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

With regard to government funding for each fiscal year from 2008-2009 to 2014-2015: what is the total amount allocated within the constituency of Beaches—East York, broken down by each (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

With regard to the Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) ethical procurement of apparel: (a) what are the details of information collected by PWGSC from suppliers and industry associations on their current practices concerning ethical manufacturers and sources of supply in the Request for Information on Ethical Sourcing of Apparel (E60PR-140001/A), published October 30, 2014, broken down by (i) company name, (ii) company’s answers provided for each questions; (b) what information has the Federal Task Force (FTF), which was established by PWGSC, to undertake research on the ethical sourcing of apparel in other jurisdictions as well as the practices of apparel suppliers in Canada with offshore production collected since the FTF was established; (c) which individuals make up the FTF, including (i) their qualifications, (ii) the decision-making process behind each of their appointments; (d) what companies or stakeholders has the FTF consulted; (e) what information has the FTF shared with the public on current sourcing policies; (f) according to the FTF, what constitutes an ethical supplier and what criteria or standards are used to evaluate whether a supplier can be considered ethical; (g) what options has the FTF put forward to buy clothing from ethical suppliers and enhance PWGSC’s procurement practices with regard to ethical sourcing of apparel; (h) what companies does the Department plan to consult regarding the options outlined in (g); (i) how does PWGSC plan to measure the effectiveness of their procurement practices with regard to ethical sourcing of apparel going forward; and (j) what is the estimated cost of establishing the FTF?

With regard to the New Building Canada Fund (NBCF), between 2013-2014 and the current fiscal year: (a) broken down by date of application, individual project, province, and municipality, what is the total number of applications submitted under each of the following components of the NBCF, (i) the National Infrastructure Component, (ii) the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component – National and Regional Projects (PTIC-NRP), (iii) the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component – Small Communities Fund (PTIC-SCF); (b) broken down by date of application, individual project, province, and municipality, what is the total amount of money requested under each component identified in (a); (c) broken down by date of application, individual project, province, and municipality, what are all the approved projects and the total amount of funding allocated under each component identified in (a); (d) broken down by date of application, individual project, province, and municipality, what is the total number of applications submitted for (i) public transit infrastructure projects, (ii) highway, bridge, and major road infrastructure projects, (iii) inter-city and regional rail infrastructure projects, (iv) disaster mitigation infrastructure projects, (v) port, maritime shipping, and marine infrastructure projects, (vi) airport, helipad, and aviation infrastructure projects, (vii) information technology infrastructure projects, (viii) wastewater management and sewage infrastructure projects; (e) which provinces have submitted applications to Infrastructure Canada under (i) PTIC–NRP, (ii) PTIC-SCF; (f) which provinces have yet to open the process for municipal applications under PTIC-NRP; and (g) will delays in processing applications under PTIC-NRP cause any municipalities to miss the 2015 construction season and, if so, which municipalities will be affected?

