Debates of March 31st, 2015

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. 1047, 1048, 1050 to 1053 and 1057.

Question No. 1047

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

With regard to the communications activities of the Prime Minister’s office: (a) what is the source or provenance of each individual video clip, segment, or shot which was combined to produce the video entitled “24 SEVEN Exclusive: Canada stands strong and free”, which was posted on January 28, 2015; (b) who owns the copyright or any other intellectual property rights in each such video clip, segment, or shot; (c) for each such video clip, segment, or shot, was permission obtained to use the clip, segment, or shot; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, when, how, and from whom was the permission obtained; and (e) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, was the permission obtained in return for payment or other consideration, and what are the details of that payment or consideration?

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

Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows:

With regard to (a), the sources of each individual video clip, segment or shot used in the “24 SEVEN Exclusive: Canada stands strong and free” are the Canadian Forces Combat Camera, the House of Commons and 24 SEVEN footage.

With regard to part b), the Crown owns the copyright for the Canadian Forces Combat Camera and 24 SEVEN footage. The House of Commons owns the copyright for footage taken from proceedings in the House of Commons.

With regard to parts c) to e), permission to use the material was sought from the House of Commons. The Prime Minister’s Office obtained permission to use the footage in March 2014. This permission was not obtained in return for any payment or other consideration. The Crown owns the copyright for Combat Camera, therefore no official permission to use the material was necessary. The audio-visual team of Combat Camera is aware of its use by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Question No. 1048

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

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Manolis L situation: (a) since March 2013, what advice has the Department received from international experts regarding the situation; (b) will a management plan be put in place; and (c) is the government prepared to access a federal clean-up fund to address the situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard remain committed to protecting our oceans from ship-source pollution. The government has made this clear through the ongoing implementation of a world-class tanker safety system.

With regard to (a), since March 2013, the coast guard has received advice from international experts that confirms the effectiveness of ongoing operations. As a response organization, the Canadian Coast Guard continues to look at all options; however, the cofferdam and the coast guard’s ongoing response plan for the Manolis L continues to be effective. The coast guard is prepared to move swiftly to respond if the current situation changes.

With regard to (a), since March 2013, the coast guard has received advice from international experts that confirms the effectiveness of ongoing operations. As a response organization, the Canadian Coast Guard continues to look at all options; however, the cofferdam and the coast guard’s ongoing response plan for the Manolis L continues to be effective. The coast guard is prepared to move swiftly to respond if the current situation changes.

With regard to (c), under Canada’s existing ship-source oil pollution fund, cost recovery is limited to five years from the date of the original incident, which in this case refers to the vessel’s sinking. The government is reviewing long-term options for the management of the Manolis L.

Question No. 1050

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

With regard to National Defence and its Cormorant Search and Rescue helicopters: (a) what are the details of a pilot project to be carried out this year regarding a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week uniform search and rescue response time; (b) what is the expected completion date; (c) what is the goal of the pilot project; and (d) will the results be presented to Parliament?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, each year, search and rescue, SAR, crews and coordinators respond to approximately 10,000 marine, aeronautical and humanitarian incidents nation-wide. The three search and rescue regions, SRRs, in Victoria, Trenton and Halifax work together to oversee SAR operations across Canada, which includes over 18 million square kilometres of land and sea. SAR crews follow a schedule of 40 hours a week of 30-minute SAR response time. Outside of the 40-hour week, SAR crews continue to respond immediately and must be airborne within two hours.

With regard to (a) to (d), the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, are not currently carrying out a project as described in the question. However, the CAF are in the final year of a project composed of a set of annual trials of SAR response times held over the course of three years. The purpose of this trial project is to adjust response times to better align with the hours and days during which SAR incidents are most likely to occur. While the pre-existing response time will not change, this trial, which will vary for squadrons and aircraft, aims to align the 30-minute response posture with periods of greatest SAR activity based on historical data.

The 2013 trial included the Trenton SRR and in 2014, was refined and expanded to include Victoria. This year’s final trial will be further expanded to include Halifax and will run from May 15 through September 7, 2015.

Question No. 1051

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

With regard to International Trade: (a) how did the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development arrive at a figure of $280 million as compensation to Newfoundland and Labrador for anticipated losses incurred with the elimination of Minimum Processing Requirements as part of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) deal; (b) when did the EU ask for Minimum Processing Requirements to be lifted as part of CETA negotiations; and (c) for what concessions from the EU was the elimination of Minimum Processing Requirements exchanged?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the historic Canada-EU trade agreement will deliver tremendous benefits for businesses, workers and their families in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador raised significant concerns that the removal of minimum processing requirements, MPRs, would have a negative impact on workers in the fisheries sector. Through discussions, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to cost-share an MPR fund that would be used to compensate those who can demonstrate losses as a result of the removal of MPRs. The Government of Canada looks forward to receiving the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's specific proposals for this fund, and to moving forward with this historic trade agreement that will present untold economic opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador.

