Thursday, June 14, 2007 (No. 171)

Questions

The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

Q-181 — February 27, 2007 — Mr. Cummins (Delta—Richmond East) — With regard to the land areas and persons who reside within the area covered by the Tsawwassen Territory as set in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement: (a) what is the number of persons who currently reside in the Territory; (b) how many persons reside in the Territory and how many of these persons are under the Indian Act members of the Tsawwassen Band in (i) each of the Gulf Islands, (ii) the City of Richmond, (iii) the City of Vancouver, (iv) the Municipality of Delta, (v) the City of White Rock, (vi) the City of Surrey, (vii) the City of Burnaby, (viii) the City of Westminster, (ix) the City of Coquitlam, (x) the City of Port Coquitlam, (xi) Langley City, (xii) the Municipality of Pitt Meadows, (xiii) the Municipality of Maple Ridge, (xiv) the Township of Langley, (xv) the Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area “A”; (c) what was the population of the Tsawwassen Indian Band on an annual basis from its establishment to December 31, 2006; (d) what were the land holdings, in hectares, of the Tsawwassen Indian Band on an annual basis from its establishment as a band to December 31, 2006; (e) if the Tsawwassen Indian Band landholdings were decreased in any year, for what reason did the decrease occur and what, if any, compensation or payment was provided to the Band; and (f) what other bands, tribes or aboriginal organizations have territorial claims that overlap Tsawwassen Territory?

Q-184 — March 1, 2007 — Mr. Cummins (Delta—Richmond East) — With regard to the waters of the Tsawwassen Territory, both in the Strait of Georgia, the Fraser River and elsewhere, as set out in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and Side-Agreements: (a) what was the nature of the vessel traffic in the Tsawwassen Territory in 2006 both on the Fraser River and the Strait of Georgia; (b) how will vessel traffic in the waters of the Tsawwassen Territory be impacted by the Final Agreement and what studies have been undertaken on the impacts of the Final Agreement on vessel traffic; (c) in addition to the Strait of Georgia and the Fraser River, what are the additional bodies of water within the Territory; (d) what species of fish or shell fish were caught by recreational and commercial fishermen within the Tsawwassen Territory in the years 1986 to 2006; (e) what was the number or quantity and the landed value of fish and shellfish caught under commercial license by species in each year during the period 1986 to 2006; (f) how many commercial fishermen were licensed to fish for any area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (g) how many recreational fishermen were licensed to fish in the area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (h) how many commercial fishing licenses by species were held by fishermen for any part of the area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (i) how many hours of fishing time were authorized for the Tsawwassen Indian Band to undertake food, social and ceremonial fisheries by species for each year during the period; (j) how many pounds of fish were landed by the Tsawwassen Indian Band for food, social and ceremonial fisheries for each year during the period; (k) how many sockeye salmon could have been caught under the Tsawwassen Fishing Right Allocation for each year if it had been in place during the period, and what was the total catch of Fraser sockeye for each year during the period; (l) how many members of the Tsawwassen Indian Band as registered under the Indian Act were resident on the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve for each year during the period; (m) what studies have been undertaken to identify the impacts of the creation of the Tsawwassen Fishing Right on other recreational and commercial fishermen who have traditionally fished in what is now the Tsawwassen Territory, in particular the displacement of traditional recreational and commercial fishermen; (n) if the 0.78% of the Canadian commercial total allowable catch for Fraser sockeye that is being transferred to the Tsawwassen Band had been fished by the Tsawwassen Band what would the total catch be in pounds for each year during the period; (o) what measures have been put in place to guarantee that those recreational and commercial fishermen who have traditionally fished in the area that now constitutes the Tsawwassen Territory will be able to continue to fish in the public recreational and commercial fisheries unimpeded; (p) what would have been (i) the value, in number of fish, of the 0.78% allocation of the Canadian Commercial Total Allowable Catch to the Tsawwassen Band for Fraser sockeye for each year during the period as provided under the Final Agreement and accompanying side-agreements, (ii) the total Canadian commercial catch of Fraser sockeye for each year, (iii) the average allocation to the Tsawwassen Band for the period based on the 0.78% allocation; (q) what would have been the value, in quantity and dollars, of the 3.27% allocation of terminal commercial catch of Fraser River chum salmon to the Tsawwassen Band for each year during the period; (r) what would have been the value of the 0.78% allocation to the Tsawwassen Band of the Canadian commercial total allowable catch of Fraser River pink salmon for each year during the period; (s) what would have been the value of the five commercial crab licenses to be issued to the Tsawwassen Band under the Harvest side agreement for each year during the period; (t) what is the size limit going to be for crab taken under the Final Agreement and Side-Agreements for food, social, ceremonial and commercial purposes; (u) what is the quantity and value of the crab taken by the band for food, social and ceremonial fisheries for each year of the period; (v) what was the quantity and value of each species caught during food, social and ceremonial openings or under such licenses and exported to the United States or any other country for each year during the period; and (w) does the Final Agreement and Side Agreements provide for self catch monitoring and reporting by the Tsawwassen Band and, if so, how does that differ from the reporting and catch monitoring planned for those public recreational and commercial fisheries that will still be able to operate within the Tsawwassen Territory following the implementation of the Final Agreement?

Q-185 — March 1, 2007 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regard to meetings and planning by senior members of the civil service relating to Afghanistan for the period of August 15, 2005, until today: (a) how many Deputy Minister-level meetings have taken place; (b) what were the dates and locations of those meetings; (c) who chaired the meetings; and (d) who was present at each meeting?

