Debates of Sept. 14th, 2009

Rights of the Unborn

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions to table. The first is from a number of constituents from the Fraser Valley who call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

Identity Theft

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the other petition is to combat identity theft in Canada which is a very serious problem.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 226 to 228, 242, 247, 253, 255, 258, 260, 266, 272, 296, 302, 305, 308, 310, 312 to 315, 324, 329, 337, 342 to 344, 346, 348, 350, 353, 360, 364 to 366, 370, 371, 373, 378, 382 to 385, 387 and 395.

Question No. 226

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

With regard to the human swine flu: (a) when exactly was the government first approached by Mexico for help in managing this serious health issue; (b) how many fatalities did the Mexican authorities attribute to this respiratory disease at the time they first notified Canada of their situation; (c) how many victims, that were not fatalities, were they treating when they first approached Canada on the swine flu; (d) what were the official concerns cited by the Mexican authorities in seeking Canadian and international assistance in managing this emergency; and (e) when did the Canadian government undertake the requested assistance?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada was first approached by Mexico for laboratory testing assistance on April 17, 2009.

In response to (b), Mexican authorities did not disclose the number of fatalities attributed to the respiratory disease at the time they first notified Canada of their situation. Events were very unclear at that time.

In response to (c), when Mexican authorities first approached Canada on the H1N1 flu virus, they advised Canada that a number of outbreaks were occurring in different regions in Mexico, with approximately 600 suspect cases of influenza-like illness.

In response to (d), Mexican authorities contacted Canada as they were experiencing what appeared to be a late influenza season with higher than normal rates in health care workers, as well as some severe illness which they assessed as unusual. Laboratory testing in Mexico had failed to yield the diagnosis.

In response to (e), the Government of Canada responded April 17, 2009 offering laboratory and technical assistance to Mexico

Question No. 227

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

With regards to motion M-426 (rare diseases and disorders), in the name of Mr. Bell (Vancouver North), adopted by the House on May 6, 2008, since that time: (a) has the government acted on this policy and, if not, why not; (b) how much contact has the government initiated and had with stakeholder groups such as Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders to enact this policy; (c) what financial resources has been set aside for this policy; (d) what assurances can the government give Canadians with rare disorders that they have a right to and can access effective therapies and medications; and (e) what actions will the government take to make Canadians aware of this program?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

In response to (a), the motion called for exploratory work related to research, regulation and reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases, in collaboration with provinces and territories and stakeholders. The Motion did not establish a program or policy. Initial analysis on motion no 426 was undertaken after it was adopted in May 2008 and before Parliament was dissolved. The Government continues to consider the issue of drugs for rare diseases and the need, if any, for action in areas of federal responsibility. Further work in this area will require the active engagement of provinces and territories, who, as noted above, have primary responsibility for drug coverage.

In response to (b), No stakeholder consultations on the motion were held before the dissolution of Parliament. However, Health Canada officials have discussed related issues with stakeholders, notably the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders CORD, on numerous occasions. CORD has been an active participant in formal consultations with respect to legislative and regulatory modernization since 2006. The organization has identified data challenges in the review and authorization of products for small populations as a key concern. They have been very supportive of efforts to modernize the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations.

In response to (c), Past analytical work related to the motion and the broader issue of drugs for rare diseases has been conducted within existing resources.

In response to (d), The federal government recognizes the challenges faced by Canadians with rare disorders, and will continue to examine issues related to treatments for rare disorders within the scope of federal role and responsibilities. For example, Health Canada is looking at the regulatory challenges posed by drugs for rare diseases, as part of the department’s ongoing work on regulatory modernization. CORD and other stakeholders have been consulted in this work. It is important to note that prescription drugs provided outside of hospital are outside of the scope of the Canada Health Act and hence, provincial and territorial governments determine, at their own discretion, whether, and under what terms and conditions, to publicly finance prescription drugs, including drugs for rare diseases. The only exceptions are federal populations, e.g., first nations and Inuit, military, veterans, for which the federal government directly provides services. However, the federal government continues to pursue constructive and collaborative work with provinces and territories, including finding ways to better assess drugs for rare diseases for potential reimbursement by our respective drug programs.

