Debates of March 8th, 2013

Question No. 1125

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

With regard to Bill C-463, Discover Your Canada Act, has the Department of Finance or any other department conducted a costing analysis of the bill and, if so, what are the results of this costing analysis?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance has conducted a costing analysis of Bill C-463. Based on Statistics Canada data on existing travel patterns in Canada, it is estimated that the cost of the measure proposed in Bill C-463 would be about $215 million in 2017, the year in which the proposed travel deduction would come into effect. It is unclear to what degree the proposal would induce individuals to travel more or change their travel plans, but any increase in eligible travel would increase this cost.

We are not aware of any costing done by other government departments.

Question No. 1126

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

With regard to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band and the contracted engagement of Mr. Fred Caron by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: (a) what does this contract say; (b) what are the terms of reference associated with this contract; (c) what are the objectives and the intended consequences arising from work conducted through this contract; (d) what is contained within the approved workplan for the conduct of this contract; (e) on what date did Fred Caron sign this contract; (f) on what date did the contracting authority of the government sign this contract; (g) how long is the engagement anticipated to last; (h) what is the contractor's rate of pay; (i) how much money has been budgeted for his remuneration; (j) how much money has been budgeted for expenses including support services and has any specific mandate been given to this contractor to consult on potential chances to the 2007 Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Agreement-in-Principle which was ratified and brought into effect on September 26, 2011?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the contract contains standard general and supplementary conditions; provisions regarding the terms of payment; a statement of work; appendices regarding intellectual property and travel expense Information; and an annex regarding security requirements.

With regard to (b), the contractor is to perform the following core roles to the satisfaction of the departmental representative: lead specific interventions and federal consultations with third parties when issues arise; provide strategic advice; attend engagement activity meetings; resolve deal-breaker issues within mandate; and act as the federal spokesperson for enquiries from the media, when so mandated.

With regard to (c), the contract’s stated objective is to engage with the Chief and Council of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation to amend the agreement for the recognition or, if necessary, negotiate a new agreement; to tighten the current enrolment process; and to adopt a new process and criteria in light of the surge in the number of applications for membership and the concerns regarding how the criteria have been applied.

With regard to (d), the outputs and deliverables of the contract include the following: barring circumstances beyond the control of the parties to the agreement, delivery of amendments to the Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq Band, or the conclusion of a new agreement, addressing Canada’s concerns with respect to the enrolment process; submission of short written reports on activities, meetings, briefings, media interviews and inquiries from key stakeholders, upon request; provision of proposed key accomplishments and plans for the next month in the written monthly activity report, upon request; provision of monthly invoices; and completion and submission of a Federal Negotiator or Representative Performance Report--Part 1, Contractor’s Self-Evaluation on Results to Date, as part of the Annual review of negotiation tables process, upon request.

With regard to (e), Mr. Fred Caron signed the contract on December 3, 2012.

With regard to (f), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada signed the contract on December 3, 2012.

With regard to (g), the contract is in effect to March 31, 2013. With regard to (h), (i) and (j), all contracts are subject to the application of the Treasury Board contracting policy.

For information on the mandate, members may refer to (c) above.

Question No. 1128

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

With regard to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band and the enrollment process of individual applicants into the Band that were received by the Enrollment Committee of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band prior to the November 30, 2012, deadline for such submissions: (a) what provisions have been made for the consideration of any such applications after the Enrollment Committee's mandate expires as per the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Agreement; and (b) does Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada intend that all such applications will be assessed by federal representatives on the Enrollment Committee in the same manner and using the same precedents for decision-making as those applications for enrollment that were received by the Enrollment Committee prior to December 31, 2009?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the agreement provided for the enrolment committee to cease reviewing applications at the end of December 2012. Owing to the initial objectives of the agreement, the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians have agreed to work together to discuss next steps regarding the consideration of applications and the appropriate implementation of the Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq Band. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has asked Mr. Fred Caron to work with the leadership of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation on an approach to address the situation.

With regard to (b), the assessment of applications after the end of December 2012 will be guided by the outcome of the ongoing discussions between the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians.

Question No. 1136

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

With regard to the decision to make all members of the Canadian fishing industry responsible for obtaining and paying for any gear tags or tabs used in commercial fisheries, which will begin after March 31, 2013: (a) prior to this decision, what was the cost per tag or tab (i) for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), (ii) for a harvester; (b) after this decision, what will be the cost per tag or tab (i) for DFO, (ii) for a harvester; (c) how much will DFO save as a result of this decision; (d) what are the advantages and disadvantages of this decision; (e) how many studies did DFO conduct in this regard, (i) what are their titles, (ii) where are they are available; and (f) how many consultations took place prior to this decision and with whom?

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), prior to the decision to make industry responsible for paying for gear tags in commercial fisheries, with the exception of tuna tags, the cost to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, per tag in the Atlantic lobster and crab fisheries ranged from 12¢ to 15 ¢, for a total of $518,000 per year for purchase and shipping. This is the cost DFO paid for each tag, shipped to a harvester where that applied, and does not include salary or administrative costs incurred by the department to manage the program. DFO also supplied vessel validation and gillnet tabs in the Pacific region, at an average per unit cost of $3.19.