Q-189 — March 29, 2007 — Mr. Cummins (Delta—Richmond East) — With regard to the expansion of the Roberts Bank Port Facility to include a third berth and a second terminal as per the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and related Side-Agreements, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Tsawwassen Band and the Vancouver Port Authority, and the related Settlement Agreement between the Tsawwassen Band, Canada, British Columbia (B.C.), Vancouver Port Authority, B.C. Ferry Services, B.C. Rail Ltd and B.C. Transportation and Financing Authority: (a) how many acres (or hectares) of farm land will be used for Roberts Bank port and rail related developments now underway or under study; (b) with the completion of the Roberts Bank port expansion, including both the third berth and second terminal, what plans, if any, are there to use the Brunswick Point farmlands; (c) is the affected Roberts Bank farmland presently protected by the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve designation; (d) does the Tsawwassen Final Agreement address the issue of farmland protection and if so, how; (e) will the farmland continue to be protected by the Agricultural Land Reserve designation following ratification of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and, if not, why; (f) did the Vancouver Port Authority undertake to work jointly with the Tsawwassen Band to ensure the removal of the Agricultural Land Reserve designation from the farmland and, if so, why and what alternate measures did it put in place to protect farmland adjacent to the Roberts Bank port, rail and highway expansion; (g) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree to jointly develop with the Tsawwassen Band a container handling facility on the farmland protected by the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve designation and, if so, why did the Vancouver Port Authority enter into such an agreement rather than develop container handling facilities further inland in a less environmentally sensitive area; (h) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree that the land would be leased at lease rates based on comparable market equivalent rates for industrial lands associated with port terminals; (i) has the Vancouver Port Authority considered the secondary destruction of farmland and wildlife habitat from the expanded rail yards and the construction of the container storage area on the environmentally sensitive lands adjacent to Roberts Bank and, if so, what measures has it put in place to protect farmland and the ability of wildlife now making use of the area to continue to be able to rely on these farmlands; (j) how much farmland and wildlife habitat will be destroyed as a result of the rail yards and rail line expansion both on the farmland and Deltaport Causeway as part of the Roberts Bank port expansion and how much will be destroyed as a result of the related highway construction; (k) did the Vancouver Port Authority consider the use of less environmentally sensitive land further inland for the storage of containers as well as the unpacking and reshipment of the containers and, if so, what are the options considered and why did it not adopt such options for the port; (l) what part of the farmland adjacent to Roberts Bank is available for the wintering of migrating waterfowl of the Pacific flyway and how many birds did the farmland adjacent to Roberts Bank support in the winters of 2005, 2006 and 2007; (m) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment noted snow geese and trumpeter swan crowding in the over wintering areas adjacent to Roberts Bank; (n) what studies have been undertaken by the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada as to the impact of the loss of this land following ratification of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and the further development of the Roberts Bank port and related rail and highway infrastructure; (o) what impact on the over-wintering of migratory waterfowl did the studies identify with regard to the loss of habitat due to the Roberts Bank port third berth construction and related rail and highway development and are the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada working with B.C. to ensure that there will be a zero net loss of habitat; (p) was culling of the snow geese and trumpeter swan population considered as an option and, if so, how many birds would have to be culled due to the loss of farmland and wildlife habit to the Roberts Bank port development; (q) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada (i) enumerated the number of barn owls that inhabit barns on farm land in the vicinity of Roberts Bank, (ii) considered the impact of the loss of nesting areas on the barn owl, (iii) identified the number of barn owl nesting areas that have already been destroyed and (iv) has any federal government agency put in place a plan to protect the barn owls and their nesting areas; (r) has the loss of this farmland to port expansion and related container storage and rail and highway infrastructure construction been studied by Agriculture Canada as to the effect on the economic viability of the remaining farms as viable farm units and, if so, what studies have been undertaken; (s) has the Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) considered or studied the effect of the loss of the farm land and wildlife habitat on the quality of life and the value of residential property on the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve; (t) has the CMHC considered or studied the effect of the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat on the Tsawwassen and Ladner communities and in south Delta generally and, if so, what effects on the quality of life of the residents and the value of residential properties were identified; (u) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree to support efforts to remove the Wildlife Management Area designation or to refrain from so designating water lots at Roberts Bank and, if so, did the Port request the Province to refrain from making the Wildlife Management Area designation and, if not, has the Port requested the Province to designate the remainder of the Roberts Bank area a Wildlife Management Area and, if not, why; (v) has the Vancouver Port Authority received from B.C. the water lots identified in the Memorandum of Agreement and, if so, which water lots were received; (w) what measures has the Vancouver Port Authority put in place to ensure that migratory birds are not displaced from the foreshore area and that eelgrass beds are not destroyed during port expansion and have these protective measures been in place since the beginning of the Roberts Bank port expansion; (x) have eelgrass beds been destroyed or otherwise impacted and migratory birds been displaced from the foreshore by the work thus far in 2007 and, if so, what are the impacts and the mitigation plan for the loss of the eelgrass beds and the displacement of migratory birds; (y) have studies been undertaken or consideration given to the impact on migratory waterfowl from the shell fish aquaculture operation referenced in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and, if so, what impacts on migratory waterfowl were considered; and (z) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada considered any plan to fill in the foreshore area between the causeways for the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal and the Roberts Bank port and, if so, what would be the impact be on fish and wildlife habitat?

Q-190 — March 29, 2007 — Mr. Cummins (Delta—Richmond East) — With regard to the fishing organizations or groups of fishing licence holders who, excluding fees for commercial fishing licenses as set under the regulation, provide monies, fish quotas or allocations to fund Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) activities on an annual basis for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007: (a) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders have paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by an allocation of quota from their fishery; (b) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by way of a cash contribution to the department or its contractor; (c) in each year, what is the total value by fishing organization or groups of license holders of the cash contributions or quota allocations aforementioned; (d) what science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities carried out in 2005 and 2006 and not paid directly from the department’s ‘A’ base budget will be undertaken and paid for by an allocation from the department’s ‘A’ base budget for 2007; (e) how much did each fishing organization or groups of license holders pay DFO, by way of an allocation of quota or cash contribution, for activities such as science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities for 2005 and 2006; (f) which fishing organizations or groups of license holders has the department agreed to reimburse wholly or in part for their cash contribution or quota allocations to cover the department’s science administration, enforcement costs or other activities from previous years, indicate how much or what portion of what was collected by year will be returned to the fishing organization or groups of licence holders; (g) did the department indicate that it would need to curtail fishing opportunities unless fishermen agreed to contribute money or fishing quota to fund departmental activities and, if so, what are the nature of the fishing opportunities at issue and the fishermen or fishing organization involved; (h) were the amounts raised from fishermen and their organizations reported and accounted for in the department’s spending estimates submitted to Parliament in each of these years, if so, indicate where and in what manner and form, and, if not, why; and (i) has the Auditor General ever reported on or advised the department on its method of collecting funds from fishermen or their organizations or with respect to the use of fish quotas or allocations to fund departmental activities, if so, when and what actions were taken to implement the Auditor General’s advice?

Q-2062 — May 1, 2007 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the Canadian Heritage Department's decision to place the planned location of the Portrait Gallery at 100 Wellingtion Street under review: (a) what financial details have gone to Treasury Board to support any other potential sites for the Gallery; (b) was the search for an alternate location publicly tendered; (c) what are the details of negotiations with other bidders for the relocation of the Gallery; (d) what are the details of the analysis for any alternate location options considered by the Department; (e) what are the implications for the holdings in the Archives' collection; (f) what is the outcome of any risk assessment that a piece of work may be irreparably damaged due to any travel; (g) if the exhibit is housed in a private venue (i) how much influence will the landlord have on the exhibitions, (ii) who will be responsible for the cost of storage and conservation of the art work; and (h) where will the curators for the art work be located if the Gallery is located outside of Ottawa?

Q-2072 — May 7, 2007 — Ms. Beaumier (Brampton West) — With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Plans and Priorities for the Multiculturalism Program: (a) for the fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, what is the actual and planned spending for all multiculturalism programs falling under the program activities “Promotion of Intercultural Understanding” and “Participation in Community and Civic Life”; (b) for the fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, was any multiculturalism funding reallocated and will any multiculturalism funding be reallocated and, if so, (i) to which departments, (ii) how much funding has each department specifically received or will receive, (iii) to what purposes specifically; (c) for the fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, was any multiculturalism funding allocated or will any multiculturalism funding be allocated and to what purpose; (d) what was the total value of multiculturalism funding authorized and released by the Minister’s Office on the last two days of the 2006-2007 fiscal year; (e) in 2006-2007, what was the total value of multiculturalism funding allocated by the Department but not released to reimburse actual expenditures occurred by the organization; (f) who specifically is the “Multiculturalism Champion” and what is his or her mandate; (g) who specifically sits on the Departmental Steering Committee on Multiculturalism and what is its mandate; and (h) once multiculturalism is mainstreamed into the day to day operations of the Department, will the Multiculturalism Program exist as an independent program or department and will it or will it not receive funding directly as an independent program?

Q-2082 — May 7, 2007 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to the Pine Beetle infestation in British Columbia and Alberta: (a) what is the most up-to-date assessment of the economic impact of the infestation, including, but not limited to, lost lumber, hectares, employment, and longer term regional development; (b) how many communities and families are affected by the infestation, according to province; (c) within affected areas, which communities are considered to be the least and worst hit, according to province; (d) what financial resources are estimated to be needed to adequately respond to the crisis, on an annual basis; (e) how much money has the government committed to the problem over the last five years, on an annual basis; (f) what were the dates upon which these funding announcements were made; (g) of these funds, what amount has actually been disbursed, on an annual basis; (h) from which departmental budget were these funds disbursed, or to have been disbursed from; (i) which communities in British Columbia and Alberta, on an annual basis, received federal money to tackle the infestation, and in each case, name the recipient agencies and projects that received funding; and (j) which branches, of which departments, are tasked with developing and implementing a strategy to tackle the infestation?

Q-209 — May 8, 2007 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to spending by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs: (a) how much spending is allocated per capita for health care (i) proportionally for aboriginal Canadians on reserve compared to non aboriginal Canadians, (ii) proportionally for aboriginal Canadians off reserve compared to non aboriginal Canadians; and (b) how much spending is allocated per capita for education (i) proportionally for aboriginal Canadians on reserve compared to non aboriginal Canadians, (ii) proportionally for aboriginal Canadians off reserve compared to non aboriginal Canadians?