In response to (e) To clarify, no program was established through this motion, which called for exploratory work only.

Question No. 228

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Since coming to power, (i) what has the government done to promote and help get started the Alaska Highway gas pipeline, (ii) what meetings have been held with stakeholder groups, (iii) what has been the total government expenditures to date on this project, (iv) what is the target date for the construction of this gas pipeline?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, in resonse to (i), there are two separate proposals to build an Alaska Highway pipeline, AHP. Both project proponents are benefiting from single window access into a streamlined regulatory approvals process, either through a re-staffed Northern Pipeline Agency, NPA, or else through the Major Projects Management Office which was created to improve regulatory performance through a more accountable, predictable, transparent and timely regulatory review process for major resource projects. On March 5, 2008, the then Minister of Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, wrote to the Governor of Alaska expressing support for an AHP. NRCan has publicly expressed the government’s support for an AHP at large conferences including the Alaska Resource Development conference in Anchorage, Alaska, in November 2008, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Conference in May 2008, and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association’s Annual Dinners in 2008 and 2009. Recognizing the importance of first nation engagement and consultation, the Government of Canada is engaging first nations along the proposed pipeline route. The government has both funded and participated in aboriginal workshops organized by the Alaska Highway Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition, AHAPC. Currently, federal departments including NRCan, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the NPA and the National Energy Board, NEB, are conducting a series of Yukon and first nation community visits along the Yukon portion of the Alaska Highway to raise awareness and answer questions related to the proposed pipeline.

In response to (ii), since January 2006, NRCan has had several meetings with the proponents for an AHP. Meetings have taken place at all levels from working level through to ministerial. First nations are important stakeholders and the government has been actively meeting with them. To date there have been three aboriginal workshops hosted by the AHAPC, which is a service organization to Yukon first nations along the proposed route. Similar, though smaller meetings, have also taken place in British Columbia. In addition to formal workshops, NRCan has met separately with the chair of the AHAPC. Until recently, NRCan chaired an AHP Director General Steering Committee which met semi-annually to share information with key federal departments. The committee’s most active sub-group was the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Working Group, EARWG. The EARWG met regularly with provincial government representatives as well.

In response to (iii), many AHP related expenditures have been routine business including preparing briefing material and monitoring project developments. However, NRCan did provide approximately $18,000 toward funding an Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition workshop in 2007. Approximately $3,000 was spent to attend each of the three workshops. Attending the round of community visits currently under way will add additional expenses. NRCan also sent several attendees and speakers for large conferences including the Alaska Resource Development Conference and the Interstate Oil and Gas Commission conference. Such conferences cost approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per person attending, including travel. Finally, NRCan houses the NPA, which has responsibility for the Foothills Alaska pipeline project. However, all NPA’s expenditures are cost recovered from the owner of Foothills, TransCanada Pipelines.

In response to (iv), both the TransCanada and the Denali projects have estimated first gas to start flowing in 2018--best case scenarios.

Question No. 242

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

With regard to Employment Insurance: (a) has the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development been provided any documents or departmental briefing notes that outline changes to the processing time of Employment Insurance cheques; (b) under the rules, how many days does an unemployed worker have to wait for his or her first cheque; (c) on average, how many days does an unemployed worker currently wait for his or her cheque; and (d) how many service telephone lines are available to workers looking for information, and how many of those telephone lines are staffed at one time?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the minister has received various products that have discussed and outlined measures to maintain the standard for processing Employment Insurance, EI, claims given the significant increase in EI applications over the last eight months. A number of them have dealt with the additional resources and measures that are being added to EI processing such as: redistributing workloads across the country; increasing processing staff by over 900 and adding another 400 over the next few months; increasing overtime on a voluntary basis; reassigning staff from other areas of the department that are not involved in processing benefits; recalling recent retirees; increasing the level of automation of claims processing; and extending the regular hours of operation for EI call centres from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday and Fridays and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

In response to (b), the standard of service is to have 80% of clients who file for benefits receive their first payment or a non-payment notification within 28 days of the date their claim was filed.

