Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2012

Question No. 955

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie)]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on April 3, 2012, in response to the 2012 spring report of the Auditor General, the Government of Canada announced a seven-point action plan to ensure that Canada acquires the fighter aircraft it needs to complete its core missions and to ensure public confidence in an open and transparent acquisition process. The government has put the decision to purchase any new aircraft on hold until the action plan is complete. Once the action plan is completed and the conclusions are presented to ministers on a replacement for the CF-18 fleet, the government will make a decision on replacement fighter aircraft, including the corresponding Canadian Forces’ infrastructure needs as required.

With regard to (b), the Department of National Defence’s acquisition and sustainment project assumptions and potential costs are the object of an independent cost review that will be made public as mandated in the government’s seven-point action plan to respond to the Auditor General’s spring 2012 report on replacing Canada’s fighter aircraft.

Question No. 956

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

With regard to national defence: (a) what was the rationale for the date, location and timing of the July 16, 2010, announcement concerning the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter selection; (b) who was involved in the selection of the date, location and timing; (c) who selected the guests who were invited to attend the announcement and who invited those guests; and (d) when and how were the invitations sent?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the date of the announcement was determined by a number of factors, including the availability of senior officials, the venue, and Lockheed Martin’s full-scale F-35 model.

The Government of Canada reception center at Uplands Hangar was selected on the basis of financial, logistical and security considerations, as well as its capacity to host a full-scale F-35 model and a CF-18.

With regard to (b), senior officials from several departments, including the Department of National Defence, Industry Canada, and Public Works and Government Services Canada, participated in the selection of the date, location and timing of the July 16, 2010 announcement.

With regard to (c), the guests were selected by the Office of the Minister of National Defence on the recommendation of Departmental officials. The majority of the guests were invited by the department, while the remainder were invited by the Office of the Minister of National Defence.

With regard to (d), guests invited by the department received an invitation by telephone and/or email on Wednesday July 14, 2010.

Question No. 957

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

With regard to national defence: (a) what is the date and file number of each Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR) which has been written or prepared in respect of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; (b) how many criteria are in each SOR; (c) what were the reasons for any changes made to each version; (d) what was the nature of those changes; and (e) who requested or directed those changes?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie)]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), when the Government of Canada made a decision in 2010 to replace the CF-18s, the statement of operational requirement that informed that decision was the “Statement of Operational Requirement for Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Capability”. It is version 1.0, dated June 1, 2010, and is filed under defence services program number 00002527.

On April 3, 2012, the government announced its seven-point action plan, which is currently being implemented by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat. One of the steps in the action plan is a requirement for DND to evaluate options to sustain a fighter capability well into the 21st century.

Work on all elements of the seven-point action plan will inform conclusions that will be presented to the government for decision

With regard to (b), the statement of operational requirement contains 14 high-level mandatory capabilities, 28 mandatory requirements, 158 tier 1 requirements and 40 tier 2 requirements. These categories are defined below.

First, the high-level mandatory capabilities are the broad capabilities required by the new resource and form the basis for deriving the mandatory requirements. The 14 capabilities, in general terms, define the various capabilities that are required by the next generation fighter capability to provide a reasonable expectation of mission success in the presence of current and assessed future threats and take into account NORAD and NATO requirements.

Second, the mandatory requirements, comprising some 28 requirements, are capability elements that must be in the product, as their absence would unacceptably diminish the aircraft’s operational capability. Therefore, the product must meet the mandatory requirements for consideration.

Third, tier 1 requirements, comprising some 158 requirements, are capability elements without which the aircraft’s operational capability would be seriously diminished. An aircraft not meeting a tier 1 requirement would result in the Canadian Forces accepting a high degree of operational risk.

Fourth, tier 2 requirements, comprising some 40 requirements, are capability elements without which the aircraft’s overall operational capability would be diminished. An aircraft not meeting a tier 2 requirement would result in the Canadian Forces accepting a low to medium degree of operational risk.

With regard to (c) and (d), while there is only one version of the statement of operational requirement, the document was developed in stages. The first stage began with determining the high-level mandatory capabilities, which were then used as the foundation for the mandatory requirements. The mandatory requirements were used to derive rated requirements that were classified as tier 1 and tier 2.

With regard to (e), there is only one version of the statement of operational requirement.