Q-2102 — May 8, 2007 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to programs and spending by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) within the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek: (a) what was the amount spent in 2006; (b) what is the projected budget for 2007 and 2008 (if applicable and available); (c) how many CMHC-funded housing units for singles and families currently exist; (d) how many CMHC-funded housing units for singles and families are planned for 2006 and 2007; and (e) what is the amount that CMHC has provided to housing co-ops in the riding for maintenance over the last two years and what will be the amount over the next two years?

Q-2112 — May 8, 2007 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — What projects, grants, contributions and any other funding support has Human Resources and Social Development Canada funded for the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek since February 7, 2006?

Q-2122 — May 8, 2007 — Mr. Nadeau (Gatineau) — With regard to government jobs in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of Public Service employees in the Outaouais region and in the Ottawa region from 2006 to 2007; and (b) the number of employees of government agencies, Crown corporations or any other government bodies in the Outaouais region and in the Ottawa region, from 2006 to 2007?

Q-2132 — May 8, 2007 — Mr. Nadeau (Gatineau) — With regard to leases signed by the government in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of such leases expiring in 2006 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (b) the number of such leases expiring in 2007 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (c) the number of such leases expiring in 2008 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; and (d) the number of vacant premises in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region in 2007?

Q-2142 — May 9, 2007 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to ministerial travel and hospitality expenses: (a) what was the total travel and hospitality expenses submitted by or on behalf of each Minister of the Crown since February 6, 2006, paid from any departmental budgets; (b) what was the amount for each Minister and exempt staff; (c) what was the amount on a monthly basis for each Minister and exempt staff; and (d) what was the itinerary for each Minister and exempt staff?

Q-2152 — May 24, 2007 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With respect to the Summer Career Placement Program and the Canada Summer Jobs program, within the riding of Victoria: (a) what was the total annual expenditure for each year from 2003 to 2007 inclusive; (b) how many job positions were supported through the programs for each year from 2003 to 2007 inclusive; (c) for the year 2007, how many applications were received; (d) for the year 2007, how many applications were accepted, and for which employers; and (e) for the year 2007, how many applications were denied or placed on a waiting list, and for which employers?

Q-2162 — May 24, 2007 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With respect to programs and spending administered by Human Resources and Social Development Canada, within the riding of Victoria, in each year, fiscal or calendar, from 1993 to 2006 inclusive: (a) what was the total annual dollar amount of funding allocated, in grants, loans or loan guarantees, broken down by program; and (b) what was the total number of grants allocated, broken down by program?

Q-2172 — May 24, 2007 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With respect to programs and spending administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) within the riding of Victoria, in each year, from 1993 to 2006, inclusive: (a) what was the total of CMHC spending; (b) how many CMHC-funded housing units for singles and families existed; (c) how many new CMHC-funded units were added; and (d) how many CMHC-funded housing units ceased to be available?

Q-2182 — May 24, 2007 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued in the constituency of Victoria through Human Resources and Social Development Canada, for each of the two periods between June 28, 2004, to January 22, 2006 inclusive, and between January 23, 2006, to May 18, 2007, inclusive, and, in each case, where applicable: (a) the program under which the payment was made; (b) the names of the recipients, if they were groups or organizations; (c) the monetary value of the payment made; and (d) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

Q-2202 — May 24, 2007 — Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) — With regard to Immigrant Applications and Temporary Resident Visas (Visitor Visas), for each Canadian High Commission, Embassy and Consulate around the world, presently and for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, in actual numbers: (a) how many spousal sponsorships, parental sponsorships and independent applicant cases are or were in inventory; (b) what is or was the length of time required to process these applications: spousal sponsorships, parental sponsorships and independent applicants; (c) how many cases are or were in backlog and are or were the subject of enhanced security background checks; and (d) how many Temporary Resident Visa (Visitor Visa) Applications were submitted and how many were refused?

Q-2212 — May 28, 2007 — Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) — With respect to the Summer Career Placement Program and the Canada Summer Jobs program, within the riding of Sault Ste. Marie: (a) what was the total annual expenditure for each year from 2003 to 2007, inclusive; (b) how many job positions were supported through the programs for each year from 2003 to 2007, inclusive; (c) for the year 2007, how many applications were received and from whom; (d) for the year 2007, (i) how many applications were approved initially and for which employers, (ii) how many more applications were later approved in the second round of funding announced and for which employers; and (e) for the year 2007, how many applications were denied, and for which employers?

Q-2222 — May 29, 2007 — Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) — With regard to immigrant applications processed in the Canadian High Commission in Sri Lanka: (a) how many spousal sponsorships, parental sponsorships and independent applicant cases are in inventory; (b) what is the length of time to process these applications: spousal sponsorships, parental sponsorships and independent applicants; and (c) how many cases are in backlog and are the subject of enhanced security background checks?

Q-2232 — May 29, 2007 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) and the government's child care initiatives: (a) how many families living below the national low income cut-off are receiving the UCCB; (b) if the UCCB were delivered through the Child Tax benefit as opposed to as a taxable benefit, how many families would no longer live below the low income cut-off; (c) how many child care spaces would be provided if the taxes the government collected from families receiving UCCB were re-invested into creating child care spaces; (d) how many child care spaces have been created each year from 2002 to 2006 through the multilateral framework agreement, the bilateral agreements, and agreements-in-principle since the agreements were signed; (e) how many spaces will be created in 2007 and 2008 through these agreements; (f) why does the government continue to send child care funds to the provinces when many of these provinces have not submitted reports on how funds received have been spent, and how many child care spaces have been created as a result of federal investments; (g) how many child care spaces have been created through the Child Care Spaces Initiative in each province since the program's inception in 2006; (h) how many families are collecting the UCCB; (i) what has been the enrolment rate on a monthly basis since the program was announced; (j) what is the breakdown of income levels, in numerical and percentage terms, of UCCB recipients; (k) with regards to recipients' marital status, how many are single and how many are married or in common law relationships; (l) what is the regional breakdown of those enrolled to receive the UCCB; (m) how many women and how many men are the recipients of the UCCB in their household; (n) in what percent of families registered to receive the UCCB was the recipient the lower income earner in that household; (o) what government studies have been done on the use of the UCCB since its inception in 2006, listing any such studies, including title, author, date of publication and a brief synopsis of its conclusions; (p) what polling has been done on the use of the UCCB since its inception in 2006, listing any such polling, including title, author, date of publication and a brief synopsis of its conclusions; and (q) how many child care spaces have been created by the UCCB, by province?

Q-224 — May 30, 2007 — Ms. Bell (Vancouver Island North) — With regard to export of bulk water and intra-basin diversions from Canada: (a) what is the current policy of the government; (b) has there been any change to this policy since January 23, 2006 and, if so, what changes have been made; (c) how many applications for the export of bulk water have been received by the government, listing of the requestors and the municipality within which they are located, and what is the current status of these requests; (d) in terms of bulk water exports and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) negotiations, (i) in what context has bulk water been discussed, (ii) what is the substance of our trading partners demands, (iii) have any agreements, either in preliminary or final form, been reached in this regard with corporations or foreign governments; (e) what did the Minister's briefing book to the SPP meetings say about bulk water; (f) are there other trade discussions currently on going that involve bulk water exports or intra-basin diversions and, if so, (i) what is the substance of these discussions, (ii) what is being asked of the government, (iii) what is the current state of the negotiations; (g) what legal advice has the government received regarding the export of bulk water from Canada; and (h) what scientific advice has the government received in regard to the export of bulk water and intra-basin diversions from Canada?

Q-225 — May 30, 2007 — Ms. Bell (Vancouver Island North) — With regard to raw log exports from Canada: (a) what is the government’s current policy; (b) is the government working on ways to reduce these exports and, if so, what policy options are being considered; (c) have there been or are there any meetings planned to discuss raw log exports with the United States and, if so, what was or will be the substance of the said meetings and what policy options or conclusions emerged from them; (d) how many cubic metres of wood has been exported on an annual basis since 2001; (e) where are these log being exported to; (f) what is the commercial value of these logs on an annual basis; (g) during the recent visit of the Minister of Natural Resources to China, was there any discussion of raw log exports and, if so, what was the substance of those discussions; (h) what did the Minister’s briefing book for that trip say about forestry products and raw logs; (i) has any public money been spent abroad by the government to market or encourage the export of raw logs and, if so, how much and where; (j) what advice or studies have been prepared for the government with respect to the impact of raw log exports on the Canadian economy, specifically the domestic forestry industry?

