subsection 4(1) of the Access to Information Act states:
Subject to this Act, but notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, every person who is (a) a Canadian citizen, or (b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to any record under the control of a government institution.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) clearly states that the Prime Minister’s Office and ministerial offices are not part of the “government institution” for which they are responsible, thus exempting these offices from provisions of the Access to Information Act.
PCO did not advise the Prime Minister on this matter. Therefore, it is not unexpected that records were not found within PCO with regard to Access to Information requests A-2013-00231, A-2013-00232, A-2013-00233, A-2013-00075, A-2013-00076, A-2013-00077, A-2013-00080, A-2013-00085, A-2013-00099, A-2013-00101, A-2013-00103, A-2013-00104, A-2013-00105, A-2013-00106, A-2013-00113, A-2013-00114, A-2013-00116, A-2013-00120, A-2013-00125, A-2013-00126, A-2013-00131, A-2013-00132, A-2013-00139, and A-2013-00751.

Question No. 147--
Mr. Guy Caron:
With regard to the report by Caroline Desbiens, the lawyer mandated in June 2012 by the Minister of Transport to investigate the notices of objection to the proposal to repeal the Laurentian Pilotage Authority District No. 3 Regulations: (a) when is the report scheduled to be released; (b) which groups and individuals did Ms. Desbiens consult as part of her investigation; and (c) how many submissions or written notices have been sent to Ms. Desbiens?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Transport Canada is presently studying the report. The release date has not been established.
With regard to (b), in the framework of the investigation, representatives from Transport Canada, the Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, the Agence Océanique du Bas-Saint-Laurent, the Agence Marine Montreal Inc., and other individuals were met with or reached by telephone.
With regard to (c), Transport Canada did not submit any memorandum or written comments to Ms. Desbiens during the investigation.

Question No. 154--
Ms. Libby Davies:
With regard to the letters that Health Canada mailed to over 40 000 participants in the current medical marihuana access program (MMAP), which disclosed their personal address information on an envelope marked as being from the MMAP: (a) what are the standard protocols governing the communication of changes to medical programs from Health Canada, and what laws or regulations govern these protocols; (b) which branch and department is responsible for mailing out correspondence about the MMAP; (c) how many full-time employees and managers were involved in communicating the MMAP changes in this mail-out; (d) what protocols are followed once a breach of privacy has occurred; (e) what were all of the steps taken when this MMAP privacy breach occurred in November 2013; (f) were the changes that were made to the MMAP subject to a privacy impact assessment; and (g) was that assessment reviewed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Health Canada is governed by the same communications protocols as other government departments, including the communications policy of the Government of Canada and any directives and guidelines set forth by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS.
With regard to (b), typically correspondence with respect to the program is mailed out by the Bureau of Medical Cannabis, which is part of the Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, or HECSB, of Health Canada. In the case of this mail-out, considering the volume of letters to be sent and the number of pages per envelope, Health Canada entered into a memorandum of agreement with Canada Post to conduct this mailing.
With regard to (c), it is not possible to accurately quantify the number of people involved in the mail-out.
With regard to (d), Health Canada has a comprehensive process that is followed in cases where a privacy breach may have occurred. When a possible breach is reported to the Access to Information and Privacy Division, ATIP, privacy and program officials work together to gather facts and assess next steps. In keeping with the TBS guidelines on privacy breaches and Health Canada’s own process, when the department assesses that a breach may have occurred, the principles of containment, notification, and mitigation are followed. Through this process a review of the incident and all associated events occurs.
With regard to (e), although it has not been determined by the courts or by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the OPC, that this incident constitutes a privacy breach, Health Canada has taken the expressed privacy concerns very seriously. The department is taking steps to ensure this does not happen again. Given ongoing litigation and OPC investigation, Health Canada is not in a position to comment further.
With regard to (f), Health Canada met with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, MMPR, to review the new framework. In addition, as part of the implementation of the new regime, a PIA process is in progress for the MMPR. Under the MMPR, Health Canada will no longer collect personal information on program participants, who now number over 37,000 Canadians, as it did under the old program. Instead, it will be in receipt of information from those applying to become licensed producers. The PIA is focused on ensuring adequate protection mechanisms for this type of data.
With regard to (g), once the PIA process is complete as required by Treasury Board policy, the PIA will be submitted to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Question No. 158--
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:
With regard to occupation of the former Embassy of the United States of America, located directly across from Parliament Hill at 100 Wellington Street, and its annex at 128 Wellington Street, which are listed on the Treasury Board of Canada website as “fully occupied”: (a) by whom are the buildings occupied; (b) since when have they occupied the building and annex; (c) how long is the lease for the building and annex; and (d) for what purposes are they occupying the building and annex?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the 100 Wellington Street and the 128 Wellington Street buildings owned by the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada are vacant.
With regard to (b), the buildings have been vacant since the late 1990s.
With regard to (c), no lease exists.
With regard to (d), no tenants occupy the buildings.
Members should note that PWGSC is working with the Treasury Board Secretariat to correct the outdated information in the Directory of Federal Real Property.