In response to (c), for the first seven months of 2009, the average number of days from the date of application until payment or notification of non-payment was 23 days.

In response to (d), the service has 1,041 telephone lines with up to 821 staff available at any one time. Call centre telephone line capacity always exceeds the number of telephone lines staffed to enable incoming calls, queuing of callers until agents become available, and internal call transfer capabilities.

Question No. 247

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

With regards to the measures announced in Budget 2009 concerning assistance for consumers of financial products by enhancing disclosure and improving business practices in respect of credit cards issued by federally regulated financial institutions: (a) which government departments, agencies, government officials and their titles were involved in the consultation process and drafting process in regards to this measure and when did they begin; (b) were there any consultations with any of the Credit Card companies who operate in Canada and, if so, when did these meetings occur and who was present; and (c) which other organisations or stakeholders were involved in the consultation process and with which government officials and when did they occur?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in advance of the budget presented to the House of Commons on January 27, 2009, the earliest in modern history, the government launched unprecedented consultation across Canada. These steps were taken to ensure as many Canadians as possible from members of Parliament, business leaders, economists, industry associations non-profit organizations, public interest groups, community groups, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and most important, everyday citizens were consulted, such as:

an online consultation open to all Canadians was launched at www.fin.gc.ca;

a series of roundtable discussions was held with business leaders, economists, academics, industry leaders, community and labour organizations in cities across Canada from Saint John to Victoria;

the Minister of Finance held town hall meetings in locations across Canada to hear from Canadians personally;

meetings with finance ministers and first ministers from all provinces and territories;

the establishment of a non-partisan Economic Advisory Council of prominent Canadians from across the political spectrum for advice on the budget and on the economy in the months ahead;

meetings with leading representatives of other political parties, including the official opposition Liberal Party of Canada, to ask for their ideas; and

the Minister of Finance wrote every member of Parliament asking them to consult with the people in their communities and report what they heard back to him.

As members are likely aware, the Minister of Finance released the aforementioned proposed Credit Business Practices Regulations this past May for comment. The relevant news release and backgrounders are available online at http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/09-048-eng.asp. To summarize, the proposed regulations would:

mandate an effective minimum 21 day, interest-free grace period on all new credit card purchases when a customer pays the outstanding balance in full;

lower interest costs by mandating allocations of payments in favour of the consumer;

allow consumers to keep better track of their personal finances by requiring express consent for credit limit increases;

limit debt collection practices that financial institutions use in contacting a consumer to collect on a debt;

prohibit over-the-limit fees solely arising from holds placed by merchants;

provide clear information in credit contracts and application forms through a summary box that will set out key features, such as interest rates and fees;

assist consumers to manage their credit card obligations by providing information on the time it would take to fully repay the balance, if only the minimum payment is made every month; and

mandate advance disclosure of interest rate increases prior to their taking effect, even if this information had been included in the credit contract.

With respect to the reaction to the proposed regulations, following is a small sampling of analysis by public interest groups or commentators:

Bruce Cran, president of Consumers' Association of Canada, said “All of the things that [the finance minister has] done in there are actually just what we asked for …overall, I’ve got to congratulate [the finance minister]”.