Q-2262 — May 30, 2007 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to the procurement of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) by the government over the last five years: (a) how many SUVs were purchased or leased on an annual basis; (b) what was the total government expenditure for the purchase or lease of such vehicles, on an annual basis; (c) what amount was spent by each department or agency; (d) how much was spent annually by each department or agency in the National Capital Region; (e) what was the breakdown by province; (f) which companies received government contracts with respect to the purchase or leasing of SUVs and what was the annual combined total of all contracts awarded to each company; and (g) what was the amount spent, on an annual basis, on the overall procurement of vehicles by the government and of this amount, how much was spent, on an annual basis in dollars and percentage, on SUVs?

Q-2272 — May 30, 2007 — Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) — With respect to funds allocated to the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor): (a) what is the global budget of FedNor and its programs from 2003 to the present; (b) how much of FedNor's economic development funding and other funding it administers has gone to projects and initiatives in Northern Ontario from 2003 to the present, and how does FedNor define "Northern Ontario", i.e. its boundaries, and when and how has that definition changed since 1993; (c) what is the number of jobs directly created in Northern Ontario as well as other regions from FedNor programs and other programs it administers from 2003 to the present; (d) listed by location, what is the number of full time employees and equivalents that have worked for the FedNor, on an annual basis since 2003; (e) what are the top ten electoral ridings in terms of receiving the most FedNor funding from 1993 to the present, broken down on an annual basis; and (f) listed by electoral riding, who were the recipients of FedNor funding, broken down on an annual basis from 1993 to the present?

Q-2282 — May 30, 2007 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With respect to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP): (a) when did unofficial negotiations on the SPP agenda begin prior to March 2005 and which Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and government departments were involved; (b) which Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and branches of which departments are tasked with developing and implementing strategies to advance the SPP agenda; (c) how often do meetings transpire between Ministers or Deputy Ministers and members of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), what were the dates and locations of these meetings, who was present at each one of these meetings and what were the topics of discussion at each meeting; (d) what financial resources are estimated to be required to adequately fulfill the SPP on an annual basis; (e) how much money has the government committed to the SPP in the last five years; (f) were these funding announcements made public, and, if so, on what dates were these funding announcements made; (g) of these funds, what amount has actually been disbursed annually, and from which government department budget were these funds disbursed; (h) how many person-hours in government departments are dedicated to advancing the agenda of the SPP, working groups included; (i) has an intranet system been establish to facilitate day-to-day communications between participating countries and the NACC; (j) what is the relationship between NAFTA and the SPP; (k) is the SPP considered an extension of NAFTA; (l) have NAFTA committees been folded into the SPP groups and, if so, why and how; (m) what is the most up-to-date impact assessment of SPP negotiations on Canadian regulations and standards in (i) health, (ii) food, food products and food safety, (iii) transport safety, (iv) privacy, (v) energy, (vi) water, (vii) natural resources, (viii) chemical products, including pesticides and herbicides, (ix) financial services and monetary policy, (x) border security, (xi) outsourcing and jobs, (xii) the environment, (xiii) electronic trade, (xiv) the process of building up and maintaining Canada’s no-fly list; (n) what is the status of these negotiations, have some been suspended, and if some have been completed, what regulations were changed as a result; (o) how would those negotiations affect Canada’s public policy space; (p) are any mutual recognition agreements being negotiated under the SPP; (q) what are all the SPP working groups, their focus, the members of these working groups (including members of the government and civil service), and the minutes of their meetings; (r) is it the position of the government that the SPP is beneficial to Canadian sovereignty; (s) what plans does the government have to conduct a public debate of the SPP process, including public consultations with civil society groups, a full legislative review, and a vote in Parliament; and (t) what plans does the government have to brief Parliamentarians on the SPP, if not, why not, and, if so, how regular will such briefings be?

Q-2292 — May 30, 2007 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With respect to the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative (APGCI): (a) what are the specific initiatives and projects that comprise the APGCI; (b) what government departments are involved in the development and implementation of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor; (c) how is the federal government coordinating with the provincial and municipal governments in the development and implementation of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor; (d) which level of government has the primary responsibility for the development and implementation of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor; (e) is there or will there be a separate body responsible for the implementation of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor; (f) who does, or will, this body consist of; (g) how often does, or will, it meet; (h) what remuneration is offered to members of this body; (i) is there or will there be an ongoing consultation between the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government throughout the process; (j) is the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor being implemented according to a master plan and, if so, what is that master plan; (k) how much federal government funding has been committed annually to the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor; (l) what is the breakdown of federal government funding for each specific initiative and project; (m) how much private sector funding is estimated to be funneled into the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor; (n) what companies will provide that private sector funding; (o) how much provincial and municipal government funding has been committed to the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor; (p) who has been hired as a consultant by the federal government to develop and implement the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor and what is the amount of their annual compensation; (q) what consulting contracts have been awarded by the federal government to private sector companies; (r) are there funding criteria for the federal government in terms of financing other levels of government and, if so, what are they; (s) is there a governing body that will handle all the expenditures of the APGCI; (t) has there been an impact assessment of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor (i) on the environment, (ii) on resulting greenhouse gas emissions and, if so, what are its findings, (iii) on resulting suburban sprawl and, if so, what are its findings, (iv) on sound and noise pollution in neighboring communities, and, if so, what are its findings; (u) what is the projected impact on local farmland as a result of the Asia-Pacific Gateway; (v) does the APGCI include a plan to shift transport from automobile to public transit and, if so, please provide details; (w) when will the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor be completed in its entirety; and (x) how many (i) Canadian workers and (ii) foreign workers will be hired to work on the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor?

Q-2302 — May 30, 2007 — Ms. McDonough (Halifax) — With respect to Canada’s current military mission in Kandahar province of Afghanistan: (a) what is the government’s position on the use of landmines and cluster munitions in Afghanistan; (b) can the government confirm that all landmines previously identified on or in the immediate vicinity around Kandahar airfield, or any other of Canada’s forward operating bases, have been safely removed and disposed of and if not, why not; (c) has the government sought any advice on how the presence of previously-laid landmines surrounding Canadian bases of operations relates to Canada's obligations under the Ottawa landmines treaty; (d) what, if any, was the advice given, and by whom; (e) how has the government responded to this advice; (f) is the government aware of any NATO or other allies in Afghanistan who sanction the use of landmines or cluster munitions; (g) to the government’s knowledge, have any of Canada’s allies in Afghanistan used landmines or cluster munitions in combat operations in Afghanistan; (h) what has been the Canadian government’s response to these operations; and (i) has the government developed a policy for how the military should respond to allied combat operations in which Canada participates where cluster munitions or landmines may be used and, if so, what is that policy?

Q-2312 — May 30, 2007 — Ms. McDonough (Halifax) — With respect to Canada’s current engagement with Sudan: (a) what is Canada currently doing to support peace initiatives and operations in conflict zones in Sudan; (b) what is the current financial contribution of the Canadian government to the African Mission in Sudan (AMIS); (c) has the government made any long-term funding or other support commitments to the AMIS mission and, if so, what are they; (d) when will Canada’s financial and other commitments in Darfur end; (e) through which ministries, agencies and programs is this support channeled and provided; (f) is the Canadian government currently providing financial or diplomatic assistance to peace initiatives currently underway to end the conflict in Darfur and, if so, in what ways, and, if not, for what reasons; (g) has the Canadian government offered any new support – financial or otherwise – since the Government of Sudan has given its consent to allow up to 3,000 UN troops for a heavy support mission in Darfur; (h) has the Canadian government been approached by the UN Secretary-General to contribute troops or other forms of support for a UN heavy-support mission in Darfur; (i) if requests have been made, what were they, when were they made, and what has been the Canadian government’s response; (j) what is the government’s policy on divestment from Sudan; and (k) has the government conducted any research into the feasibility and likely effects of the divestment of Canadian assets in Sudan and, if so, what were the findings of these investigations?

