Questions and responses All Sessions January 17, 1994, to present

Refine your search

No search texts entered

Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-18

41-2
October 16, 2013, to August 2, 2015

Q-18

41st Parliament, 2nd session
Date asked
October 16, 2013
Answered
December 2, 2013
With regard to government spending in the constituency of Outremont, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the money was received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session. The government is no longer required to respond to this question.

Q-1387

41-1
June 2, 2011, to September 13, 2013

Q-1387

41st Parliament, 1st session
Date asked
May 28, 2013
Awaiting response
N/A
With regard to government spending in the constituency of Outremont, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the money was received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-336

40-3
March 3, 2010, to March 26, 2011

Q-336

40th Parliament, 3rd session
Date asked
June 15, 2010
Answered
September 20, 2010
What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Outremont, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount, including the date the funding was allocated?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-344

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-344

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Date asked
June 16, 2009
Answered
September 14, 2009
With regards to Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, passed during the First Session of the 38th Parliament and: (a) the Post-Secondary Education Infrastructure Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; (b) the Public Transit Capital Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; (c) the Affordable Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; d) the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; and e) the Northern Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-166

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-166

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Date asked
May 5, 2009
Answered
June 17, 2009
With regards to the operations of the Canada Desk of the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) and the Government of Canada's response: (a) when was the government first made aware of possible improper activity of the desk; (b) what were the immediate steps taken by the Canada Revenue Agency to allegations about the desk; (c) what is the estimated value of money that the desk held for each year from Canadian clients beginning in 2004 and ending this year; (d) what role has the government played in the Justice Department's investigations; (e) what is the estimated amount of tax leakage from this operation; (f) what were government departments able to determine about the locations in Canada that were used; and (g) what potential fines or penalties is the government considering at this time?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session. The government is no longer required to respond to this question.

Q-32

40-1
November 18, 2008, to December 4, 2008

Q-32

40th Parliament, 1st session
Date asked
November 25, 2008
Awaiting response
N/A
With respect to the fall 2008 purchase by the government of $75 billion in mortgage securities from Canadian financial institutions through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC): (a) what are the government's stated transaction objectives; (b) what were the terms and conditions of the transaction and what terms and conditions were sought by the government but rejected by the banks; (c) did the government seek assurances of interest rate cuts or greater credit access by consumers and companies in return for the credit swap and, if not, why not; (d) were any conditionalities placed on executive compensation packages in return for accessing the credit swap and, if so, what were they; if not, why not; (e) what oversight measures are in place to monitor how the banks use the credit; (f) will the Treasury Board Secretariat monitor the compliance with terms and conditions of the transaction and provide quarterly reporting to Parliament on the performance of the agreed upon benefits to Canadians; (g) how was the $75 billion disbursed; (h) which banks or financial institutions have accessed funds, on what dates and in what amounts; (i) what is the presumed economic stimulus of this bailout, (i) what is the anticipated economic return for the government from this credit swap, (ii) what are the financial and non financial benefits of this deal; (j) how long does the government anticipate holding these mortgages; (k) what is the underlying value of the mortgages held by the government and who valued them; (l) how many mortgages did the CMHC take possession of with the bailout; (m) in the event of a default on a mortgage loan, what are the financial liabilities and responsibilities borne by the government; (n) how many default mortgages does the government anticipate in fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010, on a residential and commercial basis; and (o) what was the total transaction fee incurred by the government?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session. The government is no longer required to respond to this question.