Mel Fruitman, vice president of Consumers' Association of Canada, said, “[They] will solve some of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies … it's a big step in the right direction towards helping us control the amounts we pay on our credit cards. We think it will greatly improve the situation”. A Toronto Star editorial stated, “[the] finance minister … has introduced some welcome regulatory changes that will both introduce more transparency to the [credit card] system and save consumers some money”. A Burnaby Now editorial stated. “[the finance minister’s] new regulations … aim to give consumers more rights when it comes to the credit card industry. One of those regulations … involves forbidding card issuers from increasing credit limits without the written consent of cardholders. We hope this and the other proposed regulations - which include a 21-day interest-free grace period on all new transactions when consumers pay their balance in full by the due date - gain approval in Ottawa”.

Additionally, please note, the aforementioned regulations were published in the Canada Gazette on May 23, 2009 and interested persons were invited to make representations to the Financial Institutions Division of the Department of Finance concerning the proposed regulations within 21 days. The deadline for submissions was June 13, 2009.

Regarding the development of the important budget 2009 measures to help consumers of financial products and the subsequent detailed proposed credit business practices regulations, officials from the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada were involved in the development and drafting of these measures.

Question No. 253

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

With regard to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) announced in Budget 2008, and the subsequent Nominating Committee announced July 21, 2008: (a) have the Nominating Committee identified candidates for appointment to the CEIFB and, if so, (i) has a list of potential members been presented to the Governor in Council for appointment, (ii) has the Governor in Council appointed members for the CEIFB, (iii) who were the individuals listed or appointed, (iv) what is the home province or territory for each individual; (b) what has the CEIFB done since being founded to fulfill their responsibilities, including (i) implementing Employment Insurance (EI) premium rate-setting mechanism to ensure EI revenues and expenditures break even over time, (ii) using any excess EI revenues in a given year to reduce premium rates in subsequent years, (iii) maintaining a $2 billion cash reserve fund to support rate stability measures; and (c) has a contingency fund been established, if so, (i) has the transfer of $2 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund into a contingency fund occurred, (ii) what is the current balance in the established contingency fund?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) (i), yes, the nominating committee has submitted a list of candidates for the board of directors to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, HRSD.

In response to (a) (ii), yes, five members of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, CEIFB, were announced by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on June 26, 2009. A sixth member was announced by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on August 5, 2009. The remaining member is expected to be announced in the coming weeks.

In response to (a) (iii and iv), the six directors who were named to the board of directors include Ms. Elaine Noel-Bentley, Alberta; Mr. David Brown, Ontario; Mr. Jacques LeBlanc, Quebec; Ms. Janet Pau, British Colombia; Mr. Pankaj Puri, Ontario; and Mr. Tim O’Neill, Prince Edward Island.

The board of directors will be chaired by Mr. David Brown, whose qualifications include 29 years as a senior corporate law partner with the firm Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg. He was also the chairman and chief executive officer of the Ontario Securities Commission, OSC, for seven years, where he led the expansion and reorganization of the OSC to meet the increasing demands of a changing market.

In response to (b) and (c), the CEIFB is not yet fully operational, and as such the CEIFB reserve has not yet been established.

In order to maintain a competitive advantage and to support employers and employees, the government has frozen EI premium rates for 2010 at $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings, the same level as 2008 and 2009, providing an economic stimulus of $10.5 billion, as confirmed in Canada’s Economic Action Plan: A Second Report to Canadians, June 2009.

With the appointment of the board of directors, the CEIFB is taking the necessary steps toward setting EI premium rates on a break-even basis, beginning in 2011. The creation of a separate account will ensure that excess premiums will be held and invested until used for EI purposes only. The creation of the CEIFB ensures that EI funds are managed independently and used to pay for EI benefits, premium rates reflect actual program costs, and the program is on firm financial footing going forward.

