Written Questions Tabled in the Senate Chamber
by Senator Downe, 40th Parliament, 3rd Session

March 24, 2011—With respect to the benefit provided by the Government of Canada for veterans' funerals:

According to the Veterans Ombudsman, the average cost of a funeral in 2008 was $5,892, but the benefit provided by the Government of Canada for veterans' funerals is set at $3,600, an amount unchanged since 2001.

The Government of Canada currently pays up to $12,700 for the funeral and burial expenses of serving members of the Canadian Forces.

In March 2010, the Minister of Veterans Affairs advised the Senate that the program was being reviewed.

As of today, no changes to the program have been announced. Could the Government of Canada indicate:

When does it intend to increase the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program funeral services allowable maximum to an equivalent level established for the RCMP and Canadian Forces?

March 24, 2011—Would the Government of Canada provide the following information with regard to Veterans Affairs Canada  headquarters located in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island:

A. How many persons were employed by Veterans Affairs Canada at its headquarters located in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for the fiscal years between 2005 to 2010, broken down by:

(a) full-time employees;

(b) part-time employees;

(c) term contract employees; and,

(d) student contract employees?

B. What was the total remuneration for Veterans Affairs Canada employees working at the headquarters located in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for the fiscal years between 2005 to 2010?

March 24, 2011—With respect to the Do Not Call List:

Despite serious issues with the Government of Canada's Do Not Call List initiative, the Conservative Government is continuing to allow anyone, including foreign telemarketers and scam artists, to purchase the Do Not Call List for $180.00 from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) website.

As of September 30, 2010, the Federal Government has imposed penalties of $176,000 on telemarketing companies who have violated the rules, but has only collected $9,129; this has led many to believe that the Government has taken no action to deal with this problem, and is therefore offering no protection to Canadians who have registered their contact information on the Do No Call List under the pretense that they were going to be protected from receiving unwanted telemarketing calls.

Could the Government of Canada provide the following information with regard to the Do Not Call List up to March 23, 2011:

(a) the total number of Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) that have been imposed;

(b) the total dollar value of AMPs that have been imposed to date;

(c) the total number of AMPs that have been paid to date;

(d) the total dollar value of AMPs that have been paid to date;

(e) the total number of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date;

(f) the total dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date;

(g) the total number of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date;

(h) the total dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date; and,

(i) the number of companies who have refused to either pay an AMP or reach a negotiated settlement?

March 24, 2011— With respect to Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange defoliant spraying at Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown:

While campaigning in the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper stated: "Our government will stand up for full compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984.''

On September 12, 2007, the Harper Government announced a disappointing compensation package for those affected by the spraying of Agent Orange, offering payment only to those who served between 1966 and 1967. In order to receive the compensation that was promised to them, and force Prime Minister Stephen Harper to honour his commitment, these deserving Canadian veterans have had to undertake a class action lawsuit against the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada has confirmed that the Departments of Justice, Health, National Defence, and Veterans Affairs have spent a combined $7.8 million in legal costs fighting against Canadian veterans in this matter.

Would the Government of Canada provide the following information:

A. What is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to March 23, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010, and March 23, 2011?

B. What is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to March 23, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010, and March 23, 2011?

C. What is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to March 23, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010 and March 23, 2011?

February 16, 2011—With regard to the impact of climate change on Prince Edward Island:

As Canada's only island province, Prince Edward Island is uniquely vulnerable to changes in sea levels brought about by climate change. The storms of late 2010 proved the devastating effects that even comparatively modest increases in sea levels have on coastal areas.

With the likelihood that such storms may become both more severe and more frequent as a result of climate change, Canadians look to the Federal government to provide leadership to prepare both for mitigating the impact on the environment and for undertaking the necessary adaptation measures in order to properly address the impacts of climate change and coastal erosion.

In June 2001, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada jointly released a report entitled Coastal Impacts of Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise on Prince Edward Island as part of the Climate Change Action Fund project.

(a) Have there been any updates to the study since the release of the report in June 2001?

(b) Has the Government conducted any separate studies since June 2001 on the impacts of climate change and rising sea-levels on Prince Edward Island?