Question No. 964

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With regard to the $16, 667 in professional and special services spent by the Minister of Labour in fiscal year 2010-2011 in her capacity as Minister of Natural Resources: (a) how much of this money was spent on legal services; (b) what was the nature, extent and purpose of those legal services; (c) was there any court case associated with those legal services and, if so, what is the citation of that case; and (d) what is the contact information, if any, such as telephone number or e-mail address, associated with those legal services?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the information requested in the question is personal information as defined in the Privacy Act and cannot be disclosed.

Question No. 965

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, how many offices does it maintain and how many claims did each office handle in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2011, (v) 2012?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, IRB, is concerned, the IRB maintains five offices. The offices are organized in three regions: western, two offices; eastern, two offices; and central region, one office.

The IRB does not maintain statistics according to a breakdown of claims by office. Providing a breakdown by individual office would not be possible during the timeline specified for this request.

Question No. 972

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

With regard to the funding of enterprises and projects by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): (a) how many entities have received funding from CIDA while being under legal protection from creditors since 2006; and (b) in such cases, does CIDA have a policy to take action to ensure that these entities meet their financial obligations to creditors, sub-contractors, employees and stakeholders?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since 2006, there has been one entity in receipt of CIDA funding while being under legal protection from creditors; however, this entity continues to meet its contractual obligations and is delivering results through its programming.

With regard to (b), while there are no specific policies that address cases where the entities are under legal protection from creditors, there are procedures in place to mitigate the risk of such instances.

The financial risk assessment unit uses a risk-based approach to monitor the financial viability of entities in receipt of CIDA funding prior to entering into an agreement and during the life cycle of the CIDA project. Mitigation actions are immediately put in place if a recipient is under legal protection from creditors.

Standard agreements include provisions that allow CIDA to ensure entities are performing their obligations.

Question No. 975

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

With regard to government legislation introduced in the 40th and 41st Parliaments in either the House or the Senate and the Department of Justice Act requirement in s. 4.1 that government legislation comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: (a) on what date was the legislation submitted for review; (b) which individuals conducted the review; (c) what are the job titles of the persons who performed the review; (d) what are the qualifications of the persons who performed the review; (e) is membership in good standing of a law society a requirement for performing the review; (f) were all those who participated in the review members in good standing of a law society at the time and, if so, which law societies were represented and how many years of practice did each individual involved have; (g) on what dates was the review conducted; (h) what is the process for such a review; (i) what doctrinal and jurisprudential sources were used to conduct the reviews, specifying (i) Canadian doctrinal sources, (ii) international doctrinal sources, (iii) domestic jurisprudential decisions, (iv) international jurisprudential decisions, (v) other legal or academic sources consulted; (j) what databases are accessed to conduct the review; (k) does any external consultation occur for the purposes of conducting such a review and, if so, what kinds of individuals or groups can be consulted; (l) how many drafts exist for each review report; (m) when were the memos in this regard presented to the Minister of Justice or any other member of the cabinet; (n) what was the cost of preparing each of these reports; (o) what is the budget allotted for the preparation of each report; (p) for each year since 2006, how much money has been allotted for undertaking each review; (q) for each year since 2006, how much money has been used to conduct each review; (r) how will the positions involved in the review process be affected by budget cuts at the department; (s) to whom will this work fall if these positions are cut; (t) what measures are in place to ensure the quality of the reviews; (u) what measures are in place to ensure the accuracy of the reviews; (v) are there any circumstances in which the government would make the content of such reviews public and, if so, what are they; and (w) has the government assessed litigation risk with respect to non-compliance with s. 4.1(1) and, if so, when, and who conducted the assessment?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), although the chief legislative counsel of the Department of Justice certifies that government bills have been examined, they are reviewed by legislative counsel within the legislation section as well as counsel throughout the department; their review is continuous from the point of policy development to their introduction in Parliament. Review begins when departmental officials bring the subject matter of the legislation to the attention of Justice counsel.

With regard to (b) to (f), a wide variety of counsel throughout the department with varying levels of expertise, years of call, and qualifications have worked on the various bills that were introduced in the 40th and 41st Parliaments. As a term of employment, all Department of Justice counsel must be members in good standing of a provincial or territorial bar.

