Debates of Jan. 27th, 2014

Question No. 102

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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”?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

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

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

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

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

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

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

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

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

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?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

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

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

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?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

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

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

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?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

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

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

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?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

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

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On what date and in what manner did the government receive a payment from Mike Duffy or his associates for expense claims?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

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

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

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.