Question No. 255

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

With respect to the Police Officers Recruitment Fund: (a) how does the government track how many new police officer positions are created and filled from the fund; and (b) how many positions has the fund created and how many of those positions have been filled?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), establishing the first-ever Police Officers Recruitment Fund is a considerable investment that marks an important step forward in a way that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction for policing while ensuring maximum flexibility. The government concluded its active role in the Police Officers Recruitment Fund on June 22, 2008, with the establishment of trust accounts for each jurisdiction. Consistent with their responsibility for policing, it is up to the provinces and territories to allocate funding as they see fit to their municipal and provincial police services. Provinces and territories are able to use the trust fund in a way that is best suited to address their local public safety priorities and policing needs. Provincial and territorial governments have been encouraged to report directly to their residents on the expenditures and the outcomes achieved. It is through public media releases made by provinces and territories that the Government of Canada is kept apprised of how jurisdictions choose to allocate their funding.

In response to (b), to date, seven of the provinces--Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and New Brunswick--have, through public media releases, announced their intentions with the funding. Publicly announced hiring includes 30 new positions in Saskatchewan, 45 officers in Nova Scotia this year as part of a plan to hire 250 officers by 2011, 329 officers in Ontario, 83 officers in Alberta and 168 officers in British Columbia. Prince Edward Island is using its share to staff and launch its Criminal Intelligence Service Bureau, and New Brunswick is investing its portion to improve regional integrated intelligence units to fight organized crime, establish a police cadet graduate bursary to attract recruits, as well as establish a safer communities and neighbourhoods enforcement unit. Further details on provincial or territorial expenditures should be directed to the responsible provincial or territorial minister.

Question No. 258

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

With regard to the wage earner protection program WEPP, (a) how much money was spent on this program in 2008-2009; (b) how many individuals received payments of any kind eligible under the program; (c) were payments in (b) more or less than budgeted; (d) what was the average payment per individual; (e) how many claims were made last fiscal year; (f) how many claims are expected this year; (g) has the government planned for an increase in bankruptcies and insolvencies this year; (h) what are the administrative costs of this program; (i) how many staff are employed to administer this program; and (j) does the department plan to hire additional staff in the face of the current economic crisis to administer the WEPP?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, all data in the responses below were compiled from the Common System for Grants and Contributions. The custom data tabulation was provided to the labour program by Service Canada.

The wage earner protection program, WEPP, was created on July 7, 2008.

In response to (a), $6.82 million in payments were issued to eligible WEPP recipients between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009.

In response to (b), the total number of WEPP reimbursement recipients between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009 was 4,802.

In response to (c), total payments made between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009 have been less than budgeted for but demand for the program has been steadily increasing in recent months.

In response to (d), the average WEPP payment made per recipient between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009 was $1,420.

In response to (e), between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009, the number of Canadians who filed claims for WEPP support was 5,751.

In response to (f), given that this is a new program, and one that was recently expanded as part of Canada’s economic action plan, it is difficult to estimate precisely the number of claims expected in the first full year of operation.

In response to (g), budget 2009 added greater protection for workers by extending the WEPP to cover severance and termination pay. The enhanced protection and increased demand for the program due to the uncertain economic climate is estimated to cost $25 million per year. The expanded program provides financial assistance to Canadian workers. The WEPP was originally budgeted for $31.2 million. With the additional $25 million from budget 2009 the total budget for the WEPP is now $56.2 million.

In response to (h), annual ongoing administrative costs for the WEPP are $3.5M.

In response to (i), at present there are approximately 30 staff members administering the WEPP. Of these, 9 work for the labour program and 21 work for Service Canada.

In response to (j), the labour program added two staff members and Service Canada added six staff members to support the WEPP expansion as part of budget 2009. WEPP demand is closely monitored and staffing is adjusted accordingly.

