Questions and responses 40th Parliament, 3rd session March 3, 2010, to March 26, 2011

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) investigation of cases of possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein: (a) for the 26 cases reassessed by the CRA as of June 10, 2010, what is the breakdown of the $5.2 million (i) in unpaid taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (b) how much of the $5.2 million has been collected; (c) how many of the 26 cases are under appeal; (d) how many of the 26 cases remain open; (e) in how many of the 26 cases has the CRA collected the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties owed; (f) for each case identified in (e) how much was collected (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (g) how many of the account holders in the 26 cases have made partial payment; (h) of the partial repayments made (i) what was the largest repayment, (ii) what was the smallest repayment, (iii) what was the average repayment; (i) how much does the CRA anticipate it has yet to collect (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (j) of the amounts of money contained in the Liechtenstein accounts declared to or discovered by the CRA, what was (i) the largest amount, (ii) the smallest amount, (iii) the average amount; (k) on what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein; (l) on what date did CRA begin its investigation; (m) on what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin; (n) of the 106 Canadians identified as having bank accounts in Liechtenstein, how many have (i) had their accounts audited, (ii) not had their accounts audited, (iii) had their accounts reassessed, (iv) not had their accounts reassessed, (v) been the subject of a compliance action, (vi) not been the subject of a compliance action; and (o) how many tax evasion charges have been laid?

With respect to the Listeriosis Investigative Review: (a) what is the status of each of the 57 recommendations contained in the report of Sheila Weatherill released in July 2009; (b) who did Ms. Weatherill interviewed; (c) were any of those interviewed provided with any or all of the report prior to its being completed by the investigator; (d) what are the names of all consultants as well as all seconded staff from any other federal department or agency who assisted the investigator; and (e) what was the total cost of the investigation including the cost of staff, contracts, travel and rents?

With respect to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act: (a) how was this Bill developed; (b) did the government request any specific studies for this Bill and, if so, (i) what was the subject of these studies, (ii) what conclusions did they reach, (iii) what recommendations did they put forward, (iv) what methodology was followed in the studies, (v) on what date were the studies requested, (vi) on what date were the studies submitted, (vii) do the studies contain quantitative analyses (are they supported by data), (viii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (c) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact on creators’ income and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (d) did the government request an analysis of the different ways of compensating artists for private copying and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (e) did the government request an analysis of the Bill’s economic impact as far as fair dealing is concerned and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (f) did the Department of Canadian Heritage put forward recommendations for this Bill and, if so, (i) what were they, (ii) on what date were they put forward; (g) did Industry Canada put forward recommendations for this Bill and, if so, (i) what were they, (ii) on what date were they put forward; (h) with respect to the recommendations put forward by the Department of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada, (i) by what process were the recommendations adopted, (ii) have other changes been made by parties other than the departments, (iii) did the ministers make changes to the Bill which had not been proposed by their respective departments, (iv) in relation to question (h)(i), what are these changes, (v) for every clause in the Bill, which department proposed the change, (vi) for every clause in the Bill, which minister proposed the change first, (vii) for every clause in the Bill, which minister gave his support; (i) did the government request an analysis of the statutory damages and, if so, (i) what options did the analysis offer, (ii) what data were collected as part of the analysis, (iii) what conclusions did the analysis reach, (iv) were the ministers of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada aware of this analysis before it began, (v) on what date was the analysis requested, (vi) on what date was the analysis tabled, (vii) who or which department requested the analysis, (viii) who or which department conducted the analysis, (ix) what guidelines were issued regarding the analysis, (x) to whom or to which department was the analysis submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analysis after it was submitted, (xii) did the Minister of Industry read the analysis after it was submitted, (xiii) was a minister or an employee of a minister involved in the analysis, or did a minister or an employee of a minister interact with the researchers at any time during the analysis, (xiv) what methodology was followed in the analysis, (xv) did the author(s) of the analysis state the methodological considerations or limitations, either in writing or verbally, (xvi) what are the methodological considerations or limitations stated by the author(s) of this analysis, (xvii) does the analysis contain a quantitative component (is it supported by data), (xviii) what are the quantitative data and in what context are they presented; (j) with respect to the legal analyses, (i) which ones were done to determine if the Bill complied with the standards of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty adopted in Geneva in 1996, (ii) what were the results of these analyses, (iii) what were the recommendations of these analyses, (iv) were alternatives put forward, (v) what are these alternatives, (vi) who or which department conducted these analyses, (vii) on what date were these analyses requested, (viii) on what date were these analyses submitted, (ix) to whom or to which department were these analyses submitted, (x) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read the analyses after there were submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Industry read the analyses after there were submitted; (k) was the Bill reviewed by Canadian Heritage employees and, if so, (i) did they make comments or criticisms or ask questions about it, (ii) what are these questions, criticisms or comments made by Canadian Heritage representatives, (iii) did the minister or a member of his staff respond to these questions or comments, (iv) what was their response to these questions or criticisms; and (l) with respect to piracy, (i) which studies were done to determine if the Bill can put an end to piracy, (ii) what are the results of these studies, (iii) what are the recommendations put forward by these studies, (iv) were alternatives put forward, (v) what are these alternatives, (vi) who or which department made these studies, (vii) on what date were these studies requested, (viii) on what date were these studies submitted, (ix) to whom or to which department were these studies submitted, (x) did the Minister of Canadian Heritage read these studies after they were submitted, (xi) did the Minister of Industry read these studies after they were submitted?