Question No. 160--
Ms. Chris Charlton:
With regard to the City of Hamilton's legal action against the government over the environmental assessment of the Red Hill Creek Expressway: (a) what is the amount of money spent by the government on this action to date; (b) what is the current status of the legal action; and (c) which documents filed with the court from either party can be accessed by the public and made available?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total legal cost.
The total legal cost is approximately $2,390,600.61.
With regard to (b), this action is currently at the oral discovery stage. The plaintiffs have completed examinations for discovery of 11 defendants.
With regard to (c), all documents filed with the court are accessible by the public.

Question No. 163--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act (CATSA): (a) how many aerodromes have submitted a request to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations since 2002, broken down by year; (b) which aerodromes have submitted a request to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations since 2002, broken down by year; (c) what criteria must be met for an aerodrome to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations; and (d) since 2002, have there been any changes to the criteria for assessing a request to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations and, if so, (i) what criteria have been added, (ii) what criteria have been removed?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since 2002 there have been 12 requests for aerodromes to be added to the schedule of the CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations, most within the last two years. It should be noted that some of these requests were submitted by municipalities or others on behalf of an aerodrome.
With regard to (b), the aerodromes in question are as follows: Mont Tremblant, Québec, in 2004; Red Deer, Alberta, in 2004; Puvirnituq, Québec, in 2009-2013; Trois-Rivières, Québec, in 2009-2011; Schefferville, Québec, in 2012; St. Catharines, Niagara District, Ontario, in 2012-2013; Bromont, Québec, in 2013; Cold Lake, Alberta, in 2013; Dawson City Airport, Yukon, in 2013; Edson, Alberta, in 2013; Sherbrooke, Québec, in 2013; and Northern Rockies Regional Airport, Fort Nelson, B.C, in 2013.
With regard to (c), Transport Canada’s security risk methodology is used to determine whether CATSA screening is required at a Canadian airport through the assessment of various criteria including, but not limited to, passenger volumes and threat information. Together the criteria capture the overall risk environment at a particular airport. For security reasons, Transport Canada does not discuss the specific criteria used in the risk assessment.
With regard to (d), the security risk methodology was established in 2005. There have been no changes to the criteria since that time.

Question No. 164--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to the $14 million referred to by Mr. Terrance McAuley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Programs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, in the following comments made at the February 5, 2013, meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on the case of Canadians with secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein, “That project is virtually complete now… We have gone through the list and we have conducted 47 audits and identified $22.4 million in outstanding tax from a base of approximately $100 million in raw assets. From that, we are now in the process… we have finished collecting approximately $8 million of that. With respect to the balance, roughly $14 million is currently before the courts.”: (a) how many cases does that represent; (b) how many of these assessments were appealed; (c) what are the dates when each appeal was filed; and (d) in what courts were these appeals filed?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, during a study of tax evasion and the use of tax havens at the February 5, 2013, meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the following question was put:
“I understand Project Jade was the ability of the CRA to go after those who came out of the Liechtenstein tax evasion situation in 2008. Apparently, 106 Canadians were involved. It was expected that millions of dollars in back taxes and penalties would result. Could you update us on what happened with respect to that?”
This question prompted the reply cited in written question Q-164.
Through its objection process, the CRA provides a fair and impartial administrative process for resolving disputes between taxpayers and the CRA. Filing a notice of objection is the first step in the process of resolving a dispute between a taxpayer and the CRA. If a taxpayer does not agree with the CRA’s decision resulting from a notice of objection, a further appeal can be brought to the Tax Court of Canada, the TCC. The TCC is an independent court of law that regularly conducts hearings in major centres across Canada.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), members should please note that the stated amount of “roughly $14 million” refers to matters being considered under dispute resolution processes, which include cases under the objection process as well as cases before the court.
With respect to Project Jade, as of December 4, 2013--i.e., the date of the question--eleven taxpayers have filed objections with the CRA, i.e., its administrative process. Of these, the CRA has reviewed and resolved the objections of ten taxpayers. The objections of one taxpayer are currently under review.
With respect to the appeal process, as of December 4, 2013--i.e., the date of the question--one taxpayer has filed an appeal with the court.
With regard to (c), it is possible for taxpayers to each file more than one objection. For example, one could be filed for each tax year assessed. For the eleven taxpayers referred to in part (b), 19 objections in all were filed between May 2009 and March 2013.
With respect to appeals before the court, court records are a matter of public record and are available for consultation by the public. However, confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act limit the information the CRA can provide when the release of that information might lead, either directly or indirectly, to the identification of a taxpayer. With respect to the appeal in court mentioned in part (b), providing the exact date the appeal was filed could indirectly lead to the identification of the taxpayer involved with Project Jade; therefore, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested.
With regard to part (d), the objections referred to in parts (b) and (c) were filed with the CRA.
The appeal referred to in parts (b) and (c) was filed with the Tax Court of Canada, the TCC. The date the taxpayer’s appeal will be heard will be determined by the TCC in due time.