Q-2322 — May 30, 2007 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regards to the krill fishery in the Georgia Strait: (a) what scientific studies have been done to determine the effect of this fishery on migrating Pacific salmon; (b) are there any recommendations to protect the Pacific salmon fishery arising from those studies and, if yes, what are they; (c) have any of those recommendations been implemented and, if so, what are they?

Q-2332 — May 30, 2007 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regards to commuter rail service on Vancouver Island: (a) how much money has the government spent in the past 20 years on the Vancouver Island E & N Rail corridor; (b) how many funding applications have been made to support commuter rail on Vancouver Island; (c) how many of those applications have been granted; (d) what was the amount of money granted; (e) how many of those applications were denied and why; and (f) what is the government's current plan to promote commuter rail on Vancouver Island?

Q-2342 — May 30, 2007 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regard to the Third Party Management system for First Nations: (a) for the last five years, how many First Nations reserves have been operating under third party management and for how long; (b) for each of the reserves listed, who acts as their third party manager; and (c) for each of the reserves listed, how much was paid annually to the third party manager, and what percentage of band funding did that represent?

Q-2352 — May 30, 2007 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With respect to the resolution of Aboriginal specific and comprehensive land claims: (a) how many lawyers, for each year since 2002, have worked on behalf of the federal government on specific and comprehensive land claims issues, counting both federal employees and those in private practice contracted by the government of Canada; (b) provide a list of the departmental budgets from which these lawyers were paid, including the line items accounting for these payments; (c) what is the total dollar amount spent on specific and comprehensive land claims lawyers, since 2002, broken down by year; (d) of the total amount spent on lawyers for land claims issues, what portion has been paid to attorneys in private practice working on government contract; (e) in what part of the country do these lawyers work; (f) what studies and evaluations have been requested, undertaken, or commissioned by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada since 2002 dealing with Aboriginal land claims; (g) what individuals, departments, or organizations undertook these studies; (h) what has been the total cost of these studies; (i) what were the findings and recommendations of these studies; and (j) have any of these findings and recommendations been integrated into government policy on the resolution of specific and comprehensive land claims?

Q-2362 — May 31, 2007 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — With regard to automatic teller machine (ATM) fees: (a) what is the government’s current policy; (b) is it based on the advice from the Canada Revenue Agency; (c) does the government intend to legislate on limits on ATM fees, and, if so, when and, if not, why; (d) what is the government’s position with respect to eliminating ATM fees; (e) what studies and evaluations about ATM fees have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government over the last five years; (f) if any, what individuals, what department, or what organization undertook these studies, what were the cost of these studies, and what are their findings and recommendations; (g) what is the government’s estimate of the annual costs Canadians pay in ATM fees; (h) what is the government’s estimate in the annual profits earned by financial institutions in Canada from ATM fees; and (i) what is the source of both estimates?

Q-2372 — May 31, 2007 — Mrs. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the Homelessness Partnership Strategy (HPS): (a) what changes have been made from the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI); (b) will the communities designated to receive funding under the Homelessness Partnership Initiative differ from the communities that received funding under SCPI; (c) will the community plans developed under SCPI remain intact; (d) if not, what is the procedure for developing new strategies; (e) will a public consultation process within the communities still take place; (f) will there be any differences in the number or allocation of staff and program facilitators under the new initiative; (g) will there be any lag in funding while the transition from SCPI to HPS occurs; (h) how will HPS funding be administered; (i) will funding be transferred to the provinces and territories or will it be allocated directly to community based groups; (j) will there be any restrictions put in place on how funding recipients can spend money received through the Homelessness Partnership Initiative; (k) will preference be given to groups that provide transitional supportive housing; (l) which stakeholders were consulted before the decision was made to begin the new HPS program; (m) how was the need for a new program identified; (n) were (i) funding recipients, (ii) community groups, (iii) municipal and provincial governments involved in the development of HPS; (o) what are the criteria for receipt of funding from HPS; (p) how many funding recipients of SCPI funding will still qualify for HPS funding; (q) what is the estimated number of new funding recipients; and (r) what reporting and auditing requirements will funding recipients be responsible for?

Q-2382 — May 31, 2007 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With regard to Canada’s immigration system; (a) how many Canadians have family members who have been deported since 2000, listed by each year, to 2006, and projected into 2007; (b) how many individuals have been deported from Canada since the year 2000, listed by each year, to 2006, and projected into 2007; (c) how many of these individuals had been in Canada for five or more years; (d) what is the cost of deporting these individuals per year, since 2000, listed by departments, including the court cost; (e) how many of these individuals had filed appeals to Federal Court; (f) how many of these individuals were ordered removed with their children, provide a list of the ages of all those under the age of 18 and how many of each age group were ordered removed; (g) how many of these individuals had Canadian born children, and how many of these Canadian children have been removed out of Canada and what are their ages; (h) how many of these individuals left Canadian-born children in Canada when removed; (i) how many of these individuals have immediate family (as defined by Citizenship and Immigration under the Family Class) in Canada, and how many individuals have non-family class relatives in Canada; (j) how many of these individuals were married to a Canadian citizen while in Canada; (k) how many of these individuals were ordered removed to countries for which the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) has issued any travel warnings; (l) how many of these individuals have returned to Canada since their ordered removal, provide a list of countries for which these individuals returned to Canada from after their removal; (m) how many of these individuals returned to Canada since their ordered removal with children under the age of 18, and how many of these children were born in Canada; and (n) what immigration categories did these individuals apply under when they arrived in Canada originally and when they return?

Q-2392 — May 31, 2007 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With respect to funds at the discretion of Ministers of the Crown: (a) what programs or funds exist within their ministerial purview that do not require standard grants and contributions practices to be followed; (b) under what authority could a Minister distribute funds without using the grants and contribution process; (c) with respect to such discretionary funds, how much does each Minister in the current cabinet have at their disposal, how much has each minister spent on a monthly basis, and on what; (d) who were the recipients of such funds, by department or Minister; (e) with respect to the period from January 2001 to December 2006, (i) how much did each Minister had at their disposal, (ii) how much did each Minister spent on annual basis, and on what, (iii) who were the recipients of such funds, by department or minister, (iv) what was the date of each disbursement; (f) from which budget do such funds come from; (g) other than the Minister, who has the power to determine how such funds are disbursed; (h) how do such disbursement relate to Treasury Board guidelines; and (i) what kind of oversight exists on how such funds are disbursed?

Q-2402 — May 31, 2007 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With respect to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT): (a) will the government ratify the OPCAT; (b) does the government have a timeline to ratify the OPCAT and, if so, when; (c) since OPCAT was adopted at the United Nations in December 2002, why has the government delayed its ratification; (d) what are the government’s concerns with respect to ratifying the OPCAT; (e) has there been a change in the government’s position on ratification since January 26, 2006 and, if so, what; (f) does the government plan to bring the issue of ratifying the OPCAT before Parliament or any of its committees and, if so, when and to which committees and, if not, why; and (g) what studies and evaluations about the OPCAT have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government and (i) what individuals, what department, or what organization undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies, (iii) what are their findings and recommendations?

Q-2412 — May 31, 2007 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to federal investment and initiatives regarding the Toronto waterfront: (a) for each year, from 2000 to 2007, how much money has the government announced for investment in the waterfront; (b) for each year, from 2000 to 2007, specifying for each project or organization, how much money has been allocated specifically for projects related to the waterfront; and (c) since the year 2000, what reports, studies, polling, focus groups or audits have been conducted by the government with relation to the waterfront?

Q-2422 — May 31, 2007 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to meeting the challenges of climate change: (a) what are the estimated costs to the Canadian economy of climate change; (b) what are the most current scientific modelling predictions used with respect to the impacts of climate change in Canada; (c) what regions of the country and which sectors of the economy are expected to be worse affected by climate change; (d) what are the anticipated job losses due to climate change; and (e) applying the same economic methodologies used for the environmental regulatory plan entitled “Turning the Corner”, what would be the health and economic costs of allowing the oil sands sector to increase volatile organic compounds emissions by 60% by the year 2015?