Regarding the Competition Bureau’s investigation, initiated in 2005, and the charges in 2009 against information technology (IT) services companies against which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) has levelled allegations of anti-competitive bid-rigging: (a) what are the names of the people from PWGSC, the Competition Bureau and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) who engaged in discussion or correspondence regarding the investigation and, if applicable, for each communication, (i) when did the communication take place, (ii) at what stage was the investigation, (iii) what matters were discussed, (iv) was there consensus on the action to take, (v) what is the description of the consensus; (b) during the period from June 1, 2008 to July 31, 2008, what are the names and titles of the people who made inquiries to the Competition Bureau about the stage of the investigation from (i) PWGSC, (ii) the Competition Bureau, (iii) the PPSC, (iv) Canada Border Services Agency, (v) Transport Canada, (vi) the Prime Minister’s Office; (c) were inquiries made to the PPSC or the Competition Bureau by people other than those identified in (b) and, if so, what is the name of each person and the date of the inquiry; (d) did the PWGSC Deputy Minister discuss the inquiry with the PPSC and the Competition Bureau and, if so, (i) when did these discussions take place, (ii) what was the content of these discussions, (iii) was the lawsuit brought by one of the companies named in the charges discussed and, if so, what is the name of the company; (e) can Competition Bureau lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (f) can PPSC lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (g) for the period from June 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, (i) what recommendations were made to PWGSC by the lawyers identified in (e) and (f), (ii) what are the names of these lawyers, (iii) were these lawyers informed of a lawsuit against PWGSC brought by one of the companies named in the Competition Bureau charges; (h) were Mr. Denis Pilon and Mr. V. Chénard, lawyers named by the government in a criminal case, denounced by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; (i) regarding the PPSC’s hiring of Mr. Denis Pilon, (i) what was the date of hire, (ii) what are the names of the people who made recommendations or suggestions or commented on the hiring of Mr. Pilon, (iii) who made the decision to ask Mr. Pilon to handle the file on the IT companies named in the Competition Bureau charges, (iv) were Mr. Pilon’s political activities for the Conservative Party declared and, if so, who informed the PPSC of these activities; (j) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the quality of work performed by the companies involved in the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) what was the assessment of the various departments of each company, (ii) what was the title of the document containing the studies or audits, (iii) on what date were these studies or audits done; (k) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the market impact of the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) on what date were these studies or audits done, (ii) what was the title of the document containing this information, (iii) what were the key findings and recommendations; (l) regarding PWGSC’s plan in December 2008 and January 2009 to debar the companies that allegedly rigged bids for IT services, (i) who, within PWGSC, the Competition Bureau or the PPSC, proposed this idea, (ii) was the basic principle of Canadian law that a person is innocent until proven guilty discussed, (iii) did the person responsible for the debarment decide to disregard the principle set out in (ii), (iv) did PWGSC subsequently assure one or more of the companies in question that they would not be debarred and, if applicable, what companies and why, (v) did PWGSC warn one or more departments that these companies might be debarred, (vi) after withdrawing its threat of immediate debarment, did PWGSC inform one or more departments to act as if nothing had happened with these companies, while awaiting the court’s decision, (vii) did PWGSC urge one or more departments to do whatever was necessary to prevent these companies from accessing business opportunities or contracts, (viii) for each circumstance in (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii), on what date did the communication take place; (m) did PWGSC senior officials provide instructions to avoid sending written information on certain lawsuits that risked being the subject of a possible access to information or privacy request and, if so, who gave this instruction and for what reason; (n) can the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the departments involved confirm that they still have all the evidence in their possession; (o) were the companies named in the Competition Bureau’s charges subject to greater scrutiny regarding their commercial activities with the government and, if so, (i) what are the names of the PWGSC employees given this task, (ii) which departments were contacted; and (p) is PWGSC involved in evaluating the proposals or in the contract adjudication process when these companies submit proposals and, if so, (i) to what extent are PWGSC public servants involved, (ii) what is the objective, (iii) what follow-up and communication procedures are in place between PWGSC and the departments regarding these cases, (iv) is there a document describing these procedures, (v) have these procedures largely been followed?

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) investigation of the Caribbean-based investment fund known as St. Lawrence Trading Inc.: (a) does the CRA know the identities of all Canadians with investments in the fund; (b) does the CRA know the identities of the six prominent Canadian business families with holdings of as much as $900 million in that fund and, if so, what are they; (c) how many Canadians are involved in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund in total; (d) what are the key reasons the CRA has been unable to obtain the information it needs to determine whether evasion of Canadian taxes has taken place; (e) what are the impediments to identification by the CRA of all those Canadians involved in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund; (f) how much tax does the CRA estimate that Canadian individuals who invested in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund have failed to pay; (g) how much tax does the CRA estimate that Canadian families with investments in the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund have failed to pay; (h) how much tax has been recovered from each Canadian individual and family that invested in St. Lawrence Trading Inc.; and (i) what is the estimated cost of the CRA’s investigation of the St. Lawrence Trading Inc. fund to date?