With regard to (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that the disclosure of negotiating information could be injurious to bilateral relations between Canada and the EU.

With regard to (c), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes cabinet confidences.

Question No. 1052

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

With regard to the Offshore Tax Informant Program: (a) since the program was established, (i) how many calls have been received, (ii) how many cases have been opened based on information received from informants, (iii) what is the total amount of the financial awards given to informants, (iv) what is the total amount of money collected by the Canada Revenue Agency; (b) how many current investigations are the result of information received through the program; and (c) how much money is involved in the current investigations?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, launched the offshore tax informant program, OTIP, on January 15, 2014. As of January 31, 2015, the OTIP had received 1,712 calls, 478 of them from potential informants.

With regard to (a)(ii), as of January 31, 2015, the OTIP had received 189 written submissions. Of these, 113 cases are being reviewed by the OTIP to determine program eligibility. There have been 76 cases that do not qualify under the OTIP. Those cases have been closed and where appropriate, referred to other areas within the CRA for possible compliance action.

With regard to (a)(iii), once the OTIP receives a submission, it is evaluated on its merits as to whether it warrants issuing a contract for the potential reward. It may take several years from the date of entering into a contract with the CRA until the additional federal tax is assessed, the taxpayer’s appeal rights have expired and the amount owing is collected. If the CRA assesses and collects more than $100,000 in additional federal tax, the reward will be between 5% and 15% of the federal tax collected, not including interest or penalties. The OTIP is currently engaged in the contracting phase with several informants. No rewards have been paid out to date.

With regard to (a)(iv), the CRA will report to Canadians on results of the OTIP, including the amounts recovered and paid out to informants, through the CRA’s annual report to Parliament, provided that this information does not have the potential to reveal the identity of confidential informants or disclose taxpayer information.

With regard to (b), the OTIP reviews the information provided by informants about potential international tax non-compliance for eligibility purposes. Only after a file is referred will a CRA compliance action potentially confirm whether a taxpayer has been non-compliant and, if so, the dollar amounts involved. The OTIP takes protecting taxpayer and informant information seriously. Given that the program is still in its early stages, disclosing operational information such as the number of compliance actions that may be under way could jeopardize the identity of an informant or compromise the CRA’s compliance actions.

With regard to (c), please see responses provided in (a)(iv) and (b).

Question No. 1053

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

With regard to the Countering Violent Extremism Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: (a) on what date did the program become operational; (b) how many full-time equivalent staff are assigned to the program; (c) how many RCMP members have received training through the program; (d) in which municipalities is the program operating; (e) what total budget has been allocated to the program; (f) how many community associations and places of worship have been engaged through the program; (g) which faith communities have been engaged through the program; and (h) what is the planned duration of the program?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the RCMP is currently finalizing the implementation of the countering violent extremism, CVE, program components and anticipating that the program will be fully operational in late 2015. The RCMP has started to provide CVE training to front-line law enforcement across Canada.

With regard to (b) and (e), the CVE mandate is part of the public engagement program that has eight full-time employees operating on a budget of $1.1 million. Throughout the course of the year, additional resources were pulled from various divisions and national headquarters for an additional $2 million. As a result, in fiscal year 2014-15, the RCMP is projecting total expenditures of $3.1 million on its CVE mandate.

With regard to (c), 18 RCMP members have received training through the program. In addition, 12 police officers from outside agencies have received training, from the Toronto Police Service, Vancouver Police Department, Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, Sûreté du Québec, Service de police de la Ville de Québec, Peel Regional Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and Ottawa Police Service. The RCMP also supported and facilitated the counter terrorism information officer program training for 400 front-line Toronto Police Service officers. The counter terrorism information officer workshop delivery has also been leveraged to provide awareness of radicalization to violence. These workshops, a fixture of the RCMP’s counter terrorism training for nearly a decade with over 1,800 individuals trained to date, provide training to law enforcement and first responders to detect signs of radicalization to violence, build overall terrorism awareness and help serve as a basis for future terrorism prevention program training. In 2014-15, over 647 officers were trained through the workshops, significantly increasing the number of RCMP officers trained in how to detect signs of radicalization.