With regard to suppliers of garments and textiles that are manufactured outside Canada, in whole or in part, and which have been contracted by any agency or department of the government: (a) what is the process by which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) may ask suppliers for evidence of compliance with local labour laws; (b) on how many occasions has PWGSC asked suppliers for evidence of compliance with local labour laws; (c) if PWGSC has ever requested evidence of supplier compliance with local labour laws, (i) which office within PWGSC initiated these requests and under whose authority, (ii) why were these requests initiated, (iii) when were these requests initiated, (iv) were these requests for evidence limited in scope to the production process under the direct purview of the supplier, or did they extend to all inputs in the production process even if these inputs were contracted out or otherwise not directly manufactured by the supplier, (v) what type of evidence did PWGSC ask suppliers to provide, (vi) did PWGSC request that suppliers provide evidence verified by independent auditors or inspectors, (vii) did PWGSC ever give individuals from the public, organizations, or governments an opportunity to provide evidence about supplier compliance with local labour laws and to whom were these opportunities extended; (d) if suppliers have ever responded to requests made by the PWGSC for evidence of compliance with local labour laws, (i) how did suppliers respond to these requests, (ii) what information did suppliers provide as evidence, (iii) where and at which office are records of these responses kept, (iv) what method was used by PWGSC to ensure that evidence provided by these suppliers was accurate, (v) did PWGSC ever rely on the services of independent auditors or inspectors to verify the evidence provided by suppliers; (e) what is PWGSC’s policy toward suppliers that are not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (f) has PWGSC ever determined that suppliers were not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (g) if PWGSC has ever determined that suppliers were not operating in compliance with local labour laws, what actions did it take; (h) has PWGSC ever rejected a bid from a potential supplier on the basis that this supplier was not likely to comply, or did not have a record of complying, with local labour laws; (i) has PWGSC ever withdrawn from a contract with a supplier, attempted to withdraw from a contract with a supplier, or threatened to withdraw from a contract with a supplier on the basis that this supplier was not operating in compliance with local labour laws; (j) has PWGSC ever made the prospect of future contracts with a supplier dependent on that supplier demonstrating progress or improvement with respect to their compliance with local labour laws; (k) has PWGSC ever made the fulfilment of its contract with a supplier dependent on that supplier demonstrating progress or improvement with respect to their compliance with local labour laws; (l) has PWGSC ever determined that, if there are any countries or geographical areas in which labour standards are so unacceptable, it will not accept bids from local suppliers and, if so, (i) what were these countries or geographical areas, (ii) when were each of these countries or geographical areas deemed unacceptable, (iii) did PWGSC clearly communicate with suppliers in that country or geographical area about the conditions that would have to be met for PWGSC to resume its willingness to contract with local suppliers; and (m) is the PWGSC provision that requires supplier compliance with local laws limited in scope to the production process under the direct purview of contracted suppliers, or does the requirement apply also to any firms sub-contracted by suppliers to provide either inputs or labour and, if it does not apply to any firms sub-contracted by suppliers, (i) what is PWGSC’s rationale for limiting the requirement in such a way, (ii) is PWGSC concerned that suppliers may avoid having to meet the requirement by simply subcontracting their work, and why or why not?

With regard to government procurement of garments and textiles since fiscal year 2010-2011: (a) what percentage of these garments and textiles were manufactured, in whole or in part, outside of Canada; (b) of the procured textiles and garments manufactured, in whole or in part, outside of Canada (i) in what countries are these goods manufactured, (ii) what is the total value of these goods, broken down by country of manufacture, (iii) is the name and address of each factory where these goods are made documented; (c) what is the exact nature or purpose of any garments or textiles that are procured by the government and its agencies which are manufactured, in whole or in part, in Bangladesh; (d) what is the name and address of each factory in Bangladesh that produces garments or textiles, in whole or in part, that are procured by the government; (e) what portion of all garments and textiles manufactured in whole or in part in Bangladesh and procured by the government is contracted or sub-contracted by companies that are signatories to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh; and (f) what portion of all garments and textiles manufactured in whole or in part in Bangladesh and procured by the government is contracted or sub-contracted by companies that are signatories to the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety?

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

With regard to military procurement projects, since 2001: (a) how many projects have been sole-sourced as opposed to following a competitive process; (b) which of these have been sole-sourced; (c) what was the rationale for each project being sole-sourced; (d) what is the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) value for each sole-sourced procurement project; (e) does the IRB value for each sole-sourced project represent 100% of the project value (acquisition and in-service support); (f) what percentage of military procurement projects have been sole-sourced since 2001; (g) how many procurement projects have been sole-sourced each year between 2001 and the present year; and (h) which specific projects in each year have been sole-sourced between 2001 and the present?