(c) What programs have been implemented to deal with rising sea levels affecting Prince Edward Island?

(d) What advice and/or assistance has been provided by the Government of Canada to the Provincial Government of Prince Edward Island to deal with the impact of rising sea levels on the province?

February 15, 2011—With respect to the Do Not Call List:

Despite recent government announcements touting its success in enforcing its provisions, the Government of Canada's Do Not Call List has not lived up to initial expectations. In addition to fines, these announcements have made reference to "negotiated settlements'' whereby an offending telemarketer can simply write a cheque and walk away from the process without admitting guilt.

(a) What are the criteria for proceeding with a negotiated settlement?

(b) Who suggests a negotiated settlement: the CRTC or the firms suspected of violations?

(c) Who authorizes such a settlement on behalf of the CRTC?

(d) How many complaints have been settled in this manner?

(e) What was the total dollar value of the negotiated settlements?

(f) How much of the money assessed under negotiated settlement has been paid?

(g) What companies, if any, still have not paid the full amount under the negotiated settlement?

(i) What is the balance owed by each company?

February 10, 2011—With respect to possible tax evasion in Switzerland:

In 2009, French authorities received information about 80,000 bank accounts in Switzerland, approximately 8000 of which were opened by French citizens in order to avoid paying taxes owed to the French state. France has since reported that it has recovered millions in unpaid taxes. French authorities then advised the Government of Canada that some 1785 of these Swiss bank accounts are held by Canadians.

Would the Government of Canada provide the following information:

A. How many Canadians have been identified as having undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland?

B. Could the Government of Canada summarize what action, if any, has been taken by Canadian officials to recover unpaid taxes associated with Canadians' undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland?

C. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Switzerland have availed of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)?

D. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Switzerland have settled with the CRA?

E. How much money, including unpaid taxes, fines, etc., has the CRA assessed as a result of investigating these secret bank accounts in Switzerland?

F. Regarding Question E., what is the breakdown of the money assessed from the cases, specifically:

(a) in unpaid taxes;

(b) in interest;

(c) in fines; and

(d) in penalties?

G. How much of the money has been collected?

H. How many of these cases are under appeal?

I. How many cases remain open?

J. How many more cases does CRA anticipate will be opened?

K. How many of the cases have been closed, i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected?

L. How much money has been collected from those cases;

(a) in unpaid taxes;

(b) in interest;

(c) in fines; and

(d) in penalties?

M. How many of the account holders in the cases have made partial payment?

N. Of the partial payments made:

(a) What was the largest amount?

(b) What was the smallest amount?

(c) What was the average amount?

O. How much does CRA anticipate it has yet to collect, in taxes, interest, fines and penalties?

P. With regard to the amount of money contained in the Switzerland accounts declared or discovered by the CRA:

(a) What was the largest amount?

(b) What was the smallest amount?

(c) What was the average amount?

Q. On what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Switzerland?

R. On what date did CRA begin its investigation?

S. On what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin?

T. Of the original identified Canadians with bank accounts in Switzerland, how many Individuals have had these accounts audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?

U. How many of the account holders have not been audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?

V. How many tax evasion charges were laid?

October 19, 2010 - With respect to Veterans Affairs, and the recommendation by the Special Needs Advisory Group (SNAG) in 2006 that Veterans Affairs Canada employ veterans:

a) What action has Veterans Affairs Canada taken to implement the recommendation?

b) What response, if any, has been provided to SNAG on the recommendation?

c) What analysis has been completed by Veterans Affairs Canada on the feasibility of this recommendation and what were the conclusions or findings?

October 6, 2010—With respect to the 400th Anniversary of the founding of Cupids, Newfoundland and Labrador:

Would the Government of Canada please provide the following information regarding its financial contribution to the 400th Anniversary of the founding of Cupids, Newfoundland and Labrador, specifically related to:

(a) The total dollar amount spent by the Government of Canada for the 400th Anniversary of Cupids.

(b) A summary of all non-monetary support provided by the Government of Canada to assist in the celebration of the 400th Anniversary of Cupids.

(c) The Government-wide budget for the celebration of the 400th Anniversary of Cupids, and the amount actually spent.