Question No. 165--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to (41-2) Q-42, (41-1) Q-1057, and all other Order Paper questions in the 41st Parliament that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, for the government as a whole and broken down by department: (a) in terms of staff time required to answer a question, does the government consider the following numbers of hours to be higher than the number beyond which it will refuse to answer a question: (i) 1-40 hours, (ii) 41-80 hours, (iii) 81-120 hours, (iv) 121-160 hours, (v) 161-200 hours, (vi) 201-300 hours, (vii) 301-500 hours, (viii) 501-1000 hours, (ix) 1001-2000 hours, (x) 2001-5000 hours, (xi) 5001-10000 hours, (xii) 10001-20000 hours, (xiii) more than 20000 hours; (b) in terms of cost expended to answer a question, does the government consider the following costs to be higher than the number beyond which it will refuse to answer a question: (i) $1-$100, (ii) $101-$500, (iii) $501-$1,000, (iv) $1,001-$1,500, (v) $1,501-$2,000, (vi) $2,001-$2,500, (vii) $2,501-$3,000, (viii) $3,001-$3,500, (ix) $3,501- $4,000, (x) $4,001-$5,000, (xi) $5,001-$7,500, (xii) $7,501-$10,000, (xiii) $10,001-$20,000, (xiv) $20,001-$50,000, (xv) $50,001-$100,000, (xvi) $100,001-$500,000, (xvii) $500,001-$1,000,000, and (xviii) more than $1,000,000; (c) for each Order Paper question that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, (i) what was the anticipated cost in staff time and money, (ii) by how much did this exceed the tolerance for answering the question in time and money; and (d) for each Order Paper question that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, (i) how many days did it take for the government to conclude the question could not or could only partially be answered, (ii) how many days prior to the answer being tabled in the House was this conclusion reached?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the preamble to the question as well as the preambles to parts (c) and (d), the government has responded to all questions placed on the order paper during the 41st Parliament with the exception of questions on the order paper when the House adjourned in December 2013, questions withdrawn by the member who asked the question, and questions on the order paper at the time of the prorogation of the first session.
If a member designates a question as a priority question, the government’s time period to produce a response is limited to 45 days. Except as noted earlier, the government has provided a response on or before this 45-day deadline to every such priority question.
With respect to parts (a) and (b), the government has not refused to answer any questions on the order paper. A response has been provided to each question, subject to the limited exceptions noted earlier.
Extensive manual searches, tabulations, and organization of information, which would divert a number of public servants away from their primary responsibilities, are sometimes required for preparing a comprehensive response to a question. If this is required, it may be determined that preparing a comprehensive response to a question, or some part of it, is not feasible. Such a determination is made in view of the resources then available, rather than applying an arbitrary threshold of time estimated for, or cost associated with, preparing a comprehensive response.
Ministers remain responsible for the content of responses that they sign or that their Ministers of State or parliamentary secretaries sign on their behalf.
With respect to parts (c) and (d), and despite the earlier response with respect to the preambles to those parts, from the opening of the 41st Parliament until December 10, 2013, Members of the House of Commons have posed some 1,662 written questions, including many questions which each contain dozens of parts or sub-questions. An extensive manual review of each response provided by the Government, together with the processes associated with preparing each response, would be required to provide a comprehensive response in the present case; such reviews are not feasible given the 45-day limit placed on responding to this question.