Q-2432 — May 31, 2007 — Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) — With respect to the impact, costs, benefits, consultations and studies on climate change as they relate to environmental legislation before Parliament: (a) what studies have been commissioned with respect to the economic costs of implementing Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act), as amended by the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30, including the list of titles, authors, dates of publication and brief synopsis of each; (b) how would meeting the targets set out in the amended version of Bill C-30 help mitigate the costs of climate change to the Canadian economy; (c) what would the economic benefits to the Canadian economy be if the measures outlined in the amended version of Bill C-30 were implemented; (d) were external consultations on the costs of Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, undertaken with organizations or individuals other than for the report released by the Minister of the Environment entitled “The Cost of Bill C-288 to Canadian Families and Business” and for the environmental regulatory plan entitled “Turning the Corner”, and (i) if so, what organizations or individuals were consulted and why were they not included in the report on Bill C-288, (ii) if not, why did the government not seek the input of other stakeholders, in particular leading Canadian environmental organizations; and (e) applying the same economic methodologies used for both of the documents mentioned in (d), what would be the approximate health savings of the amended version of Bill C-30?

Q-2442 — May 31, 2007 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — With respect to tax laws: (a) what kind of fines levied against corporations can be written off; (b) does this apply equally to domestic and foreign based companies; (c) what percentage of levied fines can be written off; (d) when was this exemption first allowed and why; (e) why are corporations allowed this exemption and not individuals; (f) how many companies have made use of this exemption since its introduction, on an annual basis; (g) what is the annual cost of such exemptions on the federal treasury since its introduction; (h) if this exemption were not in place, how much would the federal treasury make in added revenues; and (i) which sectors of the economy most use this exemption?

Q-2452 — June 1, 2007 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regard to support and maintenance activities for the Cormorant Helicopters: (a) which companies are currently carrying out work on behalf of the government; (b) what is the value of the contracts signed with these companies; (c) what is the duration for each of these contracts; (d) have any contracts encountered any cost overruns and, if so, what has that overrun been; (e) has the government conducted a program review of any of these contracts and, if so, what was the outcome of this review; (f) is the government considering re-tendering or revising any service contracts for the Cormorant Helicopter; and (g) what are the cut off dates for any decision for re-tendering or revising service contracts?

Q-246 — June 1, 2007 — Ms. Bell (Vancouver Island North) — With respect to the British Columbia coastline: (a) what, if any, voluntary or mandatory restrictions exist for oil and gas tankers traveling north and south between Alaska and the west coast of the United States; (b) what, if any, voluntary or mandatory restrictions exist for oil and gas tankers traveling east and west, to or from Canadian ports; (c) what is the legal status of the 1972 moratorium on oil and natural gas exploration off the Pacific Coast; (d) what is the official position of the government on the 1972 moratorium on oil and natural gas exploration off the Pacific Coast; (e) what is the official position of the government on imposing a formal federal moratorium on the passage of all oil and gas tanker ships in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound; (f) what is the official position of the government on the passage of oil and gas tankers in all directions (north, south, east, and west) from Alaska to points such as East Asia and the west coast of the United States; and (g) what, if any, plans does the government have to formalize an overall moratorium of oil and natural gas exploration off the British Columbia coast?

Q-2472 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — With respect to the 2007 Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite: (a) how much money has the government spent on its campaign for "marketing choice", from all federal sources since January 26, 2006, in relation to (i) advertising in daily and weekly newspapers, (ii) radio advertisements, (iii) roundtables, (iv) the Task Force on Marketing Choice; (b) how many meetings have taken place since the 2006 federal election between representatives of Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and other agri-business corporations and government officials where “marketing choice” and the Canadian Wheat Board was a topic of discussion and (i) on what dates did these meetings take place, (ii) who presided over these meetings, (iii) who was present at these meetings; (c) which marketing, advertising, consulting and professional or independent agencies did the government consult with respect to how to frame the ballot questions for the barley plebiscite; (d) did any of these marketing, advertising, consulting and professional or independent agencies provide the government with written reports on how to frame the ballot questions for the barley plebiscite and, if so, on what dates were they provided; (e) what verbal or written instructions were given to KPMG, the accounting firm hired by the government to conduct the barley plebiscite, regarding the administration processes to be employed for any aspect of the barley plebiscite that KPMG was to be responsible for; (f) what is the government's position in regard to the use of numbered and traceable ballots in official election or plebiscite processes and in what way does this position justify using numbered and traceable ballots in the barley plebiscite; (g) at any time throughout the barley plebiscite, was the government informed or aware (i) that KPMG was contacting households by telephone seeking authorization to destroy certain ballots that had been submitted by the household which KPMG did not deem the household entitled to, (ii) that in some cases KPMG did not actually speak to the person attached to the ballot in question and accepted authorization from other household members, (iii) if the government was informed or aware of these practices, did it take measures to investigate or put a halt to these alleged informal practices and on what dates and in what form were these measures taken; (h) what is the government's position in regard to the informal destruction of ballots in plebiscites without the formal consent or presence of the person attached to a particular ballot; (i) was the government aware that many farmers thought that question 2 on the barley plebiscite ballot was to maintain the status quo and as a result voted for that option; (j) how many meetings were held with grassroots farm organizations to discuss any aspect of marketing choice and the barley plebiscite, on what dates were these meetings held, and who was present at these meetings; (k) what is the government's position in regard to whether a clear majority for victory in an election or plebiscite process should be announced by the government before, during or after that process begins and in what way does this position justify the government's refusal to announce the terms of a clear majority for victory until after the Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite ballots were counted; and (l) has the government ever met with the Canadian Wheat Board to determine how to limit commercial harm to farmers and the barley industry from the government’s proposed regulatory changes with respect to implementing “marketing choice” for barley and, if so, who was present and on what dates did these meetings occur?

Q-2482 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) — With regard to the record low water levels of Lake Superior: (a) what is the lake's average water level by year, dating back to when records were first kept; (b) how does the government scientifically account for water levels being the lowest since 1926; (c) what studies and evaluations into Lake Superior's water levels have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government and (i) what individuals, department, or organization undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies, (iii) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (d) how is climate change affecting the water levels of the Great Lakes, including Lake Superior, and are there studies completed or now underway in this regard and, if so, what are they and what are their findings; (e) what strategies has the government developed to deal with dropping water levels; and (f) have any agreements been struck in the export of bulk water from the Great Lakes and are any negotiations underway?

Q-2492 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regard to a national energy strategy: (a) what is the government's position on the development and implementation of a national energy strategy; and (b) are there current impediments developing and implementing a national energy strategy and, if so, what are they?

Q-2502 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regard to the Deh Cho process: (a) what are all of the government's obligations under the Deh Cho First Nations Interim Measures Agreement; (b) what are all of the government's obligations under the Deh Cho Interim Resource Development Agreement; and (c) what are all of the government's obligations under the Deh Cho Land Use Plan?

Q-2512 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regard to the Northern residents tax deduction: (a) what is Canada's total annual lost revenue for each of the previous five years, broken down by province and territory, through the use of this deduction; (b) what would be the estimated lost tax revenue to the government if the residency portion of the deduction was increased by 50 per cent; and (c) what is the rationale for not ensuring that this deduction remains current with inflation?

Q-2522 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With respect to women working as prostitutes: (a) does the government have statistics on women working as prostitutes that have gone missing or have been murdered and, if so, how many have gone missing in Canada since 1999, and how many have been murdered in Canada since 2003; (b) what studies and reports have been carried out by the Department of Justice in relation to Canada's prostitution laws since 1999, and what are their findings and recommendations; (c) what recommendations from the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, as enumerated in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, does the government agree with; and (d) how much federal funding is allocated to programs and organizations that deliver exit strategies for women working in the sex trade and (i) what are those organizations, (ii) how much money do they receive per year?