Q-31

40-1
November 18, 2008, to December 4, 2008

Q-31

40th Parliament, 1st session
Date asked
November 25, 2008
Awaiting response
N/A
With respect to contracting between the government and Hugh MacPhie and Associates since January 2006: (a) how many contracts have been awarded, (i) what was the date, value and duration of each contract, (ii) which departments or agencies awarded the contracts; (b) how many of these contracts were sole sourced at the discretion of Ministers of the Crown or their political exempt staff and how many were put to tender, (i) what were the terms and expected deliverables of each contract, (ii) what was the justification given for each sole sourced contract, (iii) who personally authorized each contract; (c) are there consequences for breaking Treasury Board guidelines and, if so, what are they, (i) what sanctions are available to the government to reprimand those that break Treasury Board guidelines, (ii) specifically, which consequences were available in the circumstance of a $122,000 contract awarded to MacPhie and Associates in which, according to the Minister of Finance, “administrative functions were not followed”, (iii) have these sanctions ever been used, in this or in other circumstances and, if so, in what instances; and (d) other than Budget 2007, how many times in the preceding 10 years has the Ministry of Finance hired private sector firms to develop “all budget communications” including the Budget Plan and Budget Speech, (i) who was so hired, at what cost, and when, (ii) were such contracts sole sourced or put to tender, (iii) if the former, who authorized them?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session. The government is no longer required to respond to this question.

Q-30

40-1
November 18, 2008, to December 4, 2008

Q-30

40th Parliament, 1st session
Date asked
November 25, 2008
Awaiting response
N/A
With respect to Canada’s fiscal framework: (a) with respect to the tax cuts announced in Budget 2008, which sectors benefited the most and the least from such a measure; (b) when drafting Budget 2008, what investments on social or infrastructure projects were proposed; (c) at the government’s current rate of tax cuts and program expenditure, how many years would it take until Canada is in a deficit situation, or the government is forced to curb program spending, (i) if the latter, by how much would the government need to do to afford it’s promised tax regime, (ii) if the former, how large a deficit would accrue, on an annual basis, over the next five year; (d) what is considered the largest source of tax “leakage” by the government on an annual basis for the last five years, (i) what are these losses worth on an annual basis, (ii) from which provinces are most of these losses incurred, (iii) which countries, in terms of size of Canadian assets, are considered the largest foreign tax havens, (iv) what plans, if any, does the government have to tighten restrictions on the use of such tax havens; (e) with respect to a comparison between a 0.5% cut to the lowest marginal tax rate and lowering the goods and services tax (GST) by 1%, which would benefit Canadians more, in dollars, according to income level, (i) with respect to a comparison between a $500 increase in the basic personal exemption and lowering the GST by 1%, which would benefit Canadians more, in dollars, according to income level; (f) with respect to the public transit tax credit, what was the anticipated cost of this measure prior to its implementation, (i) how many Canadian transit users, by urban centre, were expected to file for this credit, (ii) since its inception, on an annual basis, what has been the cost of implementing this tax credit, (iii) how many Canadian transit users, by urban centre, have filed for this credit, (iv) how many transit users were expected to file for it, (v) what would be the costs of extending this credit to users who pay for their transit on a basis other than with a monthly travel pass (i.e. on a daily or weekly basis, or by buying blocks of transit chits), (vi) by what margin was transit ridership expected to increase with the implementation of this tax credit, by urban area and on an annual basis, (vii) since the inception of this credit, how much has ridership increased or decreased, by urban area and on an annual basis; and (g) with respect to the tax credit to promote physical fitness among children, what was the anticipated cost of this measure prior to its implementation, (i) how many Canadian families, by urban centre, were expected to file for this credit, (ii) since its inception, on an annual basis, what has been the cost of implementing this tax credit, (iii) how many Canadian families, by urban centre, have filed for this credit, (iv) under existing regulations what length of time must a sports program be in operation for a family to be eligible for the tax credit, (v) what would be the costs of extending this credit to families who enrol children in sports programs whose duration is for two weeks or longer, (vi) since its implementation, what sports, by category (i.e. hockey, soccer, etc.), have most and least been utilized under this tax credit?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-250