With regard to (b), after March 31, 2013, there will be no cost to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for tags or validation tabs. There will be no cost to Pacific harvesters, as validation tabs are being eliminated. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not been provided prices for tag suppliers, as pricing arrangements are negotiated between tag manufacturers, tag suppliers and harvesters and constitute business arrangements to which the department is not privy.

With regard to (c), as a result of the decision, DFO projects savings of approximately $518,000 per year for the purchase and shipping of tags.

With regard to (d), the advantages of this decision are that it saves taxpayers approximately $500,000 in fisheries management costs and it will also ensure that all harvesters are treated equally in accordance with DFO’s position that industry should pay for the fishing gear conservation requirements for the fishery from which it benefits and that business participants should be responsible for supplying the equipment needed to carry out their business. The decision also reduces the administrative burden on Pacific fish harvesters by removing the requirement to obtain and display validation tabs. The department has not identified any disadvantages of this decision.

With regard to (e), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertook two studies on tagging that were incorporated in the regulatory impact analysis that was published on November 10, 2012, in the Canada Gazette, part I. These unpublished studies were titled “The Way Forward for Fishing Tags and Logbooks” and “Cost-Benefit Analysis: Regulations amending the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations, 1985 and the Pacific Fishery Regulations, 1993 to remove requirements for the departmental issuance of fishing tags and validation tabs”. These studies are available on request from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

With regard to (f), there were no consultations with industry prior to this decision; however, meetings did take place with industry representatives following the decision to discuss whether tags were needed for various fisheries and what kind of system industry could put in place to supply tags that meet specific management requirements.

Question No. 1138

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

With regard to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and officials who worked in the Minister's office between May 8, 2010, and December 1, 2012, for all meetings concerning any aspect of the Muskrat Falls project, (i) what are the names and titles or positions of all officials who held or attended each meeting, (ii) who were the other attendees at each meeting, (iii) what were the dates of each meeting, (iv) what were the locations of each meeting, (v) what were the topics discussed at each meeting?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office has no records related to this request.

Question No. 1146

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

With regard to implementation of Division 54 of Part IV of An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures (formerly Bill C-38), which amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (a) of the 280,000 permanent residency applications made before February 27, 2008, and whose processing will be cancelled, how many were made by applicants (i) for whom French is the language spoken at home, (ii) who speak French at home, (iii) who speak French fluently; and (b) in which receiving province or region were these residency applications placed?

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

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is concerned, with regard to (a), CIC systems do not capture the categories (i) “for whom French is the language spoken at home”, (ii) “who speak French at home” or (iii) “who speak French fluently”.

With regard to (b), the vast majority of federal skilled worker, or FSW, applications are not placed in a province but rather the appropriate visa office overseas. Only 15 applications representing 50 individuals placed their applications in Canada, at CPP in Ottawa. Please note that the FSW category does not include applicants who intend on residing in Quebec. These applications are submitted into the Quebec skilled worker category, which was not affected by measures contained in Bill C-38.

Question No. 1148

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

With regard to the response provided by the Minister of International Cooperation to written question Q-972 on the Order Paper in which the Minister states that: “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.”: (a) what are all the “mitigation actions” referred to in the response; and (b) were the “mitigation actions” put in place when the entity referred to Minister's response to Q-972 was under legal protection and, if so, what were all the “mitigation actions” taken by the Canadian International Development Agency in specific cases involving the entity referred to in the Minister's response to Q-972?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), mitigation actions and measures taken to protect the interests of the Crown when an organization in receipt of the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, funding is under legal protection from creditors include conducting an internal, or contracting an external, review and assessment of potential program, legal, fiduciary and political/reputational risks that may arise; alerting the recipient country ministry or partner institution of potential project impacts; reviewing the contractual and performance terms and conditions of the agreement or agreements signed; based on the assessment and severity of the financial situation, developing a risk mitigation and monitoring plan, usually in consultation with the organization or service provider and their lenders, as well as the recipient country ministry or partner institution, if required; obtaining financial statements, forecasts and operational plans from the organization or service provider to closely monitor and track progress in addressing the situation and returning to normal business operations; ensuring that all advance payments are secured by means of irrevocable bank guarantees issued by acceptable financial institutions and that any financial performance guarantees are enforceable, in case of need; and not entering into any new agreements until such time as the organization or service provider has demonstrated their financial capacity, returned to normal business operations and is no longer under the protection of the courts.

