Debates of Jan. 30th, 2017

Question No. 788

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board recommendation report for the Trans Mountain expansion project does not require Kinder Morgan to purchase pipe materials, including steel, from Canadian suppliers. Country of origin is not a factor in material requirements for this project. Rather, materials must comply with the specifications and quality standards detailed in Condition 9 of the NEB’s report and the Canadian Standards Association’s oil and gas pipeline systems standards, CSA Z662, clause 5. These conditions and standards are designed to keep Canadians and their environment safe.

The proponent, Trans Mountain ULC., has stated its intent to source approximately 230,000 metric tonnes of line pipe material from a domestic supplier, which includes the use of Canadian-made steel. According to the proponent, Trans Mountain’s sourcing strategy is to maximize the amount of locally sourced pipe material, within the production capability and capacity of the domestic supplier.

Question No. 789

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

With regard to the recovery strategy for the Copper Redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi) and its population in Quebec, published in 2012 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada: (a) when will the proposed regulations to identify the species’ critical habitat in southwestern Quebec be published in the Canada Gazette; and (b) when will the Order come into force?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), officials with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are actively working with their colleagues in other federal departments on this matter. It is anticipated that an order would be published in the Canada Gazette as early as winter 2017.

In response to (b), orders made under subsections 58(4) and (5) of the Species at Risk Act typically enter into force after they are signed by the competent minister or ministers and formally assigned a unique number by the Privy Council Office, i.e. “registration”.

Question No. 791

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

With regard to changes made to capital gains taxes and mortgage insurance rules in October 2016 by the Department of Finance: (a) what analysis has been done on the effects of such changes with respect to (i) housing prices by region, (ii) construction activity, (iii) value and rate of mortgage approvals for Canadians, especially first time homebuyers, (iv) GDP and employment; and (b) for each of the analyses conducted related to (a)(i) through (a)(iv), what conclusions were reached?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, these measures follow an in-depth analysis of the housing market conducted by the Department of Finance Canada, in conjunction with various government agencies, including the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Bank of Canada, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. They were also informed by the views of the wide range of stakeholders with whom the Department of Finance and government regularly meet, including ongoing collaboration and information sharing done through a working group with provincial and municipal officials.

Prior to the announcement regarding the changes to mortgage insurance eligibility, loan-level data from recent quarters was used to determine the extent to which mortgage lending would have been affected if the new rules had already been in place. The analysis found the new restrictions could have impacted roughly 8% of recent home sales in the first year of the policy, with impacts spread across the country. This estimate did not account for adjustments buyers could make to remain in the market by using savings for a larger down payment or purchasing a cheaper home.

The potential reduction in home sales was then translated into estimated impacts on residential investment, home prices and GDP growth, finding that the measures would be a modest drag on house prices and GDP growth in the short term.

These estimates did not incorporate the impact of the measures on enhancing the long-term stability of the Canadian housing market, financial system, and economy due to more sustainable mortgage debt. The intended impact of the new stress test is to help ensure new homeowners across all provinces can afford their mortgages even if economic conditions change, such as an increase in interest rates. This requirement will help promote the stability of the Canadian housing market and economy over the long term.

Question No. 792

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

With regard to Budget 2016: according to the most recent data available, what has been the economic and employment impact of the fiscal measures outlined on p. 256-258, both in total and broken down by specific measure?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, overall, the fiscal measures in budget 2016 are “expected to translate into 100,000 jobs created or maintained by 2017-18.” This is based on the historical relationship between the types of spending and revenue measures announced in budget 2016, and their impact on growth in employment and real GDP in Canada.

Funding for the most substantial measures of budget 2016 began to flow into the economy in the third quarter of 2016--Canada child benefit and investments in infrastructure. Given that the estimates for economic impact included in budget 2016 were calculated based on a two-year time horizon, having only one quarter of GDP data does not provide sufficient information to assess their impact with any degree of precision.

However, employment data are available for the last two quarters of 2016. While it is not possible to attribute gains to specific budget measures, it is notable that employment gains in the last quarter of 2016--108,000 jobs--were the highest since the second quarter of 2010.