October 6, 2010—With regard to possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein, also known as "Project Jade'':

As of June 10, 2010, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) was informed about 106 residents of Canada who have over $100 million dollars in accounts in Liechtenstein, and had reassessed 26 cases for a total of approximately $5.2 million in unpaid federal taxes, interest, fines and penalties.

1. What is the breakdown of the $5.2 million assessed from the 26 cases, specifically:

a. in unpaid taxes;

b. in interest;

c. in fines; and

d. in penalties?

2. How much of the $5.2 million has been collected?

3. How many of these cases are under appeal?

4. How many cases remain open?

5. How many of the 26 cases have been closed, i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected?

a. What is the breakdown (money collected in taxes, interest, fines and penalties) for each case?

6. How many of the account holders in the 26 cases have made partial payment?

7. Of the partial repayments made:

a. What was the largest amount?
b. What was the smallest amount?
c. What was the average amount?

8. How much does CRA anticipate it has yet to collect, in taxes, interest, fines and penalties?

9. With regard to the amount of money contained in the Liechtenstein accounts declared or discovered by the CRA:

a. What was the largest amount?

b. What was the smallest amount?

c. What was the average amount?

10. On what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein?

11. On what date did CRA begin its investigation?

12. On what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin?

13. Of the 106 original identified Canadians with bank accounts in Liechtenstein, how many Individuals have had these accounts audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?

14. How many of the 106 account holders have not been audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?

15. How many tax evasion charges were laid?

October 5, 2010—With respect to the Do Not Call List:

The Government of Canada's Do Not Call List was created to reduce the number of unwanted telemarketing calls received by Canadians. Instead, many citizens have complained that since registering their telephone numbers on the Do Not Call List, they are now receiving more telephone solicitation calls than ever.

The Conservative Government is allowing anyone, including foreign telemarketers and scam artists, to purchase the Do Not Call List for $180.00 from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) website.

As of March 1, 2010, the Federal Government has imposed fines of $73,000, but has only collected $250. There are concerns that the government has taken no action to deal with this problem, and is therefore offering no protection to Canadians.

Until the problems with the availability of this list are resolved, the Conservative Government should immediately stop selling the telephone numbers and protect the privacy of Canadians who have registered their contact information on the Do No Call List under the pretense that they were going to be protected from receiving unwanted telemarketing calls.

1. Could the Government of Canada proved the following information with regard to the Do Not Call List as of September 30, 2010:

(a) the total number of fines that have been imposed to date;

(b) the total value of fines that have been imposed to date;

(c) the total number of fines that have been paid to date;

(d) the total value of fines that have been paid to date; and,

(e) the number of companies who have refused to pay the fine?

June 9, 2010— The 2009 stimulus package, Bill C-51 and the CPP

The 2009 stimulus package, Bill C-51, amended a number of pieces of legislation and included significant changes to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). One specific change that directly affects Canadians is the increase in the penalty for retiring before age 65.

If a Canadian aged 60 decides to retire this year, he or she has a penalty of 30 per cent on their CPP for retiring before age 65. But, as a result of the changes included in the budget bill, this penalty is expected to increase to 36 per cent by 2016—reducing a pension by up to $400 per month.

Under the new rules, any Canadian collecting CPP before the age of 65 who returns to work will now, for the first time, also have to pay CPP premiums while they are drawing their CPP pension.

Therefore, beyond losing 36 per cent of one's pension due to the increased penalty, Canadians retiring at the age of 60, who continue working, will now also pay CPP premiums; the rate is currently 9.9 per cent of earnings up to $2,163 annually.

A. Could the Government provide a detailed analysis of the projected financial cost for Canadians choosing to retire before age 65 resulting from changes to the Canada Pension Plan passed in Bill C-51, as well as the anticipated regulatory changes related to penalties?

June 8, 2010—With respect to priority appointments in the public service for medically released veterans:

Since 2005, medically released members of the Canadian Forces, who are qualified, have been eligible for priority employment appointments in the federal public service.

These new provisions have created important future career opportunities for veterans, but unfortunately, there are low participation levels in most federal government departments — participation that is vital in making these opportunities a reality for our injured veterans.