With regard to (b), yes, these types of mitigation actions were put in place when the entity was under legal protection from creditors. This entity continues to meet its contractual obligations and is delivering results through its programming. Because the entity referred to in the response to Q-972 was involved in active projects in several countries, CIDA took the following specific measures to protect the interests of the Crown: CIDA established a multi-disciplinary task force to oversee a common, integrated and corporate approach to managing the situation and mitigating potential risks; discussions and meetings were held with senior representatives of the organization, who provided detailed information on the extent and severity of the financial situation, and the likely operational impacts; based on the initial information received, as well as a review of the current status of project implementation, management arrangements and contractual terms and conditions, CIDA completed an internal review and assessment of the fiduciary and other risks across each program; a proactive monitoring and integrated risk management approach was developed and agreed with the organization, which featured open and direct channels of communication at a senior level to provide regular updates on the financial situation and recovery as well as to facilitate the dissemination of information on operational progress across the agency and decision-making on individual projects; in projects where the organization was part of a consortium, the agency agreed, on a non-objection basis, to the transfer or assignment of the lead implementation role to other well-established members or partners, who were jointly and severally liable; for projects where the organization was solely responsible for delivery or implementation, the agency took steps to ensure that all financial and performance guarantees were enforceable, in case of need; as part of its efforts to continue operations and remain a going concern, the organization presented a comprehensive business plan and financial projections that were developed with legal and financial third party advisors, a plan was subsequently validated by independent auditors as part of the due diligence process to attract additional capital; In order to manage fiduciary risks and support the organization’s proposed recovery plan, CIDA was called upon and co-operated with established provincial, institutional and private investors, financial advisors, auditors and commercial lenders at various stages through a financial and capital restructuring; as a necessary part of this exercise, the organization sought and obtained lawful protection from the courts, including a proposal to existing creditors, the vast majority of which voted in favour of the terms and conditions of the settlement offered; and the organization subsequently restructured its capital and, with the support of new investors and shareholders, resumed commercial operations. CIDA continues to monitor progress closely and manage fiduciary risks carefully.

Question No. 1151

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

With regard to the change in mandate and the administrative changes at the Montreal Biosphere: (a) will the memorandum of understanding signed in 1991 by the City of Montreal and the government be amended or replaced by 2016, (i) was a new memorandum of understanding signed by the government, (ii) what are the agreement clauses of the new memorandum, (iii) what impact will these changes have on current research programs; (b) how many positions at the Biosphere will be abolished or transferred to other units in 2013 or over the new few years; (c) was the Biosphere’s total budget increased or decreased; (d) was the Biosphere’s budget or a part thereof allocated to another program; (e) what changes will be made to the Biosphere’s interactive activities and exhibits; (f) what changes will be made to the Biosphere’s physical layout; (g) which part of the building will be used for educational and interactive activities; (h) will the Biosphere house services and staff from the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) or another Environment Canada unit or agency, and if so, which ones; and (i) how many CMC employees will be working at the Biosphere?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there is currently no plan to amend or replace the memorandum of understanding that was signed in 1991. With regard to (a)(i), the government has not signed any new memorandum of understanding. With regard to (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), these questions are not applicable because the government has not signed any new memorandum of understanding.

With regard to (b), last June, eight employees at the Biosphere were told that their current positions are being discontinued and that they are eligible for support under existing workforce adjustment provisions.At the same time, the remaining employees at the Biosphere, 18 at the time, now 15, were notified that their current positions may be affected.

With regard to (c), the operational budget for the Biosphere varies from year to year, depending on exhibits and activities planned.Over the past decade, the annual budget of the Biosphere has varied between $3 million and $5 million.

With regard to (d), the Biosphere’s budget has not been allocated to another program.

With regard to (e), the Biosphere has been offering environmental education and outreach activities since 1995. As Environment Canada has done over the years, we are changing the nature of the interpretive activities at the Biosphere within its current lease. Environment Canada will continue to promote and provide educational activities to students and the general public on the environment through a new product for public viewing.

With regard to (f), Environment Canada will not propose any changes to the building that will affect its architectural heritage. The details of the renewal of our interpretation activities inside the Biosphere are still being finalized.

With regard to (g), the details of the renewal of our interpretation activities inside the Biosphere are still being finalized. With regard to (h), the details of the renewal of our interpretation activities inside the Biosphere are still being finalized. With regard to (i), the details of the renewal of our interpretation activities inside the Biosphere are still being finalized.

Question No. 1156

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to permits and entries for Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW) in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley: (a) what is the total number of permits for each quarter since 2001 inclusive; and (b) what is the total number of entries for each quarter since 2001 inclusive?

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

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, is concerned, with regard to (a), CIC does not compile statistics by constituency and therefore cannot identify the total number of permits issued in the Skeena—Bulkley Valley riding.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 1086, originally tabled on January 28, 2013, as well as Questions Nos. 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1121, 1123, 1127, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1145 and 1147 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1086

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With regard to government advertising: since 2006, how much has been spent on billboards, advertising and other information campaigns, broken down by (i) date released, (ii) cost, (iii) topic, (iv) medium, including publication or media outlet and type of media used, (v) purpose, (vi) duration of the campaign, (vii) targeted audience, (viii) estimated audience, (ix) any analysis of the effectiveness of the advertisement or campaign?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1109

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With regard to national parks, what are the details of all costs related to the establishment of the Mealy Mountain National Park or National Park Reserve, in each fiscal year since 2002-2003 inclusive, providing details of the nature, scope and duration of all work undertaken, and, if applicable, the names of the recipients of any funding related to the national park establishment process?

(Return tabled)