39-2
October 16, 2007, to September 7, 2008

Q-250

39th Parliament, 2nd session
Date asked
April 16, 2008
Answered
May 30, 2008
With respect to newly implemented tax credits: (a) what was the anticipated cost of the public transit tax credit measure prior to its implementation and how many Canadian transit users, by urban centre, were expected to file for this credit; (b) since its inception, on an annual basis, what has been the cost of implementing the public transit tax credit and how many Canadian transit users, by urban centre, have filed for this credit; (c) what would be the costs of extending the public transit tax credit to users who pay for their transit on a basis other than with a monthly travel pass (i.e. on a daily or weekly basis, or by buying blocks of transit chits); (d) by what margin was transit ridership expected to increase with the implementation of this tax credit, by urban area and on an annual basis; (e) since the inception of this credit, how much has ridership increased or decreased, by urban area and on an annual basis; (f) what was the anticipated cost of the tax credit to promote physical fitness among children prior to its implementation; (g) how many Canadian families, by urban centre, were expected to file for this credit; (h) since its inception, on an annual basis, what has been the cost of implementing this tax credit; (i) how many Canadian families, by urban centre, have filed for this credit; (j) under existing regulations what length of time must a sports program be in operation for a family to be eligible for the tax credit; (k) what would be the costs of extending this credit to families who enroll children in sports programs whose duration is for two weeks or longer; and (l) since its implementation, what are the sports, by category that have most and least been utilized under this tax credit?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-249

39-2
October 16, 2007, to September 7, 2008

Q-249

39th Parliament, 2nd session
Date asked
April 16, 2008
Answered
May 30, 2008
With respect to Canada’s fiscal framework: (a) which sectors benefited the most from the tax cuts announced in The Budget Plan 2008; (b) when drafting The Budget Plan 2008, were investments on social or infrastructure projects considered but rejected in order to implement the tax cuts and, if so, which investments were rejected; (c) what is considered the largest source of tax “leakage” by the government on an annual basis for the last five years and (i) what are these losses worth on an annual basis, (ii) from which provinces are most of these losses incurred; (d) which countries, in terms of size of Canadian assets, are considered the largest foreign tax havens and what plans, if any, does the government have to tighten the restrictions on the use of such tax havens; (e) with respect to a comparison between a 0.5% cut to the lowest marginal tax rate and lowering the goods and services tax (GST) by 1%, which of these initiatives would benefit more Canadians, in dollars and people, according to income level; and (f) with respect to a comparison between a $ 500 increase in the basic personal exemption and lowering the GST by 1%, which of these initiatives would benefit more Canadians, in dollars and people, according to income level?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-248

39-2
October 16, 2007, to September 7, 2008

Q-248

39th Parliament, 2nd session
Date asked
April 16, 2008
Answered
June 2, 2008
With respect to the purchase, either by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for departments, agencies and Crown corporations, or by the individual departments, agencies and Crown corporations, in the fiscal years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 of (i) pencil cases and knapsacks, (ii) televisions, (iii) flowers, (iv) carbon off-set credits for air travel, (v) microwaves, (vi) flatware, (vii) wine glasses, (viii) cameras, both regular and digital, (ix) golf balls and tees, (x) business ties, (xi) candies, (xii) alcoholic beverages, (xiii) jams, jellies and preserves, (xiv) land mines and clusterbombs, (xv) games, toys and wheeled goods, (xvi) DVDs and CDs, (xvii) perfumes, toilet preparations and powders, (xviii) clothes and footwear for ministers of the Crown and their staff, (xix) iPods or similar devices, (xx) hockey sticks and other sporting goods, (xxi) Tim Hortons coupons: (a) by department, agency or Crown corporation, how many in each category were purchased; and (b) what was the total cost spent by either PWGSC or another department, agency or Crown corporation on each category?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-247

39-2
October 16, 2007, to September 7, 2008

Q-247

39th Parliament, 2nd session
Date asked
April 16, 2008
Answered
June 2, 2008
With respect to the purchase, either by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for departments, agencies and Crown corporations, or by the individual departments, agencies and Crown corporations, in the fiscal years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, of (i) media and public relations training, (ii) public opinion research, (iii) promotional materials related to press conferences only, (iv) hairstylists and estheticians, (v) spas and suntanning salons, (vi) sporting events, (vii) dry cleaning, (viii) taxis, (ix) retreats at resorts or conference centres: (a) by department, agency or Crown corporation, how many items or services in each category were purchased; (b) what was the total cost spent by either PWGSC or another department, agency or Crown corporation on each category; and (c) with respect to media training, what was the date and cost of each contract and who was the recipient of the training?
Top of page