Question No. 793

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

With regard to the Minister of Finance's tax expenditure review panel: (a) what materials have been developed for the review panel; (b) what are the mandate, terms, and conditions of participation in the panel; (c) what is the list of tax expenditures which have been reviewed by the panel for potential elimination; (d) does the government have any targets with respect to revenue raised and, if so, what are they; and (e) what is the net cost of each expenditure referred to in (c)?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the review of federal tax expenditures is led by the Department of Finance Canada, with the support of a group of external advisers. The objective of the review and the role of the advisers are further explained in the response to part (b).

Advisers have been provided with internal analysis prepared by the Department of Finance Canada in the context of the review. Advisers have also been provided with general background information on federal tax expenditures.

In response to part (b), as stated by the government, the objective of the review is to ensure that federal tax expenditures are fair for Canadians, efficient and fiscally responsible--see Department of Finance Canada news release, June 17, 2016: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-077-eng.asp). This review is part of a broader government commitment to eliminate poorly targeted and inefficient programs, wasteful spending, and ineffective and obsolete government initiatives.

The review of federal tax expenditures is led by the Department of Finance Canada. To ensure that the review is informed by a range of perspectives, the following external experts have been engaged to provide advice to Department of Finance Canada officials: Robin Boadway, Queen’s University; Kim Brooks, Dalhousie University; Kevin Dancey, former CEO of CPA Canada; Luc Godbout, Université de Sherbrooke; Jinyan Li, Osgoode Hall Law School; Kevin Milligan, University of British Columbia; and Jennifer Robson, Carleton University.

Terms and conditions under which the advisers are providing advice to the Department of Finance Canada were set out in the letters of agreement between the department and the advisers. As per the statements of work attached to these letters, the advisers are expected to participate in periodic meetings, either in person or through conference calls, with other advisers and government officials; and provide advice to the Department of Finance.

The letters of agreement cover the period up to March 31, 2017. Advisers are remunerated on a per diem basis, up to maximum amounts that are set out in the letters of agreement. One adviser has declined to receive a per diem. Travel and living expenses incurred in the performance of these agreements are reimbursed by the department in accordance with the rates and conditions that are specified in the Treasury Board travel directive, up to maximum amounts that are set out in the letters of agreement. Total contract values are posted on the Department of Finance Canada website at www.fin.gc.ca/disclose-divulgation/discl_cont-eng.asp.

In addition to the above, Mr. Kevin Milligan was on assignment with the Department of Finance Canada until December 31, 2016. The terms and conditions of this assignment are set out in an Interchange Canada letter of agreement, which has been agreed upon between Mr. Milligan, his employer--the University of British Columbia--and the Department of Finance Canada. Mr. Milligan’s work during his assignment consists of special research projects directed by the Department of Finance Canada in the context of the review.

In response to part (c), as per the budget 2016 announcement, the department is undertaking a comprehensive review of tax expenditures. The scope of the review of federal tax expenditures is broad, and includes personal income tax expenditures, corporate income tax expenditures, as well as goods and services tax expenditures. The external experts who have been engaged to provide advice to Department of Finance Canada officials are providing advice in respect of all analysis performed by the department in the context of the review.

In response to part (d), the Government of Canada has not set a specific revenue target for the review of federal tax expenditures.

In response to part (e), estimates of the fiscal cost of each federal tax expenditure can be found in part 2 of the “Report on Federal Tax Expenditures” that is published annually by the Department of Finance Canada. The latest edition of this report is available on the department’s website at www.fin.gc.ca/purl/taxexp-eng.asp.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if supplementary responses to Questions Nos. 425 and 467, originally tabled on November 4, 2016, as well as Question No. 538, originally tabled on December 2, 2016, and the government's response to Questions Nos. 592-595, 597, 599, 600, 602-604, 607, 610, 612, 614, 616-621, 623-625, 627, 630, 632, 633, 635-641, 643, 645-652, 655-659, 661, 662, 664-670, 674, 675, 677-679, 681-683, 685-687, 689-693, 695, 696, 698-701, 703-724, 727-733, 735, 736, 738, 739, 743, 745-754, 756, 758-760, 763, 765-769, 771, 773-776, 778-781, 783, 784, 786, 789, 790 and 794-796 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for return and that they be tabled immediately?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 425