With regard to (d), (f) and (g), the RCMP CVE program is not aimed at specific individuals or communities. It is designed to work with individuals who have been identified by law enforcement based on a number of pre-determined, unbiased and objective criteria that are grounded in research, or by the community itself. The RCMP works with all its diverse communities and does not focus on specific communities based on their ethnic background or religious faith. The RCMP is committed to building trust with all of the communities it serves to share mutual concerns and develop collective solutions.

With regard to (h), in keeping with its mandate, the RCMP undertakes comprehensive national security outreach efforts to work directly with individuals, families, communities and as such, the CVE does not have a designated duration timeline.

Question No. 1057

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

With regard to a procurement certification agreement between the Treasury Board and the Standards Council of Canada: (a) does such an agreement exist; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, since when; (c) what are the details of the agreement; (d) has the agreement been modified since the date identified in (b), and if so, (i) what are the details of the changes, (ii) when did the changes take effect; and (e) does the text of the agreement refer to training developed and offered by the Canada School of Public Service, and if so, what are the details of this training?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no procurement certification agreement between the Treasury Board and the Standards Council of Canada.

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. 1032 to 1037, 1039 to 1045 and 1054 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

Question No. 1032

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

With regard to the International Experience Canada Program (the Program): (a) does the government track data to determine if the Program is impacting the domestic labour market for young Canadians; (b) if the answer in (a) is negative, what are the reasons; (c) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, what are the details of any measurements used by the government to make such determination; (d) how many Canadian employers employ foreign youth in the Program, broken down by (i) total, (ii) industry, (iii) numbers as of each fiscal period ending from March 31, 2005 to March 31, 2014; (e) does the government believe the Program is having any negative effect on the domestic labour market for young Canadians; (f) if the answer in (e) is affirmative, what are the details of any rationale for belief, data, metrics, reference numbers, dates of any documents produced by or for the government to support such a belief; (g) what checks and balance are in place to ensure the Program is not negatively impacting the domestic labour market for Canadian youth; (h) which countries did Canada have reciprocal agreements in place with and what was each agreed quota as of December 31, 2005; (i) since January 1, 2006, how many new reciprocal agreements were signed, broken down by the (i) date of agreement, (ii) initial quota, (iii) policy rationale and objectives for the initial quota agreed upon; (j) since January 1, 2006, which reciprocal agreement quotas were increased from the initial agreement quota, broken down by (i) date of quota increase, (ii) rationale for the increase; (k) since January 1, 2006, what are the details of any analysis done when new reciprocal agreements were signed or agreement quotas expanded to determine impacts on the domestic youth labour market, broken down by (i) report titles, (ii) dates, (iii) file numbers, (iv) results of any such analysis or study; (l) if no analysis was done in relation to question (k), what are the reasons and what did the government rely on to ensure there would be no significant impact to increasing the number of foreign youth in the country through the Program on the domestic youth labour market; (m) which countries does Canada have reciprocal agreements with, broken down by (i) the quota, (ii) the number of youth in the Program as of each fiscal period ending from March 31, 2002, to March 31, 2014, (iii) the current number of youth; (n) since 2007, what are the instances where the government became aware of potential abuses in the Program, broken down by (i) description of the confirmed or alleged abuse, (ii) date, (iii) titles and file numbers of reports that investigated the confirmed or alleged abuse; (o) what policies or procedures are in place to ensure foreign youth are not open to labour standards or occupational health and safety abuse by employers; (p) are employers of foreign youth in the Program subject to workplace inspections; (q) if the answer in (p) is affirmative, how many inspections occurred in each fiscal period, from 2004-2005 to date; (r) what was the primary policy purpose behind increasing the number of countries and quotas in the Program in each instance since 2006; (s) is the Program associated with any specific policy to address labour and skills shortages in Canada; (t) if the answer in (s) is affirmative, when did that policy come into force and what was the rationale for it; (u) does the government believe the Program is helping address labour shortages; (v) if the answer in (u) is affirmative, which part of the country are concerned and in what way; (w) what were the budgeted and actual expenditures for the Program for fiscal year 2004-2005 to the current fiscal year; (x) what was the cost of promoting the Program from fiscal year 2004-2005 to the current fiscal year, broken down by costs associated with (i) foreign youth, (ii) Canadian youth; (y) what was the cost to promote the Program to Canadian businesses, broken down by fiscal year from 2004-2005 to date; (z) what are the policies or strategies used to promote foreign youth in the Program to Canadian employers; (aa) what are the dates and costs of trips or missions undertaken abroad to promote the Program to foreign youth since 2006, broken down by (i) government officials, (ii) ministers; (bb) did the Department of Foreign Affairs have any concerns about the direction of the Program, the policy associated with it or its objectives since 2008; and (cc) if the answer to (bb) is affirmative, what were the concerns, broken down by (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) file number of the documents that highlighted the concern?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1033