Statistics from the Public Service Commission show that in 2007-2008, 69 percent of medically released veterans using the priority system were appointed to one department, the Department of National Defence. Other departments are only marginally participating in this program, and in that year alone, 67 veterans had their priority appointment status expire without finding a position in the public service.

A. What action is the Government of Canada taking to increase the participation and involvement of all federal departments so that more medically released Canadian veterans can find employment in the public service?

May 6, 2010—Veterans and the Canada Revenue Agency

A parliamentary committee report entitled Shared Experiences: Comparisons of Veterans Services Offered by Members of the Commonwealth and the G8 recommended that Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) explore with Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the possibility of modifying income tax returns in order to allow veterans and their families to identify themselves so that they can receive information on all available financial benefits.

CRA has worked with other federal government departments, including Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, to improve program delivery. For example, since 2007, individuals filing income tax returns do not have to re- apply each year to receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Instead, they are identified automatically by CRA based on their reported income.

A. Please explain why the Government of Prime Minister Harper refused to include information for veterans and their families on/with tax forms.

i. What criteria were used in the decision?
ii. What was the policy rationale for the decision?

B. Is the federal government considering any other information sharing arrangements to better identify veterans and their families in order to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled?

March 24, 2010—With respect to the health care review undertaken by Veterans Affairs Canada in 2007:

On December 12, 2007, officials from Veterans Affairs Canada appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs said, "The department has undertaken a comprehensive review of its health care services. We are examining the services that are so critical to the healthy aging of veterans and their caregivers.''

On March 5, 2008 the Subcommittee heard from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who said, "The review is pretty well completed. It is going to provide us with a way forward in terms of how we provide services to our veterans. We would like to move to a needs-based system as opposed to an entitlements-based one.''

This was welcome news for veterans and their families. Unfortunately, since 2008, there has been no new information regarding the outcome of the review, and veterans and their families continue to wait for improved health services.

(a) Could the Government of Canada provide a list of recommendations that were made to the Minister of Veterans Affairs Canada as a result of the review?

(b) Could the Government of Canada indicate which recommendations, if any, have been implemented by the department?

March 24, 2010—With respect to the New Veterans Charter:

1. Under the New Veterans Charter, disability awards are lump sum amounts up to $276,000. If the payment is $12,500 or more, some, or all, of the fees related to a recipient receiving financial advice may be paid by the department.

   i. Since 2006, what percentage of veterans receiving a Disability Award lump sum payment have received the financial advice paid for by the department of Veterans Affairs Canada?

2. Since 2006, of the total number of veterans’ spouses/partners or family members who have been eligible to receive rehabilitation services, what percentage have availed of the services?
   
   
3. Since 2006, of the total number of spouses/partners and family members who have received or are currently receiving rehabilitation services, what is the break-down of participation in terms of the program’s three components: medical, psychological, social and vocational supports?

March 24, 2010—With respect to changes to the Public Service Employment Regulations:

In December 2008, the President of the Public Service Commission, Ms. Maria Barrados, announced changes to the Public Service Employment Regulations that would give spouses and partners of Canada’s military, reservists, RCMP and bureaucrats who are killed in duty, appointment priority in the federal public service.

This is an important policy change that will assist families whose members have made the ultimate sacrifice for Canada. However the Conservative Government has refused to follow the advice of the President of the Public Service Commission and implement the policy—and these families continue to wait. 

This Government says that it supports better services for veterans and their families, but we continue to wait for action that matches their rhetoric.

Sadly, the actions of the Government do not match their reassuring words. Our Canadian veterans and their families deserve the reassurance that they will be given the assistance they need, that promises made will be kept, and that as a nation, we appreciate the sacrifices they have made for our country.

1. Could the Government of Canada explain why it has delayed the implementation of this new priority appointment process?
   
   
2. Could the Government of Canada indicate in what year or decade it intends to implement this new priority appointment process?

March 24, 2010—With Respect to the Do Not Call List:

The Government of Canada's Do Not Call List was created to reduce the number of unwanted telemarketing calls received by Canadians. Instead, many citizens have complained that since registering their telephone numbers on the Do Not Call List, they are now receiving more telephone solicitation calls than ever.