With regard to the section of the Economic Action Plan 2013 starting on page 106 entitled “Creating Jobs by Building Equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada” and the estimate quoted in this section from the February 2013 Jenkins report of $49 billion in Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) obligations that foreign prime contractors are expected to accumulate as a result of defence procurements by 2027: (a) does the government concur with the estimate of $49 billion in IRB obligations as a result of defence procurements by 2027; (b) if not, what is the government’s estimate of IRB obligations as a result of defence procurements by 2027; (c) what specific defence procurements does the government’s estimate of IRB obligations pertain to; (d) for each specific defence procurement included in the government’s estimate of IRB obligations, what is the estimated dollar value (i) of the acquisition, (ii) of operation and maintenance, (iii) of total life-cycle costs, (iv) of the expected IRB obligations; and (e) what documents, reports, or other relevant information were provided by the government in the drafting of the February 2013 Jenkins report with regard to the planned acquisitions?

With regard to changes to the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) program since 2009: (a) has there been an increase of spending of IRB funds for (i) public-private consortia, (ii) enhanced priority technology list, (iii) participation of Canadian companies in the global value chain; (b) if there has been an increase in spending in one or more of the above categories, (i) how many public-private consortia have been created, (ii) what technological innovations have been a product of public-private consortia and the focus on enhanced priority technologies, (iii) how many jobs are estimated to have been created as a result of the global value chain approach, (iv) what is the value of exports estimated to have been generated through a focus on the global value chain approach; (c) if there has not been an increase in spending in one or more of the above categories, what reasons have been identified for this outcome; and (d) following the introduction by Industry Canada on February 20, 2013, of an Investment Framework, (i) how were the three types of investments identified, (ii) how were the multiplier values determined?

With regard to the Industry Engagement Request released by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat on March 3, 2013: (a) has the possibility of a further life extension to the CF-18 fleet been determined (i) if so, when was this determination made, (ii) how many enquiries have been made into the possibility of a further life extension to the CF-18 fleet, (iii) how far can the lifespan of the CF-18 be extended, (iv) have cost estimates been determined for a CF-18 fleet extension; (b) how were the threat characterizations referred to in the Industry Engagement Request identified, (i) what reports, analyses, and other evaluations are the threat characterizations for each time horizon based on, (ii) what are the implications of the threat assessment on the Statement of Requirements for the replacement of the CF-18s; (c) what comparable reports, analyses, and other evaluations is the “Canada First Defence Strategy” based on, (i) for the two time frames, 2020-2030 and 2030+, and their corresponding threat characterizations not appearing in the “Canada First Defence Strategy”, what are the differences between the threat analyses that inform the “Canada First Defence Strategy” and the threat analyses that inform the specific threats outlined in the Industry Engagement Request, (ii) how were the two time horizons determined, (iii) why is “civilian aircraft” listed as a threat from 2020-2030 but not 2030+, (iv) for the first time period (2020-2030), is it expected that the aircraft acquired in 2020 will remain in service past 2030, (v) is the acquisition of different aircraft for different time periods being considered, (vi) how many aircraft are expected to be acquired by 2020, (vii) how many aircraft, including CF-18, are now expected to be in service by 2020, (viii) how many aircraft are expected to be in service during each of the two time horizons, (ix) could more than one type of aircraft be acquired within each time horizon, (x) is the possibility of a mixed fleet being considered, (xi) does the government still plan on acquiring 65 aircraft; and (d) has the term “next-generation fighter aircraft” been removed from the Statement of Requirements, and is the term being used in evaluating aircraft during the analysis of options currently being conducted by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat?