With regard to (g) and (h), review is an ongoing process, which culminates in the certification, in accordance with section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms examination regulations, that government bills have been examined. Once a bill has been introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, the Clerk of the House of Commons sends two copies of it to the chief legislative counsel, who then certifies on behalf of the Deputy Minister of Justice that the bill has been examined in accordance with section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. One of the certified copies is then transmitted to the Clerk of the House of Commons. The other is transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council Office.

With regard to (i), over the course of the 40th and 41st Parliaments, counsel in the Department of Justice routinely used a wide variety of doctrinal and jurisprudential sources in conducting legal analysis relevant to government bills.

With regard to (j), the Department of Justice counsel use a number of standard and specialized legal databases such as CANLII, as well as a number of internally developed databases, in order to conduct its review of legislation.

With regard to (k), this information is protected by solicitor-client privilege.

With regard to (l) to (q), the requested details pertaining to the review of bills constitute legal advice protected by solicitor-client privilege.

With regard to (r) and (s), there are no positions dedicated to this review since, as stated in the response to (a) above, it is done by counsel throughout the Department of Justice as part of other employment responsibilities.

With regard to (t) and (u), as noted above, the review process is an ongoing one that is conducted by counsel throughout the Department of Justice. Appropriate quality assurance measures are employed as required.

With regard to (v), review material is protected by solicitor-client privilege.

With regard to (w), this information is protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 954, 961, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 976 and 978 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 954

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: for each of September 1, 2006, September 1, 2008 and September 1, 2012, (a) how many individuals were employed by the agency as “inspectors”, including a breakdown of individuals employed as “field inspection staff”; (b) what was the specific job description of each individual; and (c) at what exact location did each of them work?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 961

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With regard to Parks Canada: (a) what is the breakdown by each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site for annual expenditures, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (b) what were the number of staff employed full-time at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (c) what were the number of staff employed part-time at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (d) what are the number of paid staff hours at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (e) what are the positions of employment at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (f) what are the anticipated changes at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, resulting from the 2012 Budget for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 967

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

With regard to the National Research Council of Canada (NRC): (a) how many Research Associates in each portfolio were employed by NRC in September 2011; (b) how many Research Associates in each portfolio were employed by NRC in September 2012; (c) broken down by portfolio, what are the numbers of NRC researchers charging their time against each research project time code, and what is the number of total hours charged against each research project time code, by month from January 2010 to the present; (d) broken down by portfolio, what are the numbers of NRC researchers charging their time against each portfolio time code, and what is the total number of hours charged against each portfolio time code, by month from January 2010 to the present; and (e) what are the job titles of all of the people who may edit or give approval for papers and articles to be submitted by NRC employees to peer-reviewed journals?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 968

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada: (a) what is the total amount, in dollars, broken down by year from 2006 to 2012, allocated to the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) by the government; (b) what is the total amount of funding, in dollars, external to core funding from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, secured by the ELA, broken down by year from 2006 to 2012; (c) what is the projected cost of closing or “mothballing” the ELA; (d) how was the projected cost of closure of the ELA calculated; (e) what factors were considered when assessing the costs of the closure of the ELA; (f) what means, or media, for communications is Fisheries and Oceans Canada Director General Dave Gillis allowed to employ to communicate information regarding any changes in ELA funding to (i) employees of the ELA, (ii) current stakeholders, (iii) potential stakeholders, (iv) the public; and (g) what will the consequences of closing the ELA be?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 969

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

With regard to National Research Council Canada (NRC): (a) what is the department responsible for collecting royalties for patents licensed by NRC; (b) what is the breakdown, in dollars, of billing for royalties for patents licensed by NRC, by month from January, 2010 to the present; (c) what is the amount, in dollars, received by NRC from collecting royalties for patents they have licensed, by month from January, 2010 to the present; (d) what is the amount of outstanding royalties for patents licensed by NRC payable to NRC as of September 21, 2012; (e) how many outstanding bills, pertaining to royalties for patents licensed by NRC that are owed to NRC, have not been issued since January, 2010, by month, and what are each of their dollar amounts; (f) what is the total, in dollars, of outstanding royalties for patents licensed by NRC owed to NRC since January, 2010, by month; (g) where are royalties received for patents licensed by NRC allocated; and (h) which line items in the NRC budget receive how many dollars?