The Conservative Government is allowing anyone, including foreign telemarketers and scam artists, to purchase the Do Not Call List for $144.00 from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) website.

The Conservative Government is refusing to take any action to correct this extremely flawed system even as the number of complaints — now totaling more than 250,000 — continue to grow. In February 2008, the CRTC issued a Request for Proposal to find a contractor to carry out investigations of complaints related to the Do Not Call List, but it later abandoned the request.

Only 700 investigations, out of 250,000 complaints, have been initiated by CRTC, and as of January 31, 2010, very few fines have been levied.

The Conservative Government does not allow the CRTC to lay criminal charges — the legislation and regulations allow the CRTC to only impose administrative monetary penalties. Further, the CRTC conducts hearings in secret without any transparency to Canadians, allowing some to believe that the companies violating the law are being protected.

Why must Canadians continue to wait for the Conservative Government to take action to correct this problem?

1. Could the Government of Canada provide the following information with regard to the Do Not Call List, as of March 1, 2010:

(a) the total number of fines that have been imposed to date;

(b) the total value of fines that have been imposed to date;

(c) the total number of fines that have been paid to date;

(d) the total value of fines that have been paid to date; and,

(e) the number of companies who have refused to pay the fine?

2. Could the Government of Canada explain why, as a general policy, the CRTC does not release to the public the names of companies violating the Do Not Call List if the fine is paid without being contested?

3. Could the Government of Canada explain why the CRTC's hearings on Do Not Call List violations are not open to the Canadian public or to the media?

March 3, 2010—With respect to the new Veterans Charter:

In 2005, as part of the new Veterans Charter, Veterans Affairs Canada began granting a tax-free, lump sum Disability Award and a tax-free, lump-sum Death Benefit.

A. Could the Government of Canada provide the following information from April 2005 to March 2010:

i. How many recipients of the lump-sum Disability Award or the Death Benefit filed a complaint with the department about either benefit?

ii. How many Disability Award or Death Benefit files have been forwarded to the Deputy Minister or Minister of Veterans Affairs' attention, and what was the nature of the problems associated with each case?

iii. After receiving a lump-sum payment, how many recipients or their dependants have requested additional funds?

B. Could the Government of Canada advise whether Veterans Affairs Canada experiences cost-savings associated with the granting of the lump-sum Disability Award and Death Benefit, as compared to other longer-term assistance measures such as, but not limited to, the disability pension and health care benefits?

C. Could the Government of Canada advise if Veterans Affairs Canada has reviewed or evaluated the lump-sum Disability Award and Death Benefit programs? If so, what findings or conclusions have been made?

March 3, 2010—With respect to Agent Orange:

The Government of Canada has confirmed that the Department of Justice spent $2,186,414.00 from July 2005 to December 31, 2008, in legal costs fighting against Canadian veterans who have been trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange spraying at CFB Gagetown.

On September 12, 2007, the Harper Government announced a disappointing compensation package for those affected by the spraying of Agent Orange, offering payment only to those who served between 1966 and 1967. While campaigning in the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper stated:

"Our government will stand up for full compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984.''

In order to receive the compensation that was promised to them, and force Prime Minister Stephen Harper to honour his commitment, these deserving Canadian veterans have had to undertake a class action lawsuit against the Government of Canada.

1. Could the Government of Canada provide the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to March 1, 2010, in its fight against our Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

2. Could the Government of Canada provide the total amount of money it has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to March 1, 2010, in its fight against our Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

3. Could the Government of Canada provide the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to March 1, 2010, fighting against our Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

March 3, 2010—With respect to support for Canadian veterans:

According to the Veterans Ombudsman, the average cost of a funeral in 2008 was $5,892, but the benefit provided by the Government of Canada for veterans' funerals is set at $3,600.

The Government of Canada currently pays up to $13,000 for funeral and burial expenses for Canadian Forces members.

Could the Government of Canada indicate when it intends to increase the financial support it provides to veterans' families for funerals and burials?