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

With regard to pictures and pieces of artwork in government buildings, since November 4, 2015, broken down by department and agency: (a) how many pictures, paintings, or pieces of artwork have been installed or put on display in government buildings, not including employees individual offices, cubicles, or other personal space; (b) what are the costs associated with each of such pictures, paintings, or pieces of artwork including, but not limited of cost of acquisition or rental of image/artwork, framing, mounting and installation; (c) how many pictures of the Liberal leader and current Prime Minister have been installed or put on display in government buildings; and (d) what are the costs and location associated with each picture listed in (c), including, but not limited to cost of image, framing, mounting, and installation?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 467

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

With regard to training provided for Ministers or their exempt staff since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all expenses, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) location, (iv) total amount, (v) contract file number, if applicable, (vi) any travel expenses associated with the training?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 538

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

With regard to fire safety education in First Nations communities: (a) what materials are distributed or provided by Indigenous and North Affairs to First Nations communities; (b) how much has Indigenous and Northern Affairs spent annually since 2005 to educate and train First Nations communities on fire safety and firefighting; (c) what amount does Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada budget annually specifically for education of fire safety in First Nations communities; and (d) how much does Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada spend annually, since 2005, on travel and expenses for Ministry Staff to inspect and report back to the Ministry on the fire protection preparedness in Canada’s First Nations communities?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 592

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

With regard to the announced closure of the Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Case Processing Centre in Vegreville, Alberta: (a) what are the details of any studies or assessments the government has conducted regarding the impact of the closure on processing times, broken down by study or assessment, including the (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) conclusion or findings, (iv) methodology, (v) title of individual or organization which conducted the study or assessment, (vi) date the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship was apprised of the findings, (vii) internal tracking or file number; (b) for every briefing document prepared in relation to the closure, (i) what is the date on the document, (ii) what is the title or subject matter of the document, (iii) what is the Department’s internal tracking number, (iv) who was the document prepared for; (c) on what date and by what method were the following individuals made aware of the closure, (i) the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, (ii) the Premier of Alberta, (iii) the Mayor of Vegreville, (iv) the local Member of the Legislative Assembly, (v) the employees impacted by the closure; (d) what are the details of any consultations conducted with any of the individuals referred to in (c), including the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) method, (iv) title of the government official who conducted the consultations, (v) title, date, and file number of any documents resulting from the consultations; and (e) which Cabinet committee approved the closure?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 593

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

With regard to the Phoenix pay system backlog, in written form and in addition to graphs or diagrams: (a) what is the total number of all backlogged cases between January 1, 2016, to November 1, 2016; (b) what is the total number of all backlogged cases from June 1, 2016, to November 1, 2016; (c) what is the total number of all backlogged cases prior to February 1, 2016; (d) of the total number of all backlogged cases in (a), (b) and (c), what is (i) the total number of all backlogged cases in Priority 1, (ii) the total number of backlogged cases in Priority 2, (iii) the total number of backlogged cases in Priority 3; (e) what is the total number of backlogged cases that have been processed at the Miramichi Pay Centre; (f) what is the total number of backlogged cases that are being processed at the Miramichi Pay Centre; and (g) what is the total number of backlogged cases that are being processed at other pay centres, broken down by department?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 594

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

With regard to infrastructure spending on consumer and commercial broadband internet connectivity in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing: (a) what amount has been allocated for each of the past ten years and forecasted for the next five years; (b) which companies have been awarded contracts; (c) for each company in (b), (i) what services are they mandated to provide, (ii) to what specific communities are they providing service, or are required to provide service; (d) what is the minimum band width provided for each community; (e) what timelines have been set for the completion of service delivery; (f) what method is used to verify work is being completed as contracted; and (g) what progress has been made as of October 2016?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 595

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

With regard to the decision to classify Algoma Central Railway passenger service as rural and not remote: (a) what were the determining factors that the route was declared rural and no longer remote; (b) what roads service the community of Oba; (c) who maintains the roads in (b); (d) what information was provided to the new Minister of Transport to brief him on the decision to declare the route rural and not remote; (e) what are the details of all correspondence, evidence, or other information the Minister of Transport or Transport Canada possess that indicate that businesses in the area are thriving; and (f) what has the Minister of Transport done to encourage Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada to assist with the Missinabie Cree proposal to run the Algoma Passenger Train