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

With regard to the sale, financing and ownership of Canadian farmland: (a) what is the amount of funding that Farm Credit Canada (FCC) has advanced to non-farming corporations for the purpose of purchasing farmland; (b) what are the names of the non-farming corporations to which FCC has provided funding for the purchasing of farmland; (c) what is the total amount of farmland acres that have been purchased with FCC funding by non-farming corporations; (d) what is the total amount of farmland that is owned by non-farming corporations; (e) what is the total amount of farmland that is owned by foreign investment companies; (f) what is the total amount of farmland that is owned by domestic investment companies; (g) what is the total amount of farmland that is owned by non-Canadian individuals and corporations; (h) what is the percentage of total Canadian farmland that is owned by non-Canadian individuals and companies; (i) what is the government’s policy regarding the acquisition of Canadian farmland by foreign individuals and corporations; (j) is it the government’s intention to institute policies that will limit the acquisition of Canadian farmland by foreign individuals and corporations; and (k) what is the government’s policy in regards to foreign ownership of farmland as it relates to national security?

With regard to the sale of federal land indicated by Halifax, Nova Scotia Parcel Identification Number 279968 on January 14, 2010: (a) what deed authorizes this transfer and why had it not been registered at the Registry of Deeds; (b) what policy or circumstances guided the decision to cede the title of a parcel of land belonging to the government; (c) what policy or circumstances informed the cost assessment of this parcel of land; and (d) who was responsible for this decision?

With respect to the government’s commitment to sell government assets worth $10.1 billion over a five year period, as made in the Economic and Fiscal Statement (EFS) delivered by the Minister of Finance on November 27, 2008: (a) which departments have assets being considered for sale as of the date hereof; (b) do the dollar figures projected in Table 2.2 of the EFS represent the amounts intended to be generated net of the book value of the disposed assets; (c) what are the numbers projected from Departmental and Corporate Asset Reviews in each of the five years for which projections were made in Table 2.2 of the EFS; and (d) if the numbers then projected in Table 2.2 of the EFS are no longer consistent with current government projections for the disposition of assets, what are the government’s revised projections for those dispositions of assets for the period discussed in Table 2.2 of the EFS?

With respect to the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) what was the nature and extent of the public opinion research conducted by any part of the government, or by any other entity and made available to the government either directly or indirectly on this specific takeover or, more broadly, on the application of the Canada Investment Act; (b) what was the total cost; (c) what company, companies or government departments were contracted or engaged in association with this research; and (d) what were the results of this research?

With respect to media reports surrounding the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) has the government launched or conducted a review of its procedures and practices with respect to the distribution of sensitive information affecting decisions under the Investment Canada Act following the multiple leaks emanating from within the government and, if so, (i) what was the nature of the documents or information that prematurely made their way into the public sphere, (ii) did the government find a breach of Cabinet confidence occurred, (iii) who was responsible, (iv) which government departments were involved; and (b) regardless of whether the government conducted an appropriate investigation, what remedial action has been taken to protect against leaks of this nature in the future?

With respect to media reports surrounding the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) has the government launched or completed an investigation into the leak to former Postmedia columnist Don Martin which led to a column published in the National Post on November 1, 2010 entitled “Investment Canada gives Potash takeover tentative nod” that cited multiple government sources and, if so, (i) what was the nature of the documents or information obtained by Mr. Martin, (ii) did the government find a breach of Cabinet confidence occurred, (iii) who was responsible, (iv) which government departments were involved; and (b) regardless of whether the government conducted an appropriate investigation, what remedial action has been taken to protect against leaks of this nature in the future?

With respect to the development of the logic model for the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), as introduced at the January 29, 2007, meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: (a) who were the members of the interdepartmental working group who participated in the development of the logic model; (b) how often did the interdepartmental committee meet to develop the logic model and on what dates; and (c) what were the forecasts of the logic model for retaining or selling a house, and what are the results to date for each year of the IRP?

With respect to the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) what was the nature of the exchange of information, including documentation, between the government and (i) the province of Saskatchewan, (ii) the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, (iii) BHP Billiton and its subsidiaries, (iv) any other corporation, entity or individual, (v) other governments, (vi) Parliament, (vii) the public; and (b) what were the government’s communications plan or plans and contingency communications plan or plans with respect to the approval or rejection of the takeover under the Investment Canada Act; and (c) what was the government’s definition of “net benefit” in this particular case and how is it different from the tests applied to previous bids by (i) Vale Inco, (ii) US Steel, (iii) Nortel?