March 3, 2010—With respect to capital requirements for segregated fund products (also known as variable annuities):

Ms. Julie Dickson, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada (OSFI) decided to change the amount of funds required for capital models of segregated fund products also known as variable annuities.

It has been reported in the media (Globe and Mail, December 6, 2008) that the President and Chief Executive Officer of Manulife Financial, Mr. Dominic D'Alessandro:

". . . was lobbying Ms. Dickson to revise regulatory guidelines on capital and she was persuaded by his argument. On Oct. 28, OSFI announced that it was changing the rules to give insurers a break on the amount of capital they had to set aside for payments that were more than five years away.''

It has also been reported in the media (National Post, January 6, 2009) that Manulife Financial's United States subsidiary, John Hancock Financial: "...is draining capital from the parent company because of heavy exposures to volatile financial markets...''

The policy change appears to have been made to benefit insurance companies rather than the Canadian public.

A. Could the Government of Canada explain why it decided to change the required amount of capital insurance companies must hold in order to make future payments?

B. Could the Government of Canada explain what additional investment risks are assumed by Canadian investors as a result of this policy change?

C. Could the Government of Canada indicate whether it has requested as quid pro quo that senior management of insurance companies reduce the compensation and bonuses they receive until capital requirements are restored to previous levels?

March 3, 2010—With respect to possible tax evasion:

In 2006, German authorities advised the Government of Canada of the names of Canadians with bank accounts in Liechtenstein.

A. Could the Government of Canada provide the following information:

i. How many Canadians have been identified as having undeclared bank accounts in Liechtenstein?

ii. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein have availed of the voluntary disclosure program with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)?

iii. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein have settled with the CRA?

iv. Based on the information about Liechtenstein bank accounts, how many Canadian account holders have been charged with tax evasion?

v. How much money, including unpaid taxes, fines, etc., has the CRA recovered as a result of investigating these secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein?

B. Could the Government of Canada summarize what action, if any, has been taken by Canadian officials to recover unpaid taxes associated with Canadians' undeclared bank accounts in Liechtenstein?

March 3, 2010—With respect to the amount of sodium contained in prepared foods:

Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about the high levels of sodium contained in prepared foods, and they are looking for action and leadership from the Government of Canada.

The fact that the amount of sodium in a given food product differs between countries, and that in many cases the levels of sodium are higher in foods prepared and distributed for consumption in Canada, deserves serious consideration. Given the well-known health risks associated with high sodium intake—including the increased risk of high blood pressure which is a major risk factor for stroke, heart disease and kidney disease—this issue demands immediate attention by the federal government.

Canadians deserve action that goes beyond encouraging food companies to make voluntary changes. In Finland, legislation was introduced that set limits for sodium content and established mandatory labelling so that foods high in sodium carry a `high in salt content' warning for consumers. New York City has undertaken a campaign to lower the amount of sodium Americans eat, and has advised food industries that it will consider legislative options if they fail to make significant progress. These ambitious attempts at reducing sodium intake offer fine models for Canada.

(a) Could the Government of Canada explain why Health Canada is only pursuing voluntary measures with the food industry to reduce sodium in prepared foods instead of following Finland's example of introducing legislation that sets limits for sodium content?

(b) Could the Government of Canada indicate whether Health Canada's Working Group on Dietary Sodium Reduction is adhering to its schedule and (i) has completed the preparatory and assessment stages, (ii) developed a strategic framework and (iii) is currently working on implementation of a plan?

(c) Could the Government of Canada indicate when a national strategy for the reduction of sodium will be launched?

March 3, 2010—With respect to Trade Agreements:

Canada and the European Union are undertaking negotiations to complete a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The discussion includes provisions for trade in goods and services, investment, government procurement, regulatory cooperation, intellectual property, temporary entry of business persons, competition policy and other related matters, labour, and the environment.

However, as negotiators begin their work, Canadians are concerned about the Conservative Government's ability to obtain a strong and effective deal for Canada, as other free trade agreements recently negotiated and signed by this Government have included many flaws. For example, despite the clear willingness on the part of Peru to complete trade negotiations with as many countries as possible, Canadian negotiators were unable to obtain a strong and effective trade agreement for Canada. As a result, Canadian beef, pork and potato producers have been left at a competitive disadvantage with other countries, specifically the United States.