Q-2532 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With respect to Harry W. Arthurs' report on the Canada Labour Code entitled “Fairness at Work: Federal Labour Standards for the 21st Century”: (a) what is the government response to the report; (b) what groups, individuals, businesses, organizations and institutes have been consulted about the recommendations in the final report and (i) what are the responses and recommendations from those consultations, (ii) what future plans for the consultations have been made; (c) what recommendations from the report does the government agree with; and (d) has funding been allocated to implement any recommendations in the report and, if so, for which recommendations?

Q-2542 — June 4, 2007 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With respect to Insite, the Safe Injection Site (SIS): (a) what studies and evaluations about safe injection sites have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by Health Canada; (b) what individuals, what department or what organization undertook these studies; (c) what is the cost of these studies; (d) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (e) what recommendations does the government agree with; (f) what studies and evaluations have been requested or commissioned by Health Canada to be undertaken before December 31, 2007; (g) what Heath Canada studies, reports and recommendations have already been presented to the government prior to September 2006; and (h) what amount of funding has the government provided directly, or indirectly, to SIS?

Q-2552 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the government's intention to harmonize regulations on pesticide residue limits for fruits and vegetables with those of the United States: (a) what evidence does the government have that shows that there will not be an increase in pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables; (b) what safeguards are in place to ensure that Canadians are not exposed to higher levels of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables; (c) will independent and peer-review tests continue to be used to determine pesticide limits and the cumulative effect of the resulting residue on health and the environment; and (d) what are the implications to Canada's sovereign right to determine regulatory standards, affecting Canadian food security and food safety, in adopting foreign standards for regulations of pesticide residue limits?

Q-2562 — June 4, 2007 — Mrs. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the pay equity cases brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) in which the government is a defendant: (a) in how many cases has the government, a government agency or a government-funded organization appeared before the CHRT as the respondent in an action involving section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began, and if closed, date closed; (b) in how many cases has the government, a government agency or a government-funded organization appeared before the CHRT as the respondent in an action involving section 10 of the CHRA and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began, and if closed, date closed; (c) in how many cases has the government or a government agency appeared before the CHRT as the respondent in an action involving the Employment Equity Act and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began, and if closed, date closed; (d) how many such cases are still pending final resolution; and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began; (e) how many pay equity cases in which the government, a government agency or government funded organization is the respondent are still pending before the CHRT and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case was began; (f) how many appeals of a Tribunal order or ruling has the government made to Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeals and what was the name of each appeal, the name of the government institution involved and the appeal the case was began; (g) how much has been spent by the government, in total and per year (i) in attorney’s fees defending cases before the CHRT, (ii) in attorney’s fees bringing or defending appeals of Tribunal orders or rulings in Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeals, (iii) in court costs defending cases before the CHRT, (iv) in court costs when bringing or defending appeals of Tribunal orders or rulings in Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeals, (v) in attempts to resolve such pay equity cases by methods of alternative dispute resolution (for example the services of a mediator), (vi) in legal fees on pay equity disputes settled outside the CHRT, and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case began, and if closed, date closed, enumerated by year; (h) how much has been spent by the government in total legal fees in litigating Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Hospital Services Compliant) since the complaint was first filed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) on September 9, 1981; (i) why has a hospital services classification standard which is free of systemic gender bias not yet been adopted as required by the Tribunal’s order issued April 29, 1991; (j) what is the cost to the government of Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Post Corporation (i) from the time the complaint was first filed in 1983 until the Tribunal rendered its decision on October 7, 2005, (ii) of the upcoming appeal in Federal Court, scheduled for November 5, 2007 (estimated cost); (k) how much has been spent by the government in legal fees (i) in litigating Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Clerical and Regulatory Complaint) since the complaint was first filed by PSAC in December 1984, (ii) in defending this case until the Tribunal rendered its decision on February 15, 1996, (iii) in litigating the government’s application for judicial review of the CHRT’s decision regarding the section 11 portion of the complaint, which was dismissed by the Federal Court on October 19, 1999, (iv) in defending the appeal brought by PSAC challenging the Tribunal’s decision as to the sections of the complaint regarding sections 7 and 10 of the CHRA, (v) since the Federal Court referred the portions of the complaint regarding sections 7 and 10 back to the CHRC; (l) how much has been spent by the government in legal fees (i) in litigating Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canadian Museum of Civilization since the complaint was first filed in March 2000, (ii) in presenting the government’s preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges a breach of section 11 of the CHRA, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on March 21, 2005, (iii) in presenting the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on January 13, 2006, (iv) in presenting the government’s applications for judicial review of the two above mentioned decisions by the CHRT, both of which were denied by the Federal Court on June 6, 2006, (v) what is the estimated cost of the mediation between the parties which is scheduled for December 2007; (m) how much has been spent by the government thus far in litigating the law suit filed by PSAC in Federal Court in November 2000 regarding pay equity adjustments for seven P.S.S.R.A. Part II separate employers (C.I.H.R., C.S.I.S., C.S.E., O.A.G., O.S.F.I., S.S.H.R.C., and S.S.O); (n) how much has been spent by the government for the mediation of the unresolved pay equity dispute between PSAC and Correctional Services Canada, which was filed in December 2003; (o) how much is expected to be spent by the government on the dispute between the Treasury Board and PSAC regarding the Program and Administrative Services Group Classification, the complaint having been filed in December 2004, which has currently been referred to mediation by the CHRC; (p) how much is expected to be spent by the government on the dispute between the Treasury Board and PSAC regarding the Education and Library Science Group classification, which has currently been referred to mediation by the CHRC; (q) has private outside counsel ever been retained and, if so, how much has been spent in attorney’s fees paid to private outside counsel, and what was the name of each case, the name of the government institution involved and the date the case began, and if closed, date closed; and (r) what is the government’s projection for the total amount of legal fees to be spent litigating pay equity cases in 2007-08 and 2008-09, and what are the names of the parties anticipated to be involved?

Q-257 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Christopherson (Hamilton Centre) — With respect to the purchase, either by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for departments, agencies and Crown corporations, or by the individual department, agency and Crown corporation, in the fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, of (i) pencil cases and knapsacks; (ii) televisions; (iii) flowers, (iv) carbon off-set credits for air travel, (v) microwaves, (vi) flatware, (vii) wine glasses, (viii) cameras, both regular and digital, (ix) golf balls and tees, (x) business ties, (xi) candy, (xii) alcoholic beverages, (xiii) jams, jellies and preserves, (xiv) land mines and clusterbombs, (xv) games, toys and wheeled goods, (xvi) DVDs and CDs, (xvii) perfumes, toilet preparations and powders, (xviii) clothes and footwear for Ministers of the Crown and their staff, (xix) iPods or similar devices, (xx) hockey sticks and other sporting goods, (xxi) Tim Hortons' coupons: (a) how many in each category were purchased; and (b) what was the total amount spent by either PWGSC or another department, agency or Crown corporation on each category?

Q-258 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Christopherson (Hamilton Centre) — With respect to the purchase, either by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for departments, agencies and Crown corporations, or by the individual department, agency and Crown corporation, in the fiscal years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, of (i) media and public relations training; (ii) public opinion research; (iii) promotional materials related to press conferences only, (iv) hairstylists and estheticians, (v) spas and suntanning salons, (vi) sporting events, (vii) dry cleaning, (viii) taxis: (a) how many goods and services in each category were purchased; (b) what was the total cost spent by either PWGSC or another department, agency or Crown corporation on each category; and (c) with respect to media training, what was the date and cost of each contract and who was the recipient of the training?

Q-2592 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) — How much federal funding, from all sources, has the government spent on research, development and promotion of Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURTS) since 1993?

Q-2602 — June 4, 2007 — Mr. Pallister (Portage—Lisgar) — With respect to federally regulated rail cars, what percentage have been reflectorized since January 1, 2006?