With regard to the Industrial and Regional Benefits program (IRB): (a) in how many instances has Industry Canada found companies non-compliant in carrying out their IRB obligations (i) from the beginning of the program until 2009, (ii) between 2009 and the present, (iii) what is the dollar amount of these outstanding IRB obligations; (b) in how many instances has Industry Canada imposed penalties for non-compliance with respect to IRB obligations (i) from the beginning of the program until 2009, (ii) from 2009 until the present, (iii) what is the dollar amount of these penalties; (c) what are the specific procurements that have been ruled non-compliant (i) from the beginning of the program until 2009, (ii) from 2009 to the present; (d) what is the full value of the IRBs recovered (i) between the beginning of the program and 2009, (ii) between 2009 and the present; (e) how is non-compliance in carrying out IRB obligations determined; (f) how often does Industry Canada audit IRB obligors’ fulfillment of IRB obligations; (g) what percentage of IRB claims from IRB obligors are audited; (h) in what percentage of IRB claims from IRB obligors are irregularities found and what is the dollar value of these irregularities; (i) what are the penalties for failure to fulfill IRB obligations; (j) is there an appeals process for companies ruled by Industry Canada not to have complied with their IRB obligations; (k) according to the IRB policy, IRBs are mandatory for “certain projects greater than $100 million…”, (i) what is meant by “certain projects”, (ii) what are the criteria for determining IRB obligations on contracts over $100 million; (l) when IRBs are triggered, in which specific procurements have IRBs been mandatory (i) for both acquisition and in-service support, (ii) for acquisition only; (m) when IRBs are required for both acquisition and in-service support, (i) what is the IRB value for the in-service support contract, (ii) is in-service support applied to the IRB requirements for the acquisition contract; and (n) does Industry Canada maintain detailed records of outstanding IRB obligations which, according to the contracts with suppliers, should have already been completed and what is the outstanding dollar amount of these obligations?

With regard to the Action Plan for the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat: (a) will the Department of National Defence’s evaluation of options related to the Canadian Forces’ fighter capability, as per point four of the plan, include looking at aircraft other than the F-35 as a potential replacement for the CF-18; (b) if the answer to (a) is yes, what criteria will be used to determine whether other aircraft are suitable; (c) will the criteria in (b) be made public, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; (d) will the results of the evaluation in (a) be made public, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; (e) will the results of the evaluation in (a) be shared with parliament, (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not; and (f) if other aircraft are considered as part of the evaluation, will the Secretariat make public what other aircraft are looked at, and (i) if another aircraft is selected, will it make public why, (ii) if another aircraft is not selected, will it make public the reasons why not?

With regard to the F-35 JSF Program: (a) what is the total Canadian dollar value of benefits received by Canadian industry from Canada’s participation in the F-35 JSF Program (i) from the start of the program until December 1, 2011, (ii) from December 2, 2011, to June 22, 2012; (b) what is the projected value of future contracts, from June 22, 2012, onwards, that come as a result of Canada’s participation in the JSF program; (c) for the contracts in (a), what is the value of each contract that was awarded and on what date was each contract signed; (d) what methodology was used to determine the value of (i) the contracts in (a), (ii) the contracts in (b); (e) was there industry involvement in determining the values of (i) the contracts in (a), (ii) the contracts in (b); (f) do these valuations include analysis related to the global supply chain; (g) do these valuations include and/or anticipate changes in the domestic supply chain; (h) is the information used in the valuations updated periodically and, if yes, how frequently; (i) was the methodology used to arrive at the values in (a) and (b) independently audited and, if yes, by whom and what was the result of the audit; (j) since the start of the program, have there been discrepancies between projected and actual value of benefits received by Canadian industry; (k) if the answer to (j) is in the affirmative, what are the specific instances and contracts where discrepancies occurred, including (i) the value of each discrepancy, (ii) the name of each company that was meant to receive the benefit; (l) what, if any, changes have been made to the valuations and projection processes used to determine all and any cost projections related to the F-35 JSF program in response to the recommendations in the April 2, 2012, Auditor General's report; (m) for the contracts in (a), is there a means of ensuring that the contracts are being fulfilled as stated in terms of dollar value; (n) for the benefits in (a), how many jobs have been created as a result of participation in the program, (i) are these new jobs and, if so, how is “new jobs” defined, (ii) how long are these jobs projected to last (i.e., are they start-up or long-term jobs), (iii) who calculates these job numbers and is there independent auditing of these numbers?