Question No. 260

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

With regard to replacement workers: (a) has the government reviewed subsection 94 (2.1) of the Canada Labour Code which prohibits the use of replacement workers if these workers are used to undermine a trade union’s capacity to engage in bargaining and represent its member; (b) has the use of replacement workers ever been prohibited under subsection 94 (2.1); (c) has the government compared federal legislation to provincial legislation as it relates to replacement workers and, if so, what were the findings and conclusions; (d) has the department held consultations or provided information to the Minister of Labour to define what services would be deemed essential under federal jurisdiction in the event of a labour dispute should a ban on replacement workers be implemented; (e) does the government intend to take any action on replacement workers in 2009-2010; and (f) has the department provided the Minister of Labour with any documentation indicating that the number of work stoppages would increase and last longer if a replacement worker ban were implemented?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the effectiveness of section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code regarding replacement workers has been continually reviewed by the government.

In addition, the replacement worker issue was recently considered in Peter Annis’ 2008 independent report to the Minister of Labour, entitled “Work Stoppages in the Federal Private Sector: Innovative Solutions”. Mr. Annis found that there is no conclusive evidence that banning replacement workers or modifying section 94(2.1) would lead to a decrease in the incidence or duration of work stoppages.

Finally, the government tracks the number of complaints filed with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, CIRB, alleging a violation of section 94(2.1). Since the provision was enacted in 1999, only 23 complaints have been filed alleging unfair use of replacement workers. Of these, 18 were eventually withdrawn by the union, four were dismissed and one is pending. These statistics suggest that the use of replacement workers to undermine a union’ bargaining ability is not a pressing problem in the federal jurisdiction.

In response to (b), to date, the use of replacement workers has not been prohibited under section 94(2.1). It only prohibits the use of replacement workers where their presence in the workplace is intended to undermine a union’s representational capacity.

In response to (c), only two provinces have labour legislation which restricts the right of employers to use the services of replacement workers during work stoppages. Such restrictions have been in force in Quebec since 1977 and in British Columbia since 1993. While Ontario enacted similar provisions in 1993, they were repealed in 1995.

Despite this kind of legislation, a number of complaints concerning the use of replacement workers during work stoppages are filed each year in both Quebec and British Columbia. In 2007-08, 25 complaints were filed in each province respectively. Of the 25 complaints filed in Quebec, 10 were upheld by the provincial labour board. In British Columbia, 5 of the 25 complaints were upheld.

Peter Annis’ 2008 independent report to the Minister of Labour, “Work Stoppages in the Federal Private Sector: Innovative Solutions”, found that there is no conclusive evidence that banning replacement workers would lead to a decrease in the incidence and duration of work stoppages.

In response to (d), the code does not deal with “essential services”; rather, it includes a requirement, under section 87.4, that, in the event of a work stoppage, goods and services continue to be supplied to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious threat to public safety or health. Currently, if the parties cannot reach an agreement on maintenance of activities, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, CIRB, will decide what services must be maintained.

There have been no consultations on what services would need to be maintained in the event of a labour dispute specifically in the context of a replacement worker ban.

In response to (e), the government does not intend to make any changes to the labour relations provisions of the Canada Labour Code without broad agreement among stakeholders.

In response to (f), no. Data suggests that there is no significant difference in the number or duration of work stoppages whether or not there is a replacement worker ban in place. For the period 2006 to 2008, data indicates that the average duration of a work stoppage in Quebec was 52 days and in British Columbia 55.4 days, while in the federal jurisdiction, the average duration of a work stoppage was 49.2 days.