Question No. 166--
Mr. Scott Simms:
With regard to the snowmobile protests that took place in Terra Nova National Park between January 2010 and December 2011 and all events and circumstances related to these protests, what are the details of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, or other written material pertaining to these events, including those relating to any related Access to Information requests?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, a breakdown of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, and other written material pertaining to the snowmobile protests that took place in Terra Nova National Park between January 2010 and December 2011 is as follows:
Briefing notes, 15; emails, 417; internal action plans, 20; internal recommendations, 3; ministerial correspondence, 22; letter, 1; and other written material, 23.

Question No. 167--
Mr. Denis Blanchette:
With regard to the legal action taken by the 2005 government against Canadian National (CN) about respecting agreements for maintaining the Quebec Bridge, which has since split into two lawsuits: (a) what were the legal costs, broken down by year, for both lawsuits from 2005 to today; (b) what portion of the amount spent on legal fees for these lawsuits was spent on accommodation, travel and meals; (c) what firms are defending or have defended the government in these two lawsuits against CN; (d) what is the average hourly rate charged by the firms representing the government during the CN lawsuits; (e) what is the total number of hours billed to the government between 2005 and today, broken down by year; and (f) what are the projected annual budgets in the years ahead for the lawsuits against CN?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal crown asserts that privilege and, in this case, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total legal cost.
The total legal cost is approximately $381,792.94.
With regard to (c) through (e), a legal agent was not retained to represent the interests of Her Majesty the Queen.
With regard to (f), no formal budget has been established.

Question No. 168--
Ms. Yvonne Jones :
With regard to National Defence, what are the details of the projects which will be funded by the $107 million which has been allocated for planned investments in infrastructure at 5 Wing Goose Bay, as referred to in the government’s response to Q-61 in the current session of Parliament?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, on June 4, 2013, the former Associate Minister of National Defence spoke about $407 million in investments at 5 Wing Goose Bay, which included approximately $107 million that was spent or has been allocated for planned investments in infrastructure at 5 Wing Goose Bay. The details of the investments are as follows: central heating plant maintenance, aerodrome main ramp repairs, Hangar 8 repairs, building repairs to replace windows and roofs, infrastructure maintenance to various building and taxiways, conversion of the residential housing units’ heating system from steam to electric heating, and minor projects such as providing a Canex refrigeration system and doors for Hangar 7.

Question No. 169--
Mr. Jean Rousseau:
With regard to the Canadian Initiative for the Economic Diversification of Communities Reliant on Chrysotile: (a) how many private businesses have applied for repayable loans to date and what are these businesses; (b) what are the amounts of the repayable loans extended to private businesses to date, broken down by business; (c) how many business support organizations have applied for grants to date and what are these organizations; (d) what are the amounts granted to business support organizations to date, broken down by business support organization; (e) how many non-profit organizations have applied for grants to date and what are these organizations; (f) what are the amounts granted to non-profit organizations to date, broken down by organization; (g) how many municipalities and RCMs have applied for grants to date and what are these municipalities and RCMs; and (h) what are the amounts granted to municipalities and RCMs to date, broken down by municipality and RCM?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian initiative for the economic diversification of communities reliant on chrysotile was launched on June 13, 2013.
In effect until March 31, 2020, with a budget of $50 million over the next seven years, the Canadian initiative for the economic diversification of communities reliant on chrysotile aims to help communities and businesses in the Des Sources and Des Appalaches regional county municipalities, or RCMs, make the transition to new economic activities, particularly in the secondary and tertiary sectors.
Managed by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec through its Quebec economic development program, this initiative builds on the priorities stated in the Government of Canada’s budget 2013, including investing in communities.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), between June 13, 2013, and December 5, 2013, the agency received seven applications for contributions from private businesses as part of the Canadian initiative for the economic diversification of communities reliant on chrysotile. As of December 5, 2013, the agency has granted three contributions for a total amount of $338,500. The names of the businesses that applied for loans could be considered third party information under the Access to Information Act. As no third party was consulted, the agency will not release that information. Since the agency adheres to the rules and principles governi