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

With regard to the recognition of landless bands and the recognition of Indian Status of members of such bands under the Indian Act: (a) how many landless bands have been recognized by Canada; (b) what are the recognized names of such bands; (c) by which legal instruments was each band recognized; (d) on what date was each band recognized; (e) what was the number of members of each band at the time of recognition; (f) what is the number of members for each recognized band today; (g) where were the original members of each band generally understood to have resided at the time of recognition; (h) where are the members of each recognized band generally understood to reside today; (i) for each band, did membership in the band result in a direct eligibility for enrollment with the Registrar of Indians for recognition of Status under the Indian Act; (j) what were the original eligibility criteria established for each band at the time the recognition order was proclaimed; and (k) what are the details concerning current eligibility criteria for bands to be recognized?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1034

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

With regard to the operation of the federal Crown Corporation Marine Atlantic Incorporated (MAI) and the policy and operational oversight provided for MAI by Transport Canada: (a) what is Transport Canada’s rationale for its decision to acquire or charter new vessels of approximately 200 metres in length to renew the MAI fleet, in light of the fact that the MAI Board of Directors had previously approved their consultant’s recommendation that vessels of 175 metres in length would be best suited to the service; (b) what were the perceived advantages of the longer vessels that outweighed the increased likelihood that their operations would be inhibited by poor weather; (c) what was Transport Canada’s rationale for establishing a four-vessel fleet for MAI, given the 2005 Report from the Minister of Transport’s Advisory Committee on Marine Atlantic Inc. that had recommended a three-vessel fleet; (d) does MAI track delays that customers experience in order to make new bookings during peak times, (i) if so, what are the details of such delays for June to September 2013, and June to September 2014, (ii) if not, why not; (e) does MAI collect data on the delay between a customer’s preferred travel date and the date for which they are actually able to make a reservation for travel, (i) if so, what are the details of such delays for June to September 2013, and June to September 2014, (ii) if not, why not; (f) during times of traffic backlog (e.g., because of excess demand, mechanical failure or poor weather) is it MAI’s policy not to take new reservations, or allow vehicles to buy passage and enter the parking lots, until the backlog is cleared and, if so, why; (g) in what ways do the new collective agreements signed between 2011 and 2013 for MAI employees allow additional operational flexibility and potential for labour cost savings to MAI, compared to the previous collective agreements; (h) what measureable benefits has MAI received as a result of the new collective agreements; (i) is the loan for the MV Leif Ericson still being paid out of the operating budget and, if so, why; (j) other than the Canadian Forces Appreciation Fare, has MAI ever introduced any other fare options to give users more choice and increase fare revenue and, if not, why not; (k) is it MAI’s current policy to give tractor-trailers loading priority over drop trailers and, if not, why not; (l) did MAI apply to Transport Canada Marine Safety in order to be able to allow more drivers of tractor-trailers onboard restricted sailings and, if not, why not; (m) has an independent ombudsman ever been appointed to receive customer complaints regarding MAI’s service and, if not, why not; (n) how has the effectiveness of MAI’s maintenance management systems and practices improved since 2009; (o) does MAI track the average time between equipment failures, (i) if so, what trends have been observed in equipment performance measures since 2009, (ii) if not, why not; (p) what objective indicators has MAI established with respect to vessel turnaround time; and (q) what trends have been observed in the indicators mentioned in (p)?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1035

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) tax centre in Shawinigan-Sud: (a) does the government plan to begin renovating this building over the next 24 months; (b) if work is to begin, will it involve life cycle maintenance; (c) if revitalization work is planned, as of what date does the department responsible expect this work to begin; (d) does the CRA plan to move some or all of its activities from Shawinigan-Sud to another city and, if so, what are the details; (e) over the long term, does the CRA intend to maintain in Shawinigan-Sud (i) a processing centre for personal tax returns, (ii) a processing centre for business tax returns; (f) will any jobs be transferred from the Shawinigan-Sud tax centre to other cities in Canada over the next 24 months; (g) has Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) assessed the condition of the building where the Shawinigan-Sud tax centre is located at 4695 12th Avenue, Shawinigan-Sud; (h) is PWGSC aware that the building mentioned in (g) is approaching an advanced state of disrepair; (i) is PWGSC planning a major revitalization of the building mentioned in (g) over the next 24 months; (j) does Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) plan to keep the 200 jobs at its service centre in the building mentioned in (g); and (k) will any ESDC employees currently working in Shawinigan-Sud be transferred to other cities in Canada over the next 24 months?