The Conservative Government failed to negotiate meaningful provisions to protect the intellectual property rights of Canadians, and further failed to obtain a clause similar to that in the United States-Peru trade agreement that allows United States agricultural exporters to automatically obtain trade benefits included in any future trade negotiations Peru makes with other countries.

The results of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement lead to broader questions about Canada's ability to negotiate effective agreements. Although the prosperity of Canada does not depend on the signing of a free trade agreement with Peru, the results of Canada's negotiations reflect the Conservative Government's inability to obtain strong trade agreements.

A. Could the Government of Canada provide a copy of all documents and analysis comparing the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement with trade agreements Peru negotiated with other countries?

B. Could the Government of Canada provide the number of negotiators, if any, that have been retained from outside of the federal government to represent Canada in current trade negotiations?

C. Could the Government of Canada indicate whether it has considered and/or implemented plans to undertake a review of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement in 2014 to evaluate the trade implications for Canada?

March 3, 2010—With respect to the Head of State:

The British Government is considering changing the Act of Settlement by removing the restriction that bars members of the Royal Family from marrying Roman Catholics. At present, members of the Royal Family are forbidden from converting to the Roman Catholic religion or marrying someone from the Catholic religion unless they agree to being removed from the order of succession.

The British Government is also considering changing the Act of Settlement to remove the rule allowing males to take precedent over their female relatives.

These changes will directly impact the future Head of State of Canada, and it is necessary for the Government of the United Kingdom to secure the consent of all 53 Commonwealth Countries in order to implement these changes.

Could the Government of Canada indicate whether it is in favour of these proposed changes?

March 3, 2010—With respect to Burma:

Under the military junta, Burma has achieved one of the worst human rights records in the world. Over three decades of military dictatorship has led to widespread suppression of democratic ideals such as freedom of speech, association and assembly.

Could the Government of Canada provide the following information:

i. What measures is the Government of Canada taking to ensure Canadian corporations end all commercial ties with Burma?

ii. What measures is the Government of Canada taking to ensure that no additional commercial contracts form between Canadian companies and Burma?

iii. What domestic steps is the Government of Canada pursuing to guarantee those Canadian corporations financially benefiting from economic activity in Burma are restricted from securing any contracts from the Government of Canada?

iv. What steps is the Government of Canada taking to assure the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board does not maintain any direct or indirect holdings in companies conducting business with Burma?

v. What bilateral and multilateral efforts is the Government of Canada using to persuade Burma's military junta to relinquish power?

vi. What diplomatic action is occurring between the Government of Canada and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China, and India to pressure Burma's military junta to end violence against the people of Burma?

vii. What methods is the Government of Canada employing to pressure Burma's military junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy party?

March 3, 2010—With respect to government decentralization:

A. Could the Government of Canada provide information on proposals prepared since 2006 on the relocation of government departments (or parts thereof), agencies and Crown corporations from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?

B. Could the Government of Canada provide information on assessments, completed since 2006, on which government departments (or parts thereof), agencies or Crown corporations could be relocated from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?

March 3, 2010—With respect to the North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group:

In 1997, the North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group (TWG) on Pesticides was established to serve as a focal point for addressing pesticide related issues. The TWG's primary objective is to facilitate cost effective pesticide regulation and trade among Canada, Mexico, and the United States through harmonization.

Could the Government of Canada provide the following information:

i. In how many cases have Canadian pesticide standards been lowered in order to harmonize regulations with the United States?

ii. In how many cases have Canadian pesticide standards been increased in order to harmonize regulations with the United States?

iii. How many products have been affected by the lowering of Canadian pesticide standards in order to harmonize pesticide regulations with the United States?

iv. How many products have been affected by the increasing of Canadian pesticide standards in order to harmonize pesticide regulations with the United States?

v. What are the standards Canadian officials use to determine whether or not to lower pesticide standards?

vi. What percentage of Canadian pesticide residue levels are stricter than American standards?

vii. What percentage of products in Canada are found to exceed legal residue limits?