With regard to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS): (a) has a statement of operational requirements been established, (i) if yes, when was this done and what are the criteria that will be used to determine what ships will be built, (ii) if no, when will it be done, (iii) if it will not be done, what criteria will be used to determine what ships will be built; (b) will there be an open competition for contracts associated with the strategy; (c) what is a current breakdown of the $35 billion contract value that was assessed, specifically, what is the value of each individual component included in this assessed value; (d) where will the technology being used to build the ships come from; (e) what components will be included in each ship (i.e., hull, weapons systems, propulsion, etc.); (f) will the ships have all components necessary for deployment, (i) if not, why not and which components will need to be procured at a future date, (ii) if yes, what contracts have been signed that to account for this answer; (g) how will the contracts be awarded, specifying (i) how many ships will be built, (ii) which shipyards will be used for construction, (iii) what will be the dollar value of contracts awarded to each of the shipyards; (h) what are the details of any changes the government has made to the strategy and associated contracts as a result of delays in delivery (for example, in the case of the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS)) and what are the impacts of the delays in delivery on the overall cost of the project, identifying in particular whether and how delays have impacted the estimated $3.1 billion cost of the AOPS; (i) has there been an evaluation of how many jobs will be created by this strategy, if yes, (i) how many jobs are expected to be created and for what duration, (ii) who conducted this evaluation, (iii) have the job creation projections been independently verified, and, if yes, by whom; (j) for what reasons has the NSPS been in the “definition” phase for over a year; (k) when does the government expect the NSPS will move to the effective project approval and implementation phase; and (l) what are the steps of the procurement process that is being used to coordinate the NSPS, including (i) the dates of each step or phase, (ii) for each step or phase where there has been a delay, what are the reasons for the delay and what steps were taken to address the delay, (iii) what delays are expected to occur in future steps or phases of the process?

With regard to the Action Plan for the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat: (a) where will the Treasury Board obtain the data regarding the F-35 costs that it intends to use in its review, as per the sixth point of the plan; (b) will there be an independent review of the data sources used in the review; and (c) will the criteria, process and results of the review be made public (i) if yes, when, (ii) if no, why not?

With regard to formal communications received by the government of Canada from the United States Department of Defense (DoD) regarding the Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 program: (a) what were the dates of all formal communications received from DoD regarding project costs and/or overruns; (b) what was the content of the communications; (c) who in the government received these communications; (d) were Ministers informed of these communications; (e) was the Prime Minister informed of these communications; (f) if not, why not; (g) if yes, how were these messages given to Ministers and on what date; and (h) what actions were taken in response to these communications?

With regard to the use of the term “fifth generation fighter” by the government: (a) is the term “fifth generation” considered to be appropriate for a statement of requirements; (b) is there an accepted and/or objective definition of the term “fifth generation” by the government; and (c) how has the classification of “fifth generation” been used for the proposed procurement of the F-35?

With regard to events described in paragraph 2.58 of Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada “Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets” concerning the approval by Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) of a sole source procurement of the F-35: (a) when were senior decision-makers in PWGSC informed that there had not been sufficient justification provided for a sole source contract; (b) why were they informed of this and what was the rationale; (c) who within PWGSC made the decision to ask the Department of National Defence to provide a letter of justification in lieu of a finalized statement of operational requirement or a complete options analysis; (d) why did this letter meet the justification for National Defence’s proposed procurement strategy; (e) was the Minister informed of the use of this letter; (f) if not, why not; and (g) if the Minister was informed when did that take place?

With regard to the government response to Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General: (a) when did the departments of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC), National Defence (DND), and Industry Canada provide their final responses to the Office of the Auditor General (OAG); (b) when did PWGSC and DND inform the OAG that they disagreed with the conclusions of Paragraphs 2.80 and 2.81 of the report; (c) was the disagreement with those two paragraphs approved by the Minister; (d) if this disagreement was not approved by the Minister, who were the officials who approved this response; (e) what was the rationale for disagreement; and (f) how was this disagreement communicated to the OAG?

With regard to the next generation fighter aircraft capability: (a) what is (i) the exact number of requirements, (ii) the exact wording of the specific requirements that can only be met by the F-35A; (b) has the government received written confirmation from other major jet suppliers, including Boeing, Saab or Dassault, indicating that the requirements outlined in (a)(ii) will not be met by 2020, and, if so, what are the dates of the correspondence; (c) does the F-35A currently meet the requirements outlined in (a)(ii); and (d) can the F-35A meet all the requirements for Canada’s next generation fighter aircraft by 2020?