Question No. 266

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

With respect to the Government’s agreement with the Government of Ontario to harmonize the Goods and Services Tax and Ontario Provincial Sales Tax: (a) what additional classes of goods and services will the new harmonized sales tax apply to that the GST does not; (b) what additional classes of goods and services will the new harmonized sales tax apply to that the Ontario provincial sales tax does not; (c) owing to this agreement, on an annual basis, how much sales tax revenue does the government project it will lose from (i) corporations, and (ii) consumers; and (d) owing to this agreement, on an annual basis, how much new sales tax revenue does the government project it will collect from (i) corporations, and (ii) consumers?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) and (b), in the 2009 Ontario budget, “Confronting the Challenge: Building Our Economic Future”, which is available online at http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/budget/ontariobudgets/2009/papers_all.pdf, the Government of Ontario announced its decision that, starting July 1, 2010, Ontario’s retail sales tax, RST, would be converted to a value-added tax structure and combined with the federal goods and services tax, GST, to create a federally administered single sales tax, subject to the approval of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Memorandum of Agreement, MOA, Concerning a Canada-Ontario Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement, signed by the governments of Canada and Ontario specifies that Ontario agrees to adopt the goods and services tax, GST, tax base for the Ontario portion of the harmonized sales tax. However, the MOA allows the province to designate a limited number of point-of-sale rebates for the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax, not exceeding 5%, in aggregate, of the value of the GST base in the province. The MOA commits both governments to a comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreement, CITCA, that will elaborate on the provisions of the MOA, such as those relating to provincial tax policy flexibility, e.g., point-of-sale rebates.

In response to (c) and (d), under the MOA the federal portion of the harmonized sales tax in Ontario is 5% , and, therefore, equivalent to the current GST rate. As a result, it is not anticipated that the Government of Canada will see any change to the revenues it currently collects with the GST.

Question No. 272

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

With respect to the Police Officers Recruitment Fund: (a) how much has been allocated to the fund since its inception; (b) how much has been allocated to each jurisdiction since inception; (c) is the government aware of how many new police officers have been hired with this fund and, if so, how many in each jurisdiction; (d) what plans does the government have to help jurisdictions retain new recruits beyond the conclusion of this fund; and (e) what controls has the government put on the fund?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as part of our safer communities strategy, this government has delivered on a key platform commitment by making funding available to provinces and territories to support the recruitment of 2,500 new front-line police officers. Budget 2008 set aside $400 million to assist provinces and territories with the hiring of new front-line police officers. This money has been invested in a third-party trust for provinces and territories, allocated proportionately, to meet this objective.

In response to (b), all provinces and territories chose to participate in this initiative, and on June 22, 2008, the $400 million was allocated as follows: Newfoundland and Labrador, $5.9 million; Prince Edward Island, $1.6 million; Nova Scotia, $11.2 million; New Brunswick, $8.8 million; Quebec, $92.3 million; Ontario, $156 million; Manitoba, $14.4 million; Saskatchewan, $11.7 million; Alberta, $42.4 million; British Columbia, $53.3 million; and each of the three territories received $800,000. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to draw down all of these funds at any time over five years.

In response to (c), to date, seven of the provinces--Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and New Brunswick--have, through public media releases, announced their intentions with the funding. Publicly announced hiring includes 30 new positions in Saskatchewan, 45 officers in Nova Scotia this year as part of a plan to hire 250 officers by 2011, 329 officers in Ontario, 83 officers in Alberta and 168 officers in British Columbia. Prince Edward Island is using its share to staff and launch its Criminal Intelligence Service Bureau, and New Brunswick is investing its portion to improve regional integrated intelligence units to fight organized crime, establish a police cadet graduate bursary to attract recruits, as well as establish a safer communities and neighbourhoods enforcement unit.

In response to (d), establishing the first-ever Police Officers Recruitment Fund is a considerable investment that marks an important step forward in a way that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction for policing while ensuring maximum flexibility. Consistent with their responsibility for policing, it is up to the provinces and territories to allocate funding as they see fit to their municipal and provincial police services. Provinces and territories are able to use the trust fund in a way that is best suited to address their local public safety priorities and policing needs. The government concluded its active role in the Police Officers Recruitment Fund on June 22, 2008, with the establishment of trust accounts for each jurisdiction.

In response to (e), consistent with their responsibility for policing, it is up to the provinces and territories to allocate funding as they see fit to their municipal and provincial police services. Provinces and territories are able to use the trust fund in a way that is best suited to address their local public safety priorities and policing needs. Provincial and territorial governments have been encouraged to report directly to their residents on the expenditures and the outcomes achieved.