Q-2612 — June 6, 2007 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With respect to climate change: (a) what studies and evaluations about intensity-based targets have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government and (i) what is the cost of these studies, (ii) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (b) what recommendations does the government agree with; (c) what scientific and economic studies did the Prime Minister rely on to make his June 4, 2007, speech in Berlin, Germany, endorsing the use of intensity-based targets to fight climate change; (d) what studies and evaluations with respect to intensity-based targets have been requested or commissioned by either the departments of Environment or Natural Resources to be undertaken before December 31, 2007; (e) what studies, reports and recommendations have already been presented to the government prior to January 2006 with respect to intensity-based targets and which departments prepared these studies; and (f) with specific reference to the climate change debate, on an annual basis for the last five fiscal years, specifying for what research projects and which departments granted the funds, what amount of funding has the government provided directly or indirectly to (i) Dr. Tim Ball, (ii) Tom Harris or the Natural Stewardship Project, (iii) Dr. Ian Clark, University of Ottawa, (iv) Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton University?

Q-2622 — June 6, 2007 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation that is moving from west to east across the country: (a) what is the most up-to-date assessment of the speed at which it will travel across the Prairies and into Northern Ontario; (b) what is the projected economic impact on Northern Ontario, including, but not limited to lost lumber, hectares, employment, and longer term regional development; (c) how many communities and families are expected to be affected by the infestation in Northern Ontario; (d) what financial resources are estimated to be needed to adequately respond to the crisis if the infestation reaches Northern Ontario; (e) has the federal government met with its counterparts in the Ontario government to ensure preparedness for the spread of the infestation into Ontario; (f) what is the current plan to coordinate with Ontario, including, but not limited to, a timeline for future meetings, memorandums of understanding, federal/provincial compensation agreements for affected communities, and a plan to mitigate the impact of the spread of the infestation into Ontario; (g) have any plans been made to halt the progress of the infestation before reaching Northern Ontario; (h) have any funds been spent to put the plan into action; (i) from which departmental budget were these funds distributed; (j) who were the recipients of these funds; and (k) which branches, of which departments, are tasked with developing and implementing a strategy to tackle the spread of the infestation toward and into Northern Ontario?

Q-2632 — June 6, 2007 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the “Celebrate Canada!” program administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage, in the past five fiscal years, including 2007-2008: (a) what was the total allocation of funds in each year; (b) what was the allocation of funds in each riding per year, broken down per grant; (c) what was the breakdown of funding to ridings represented by Conservative Members in each year; (d) what was the amount of funding to ridings represented by Liberal Party Members in each year; (e) what was the breakdown of funding to ridings represented by New Democratic Party Members in each year; (f) what was the breakdown of funding to ridings represented by Bloc Quebecois Members in each year; (g) what was the breakdown of funding to ridings in each of the ten provinces and three territories in each year; (h) what was the funding application process for each year; and (i) what changes were made to the criteria and when?

Q-2642 — June 7, 2007 — Mr. Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas) — With respect to oil spills in British Columbia's coastal waters in the last five years: (a) what was the total cost of clean ups, on annual basis; (b) on annual basis, what portion of the cost of clean up was paid (i) by Environment Canada, (ii) by Canada Wildlife Service, (iii) by the responsible polluter; (c) what was the date and location of each of the spills; (d) what was the size of each of the spills; (e) what was the extent of the wildlife damage in each of these spills; (f) how many birds and mammals were rehabilitated and released; (g) how many birds and mammals were euthanized; and (h) how many dead birds and mammals were retrieved?

Q-2652 — June 7, 2007 — Mr. Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas) — With respect to Canadian citizens who are captured and detained abroad as “enemy combatants” by foreign authorities: (a) what is the government's position with regard to their citizenship rights; (b) what is the government's position on their repatriation from foreign detention facilities to face trial in Canada; (c) what studies and evaluations about such citizens and their rights have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government; (d) what individuals, departments or organizations undertook these studies; (e) what is the cost of these studies; (f) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (g) which recommendations does the government agree with and which does it disagree with; (h) how many Canadians have been considered “enemy combatants”, either by the Canadian or foreign governments, since September 2001; and (i) which countries have described them as such?

Q-2662 — June 7, 2007 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regards to private contracting for food services on Canadian Forces Wings, Bases or Stations: (a) were requests for proposals (RFPs) issued for private companies to create franchise services for food services on military bases at any time over the last two years; (b) if RFPs were issued, was Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) involved during the tendering process and were the tenders administered in accordance with the Financial Administration Act; (c) what directorate, group or principal of the Department of National Defence (DND) administered or managed the tendering process; (d) if, and when, contracts were awarded, what were the agreements for utility costs such as water, electricity, heat, and sewage with the winning bidders; (e) for government-owned infrastructure occupied by private sector franchises or companies, are there lease or rental agreements in place; (f) who are the owners of freestanding buildings on military wings and bases, and if the sole occupant and owner is a franchise or company, how are the property taxes assessed and paid, including all utilities for these buildings; (g) for government-owned facilities that are occupied either partially or solely by private sector franchises or companies, how are maintenance costs to building repairs or preventive maintenance schedules handled for the private sector occupants, and who performs the work; (h) are private sector franchises required to carry and show proof of insurance for personal liability, personal and property damages for these facilities; (i) are there service level agreements set up for emergency services such as police, fire and paramedics between franchises, companies and DND; (j) who are the contract managers for any contracts let for private franchises; (k) what is the length of each contract for all aspects of utility costs, leasing, and rental agreements; (l) has there been any loss in income to any base commander’s budget because of these franchises; (m) if there has been a loss, how are bases sustaining a loss of revenue; (n) are there profit-sharing agreements in place between DND and any franchises or companies; and (o) are there reciprocal financial arrangements with franchises and companies?

Q-2672 — June 8, 2007 — Mrs. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the manufacturing job crisis in southwestern Ontario: (a) does the government have any plans to intervene to save plants in danger of closing, what are these plans and when will they be implemented; (b) does the government have a strategy for attracting new producers to the region; (c) which manufacturing sectors does the government plan to focus on supporting and growing; (d) will the government implement sector based strategies for dealing with the manufacturing crisis; (e) does the government plan to provide subsidies to manufacturers who are having difficulties turning a profit; (f) does the government plan to provide cash grants (i) to manufacturers already in the region, (ii) as incentives to attract new investment, and, if so, what will be the amount of these grants and what will be the criteria for receiving a government grant; (g) does the government plan to provide grants of crown land (i) to already established manufacturers looking to expand, (ii) as an incentive to attract new investment to the region, and, if so, what will be the criteria for receiving such a grant; (h) does the government plan to introduce any tax incentives that will benefit manufacturers; (i) does the government have any plans to extend the modifications made to the capital cost allowance for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing or to make these modifications permanent; (j) will there be any tax incentives offered that will benefit manufacturing operations that have become unprofitable; (k) does the government plan to offer tax credits to (i) manufacturers already established in the region, (ii) as incentives to attract new investment, and, if so, what will be the nature of these tax credits and which manufacturers will qualify; (l) does the government plan to adjust the tax rate paid by manufacturers in struggling sectors; (m) will the government provide tax incentives to manufacturing employers who provide training and skills upgrades for their employees; (n) does the government plan to expand existing incentives for manufacturing corporations to conduct research and development; (o) will the government implement financing programs to improve access to capital for struggling manufacturers; (p) does the government plan to provide support for research into and implementation of energy efficient and environmentally sustainable manufacturing activities; (q) what obligations will the government place on all manufacturers to ensure that they maintain their presence in Canada and enhance employment opportunities in Canada; (r) how does the government plan to deal with the affect of the appreciating Canadian dollar on the profits of Canadian manufacturers; (s) does the government have a strategy to address the trade deficit in certain manufactured goods and to ensure a favourable trade balance; (t) does the government have a plan to encourage Canadians to buy Canadian products; (u) does the government plan to protect domestic producers from foreign competition by (i) introducing tariffs and quotas, (ii) ensuring Canada's trading partners comply with minimum labour and environmental standards; (v) will the government conduct a review of Canadian anti-dumping countervail and safe-guard measures to ensure they are adequately protecting Canadian producers; (w) what are the government's plans concerning free trade negotiations with South Korea and will the government refrain from entering into any agreement until non-tariff trade barriers providing an advantage to Korean manufacturers over Canadian manufacturers are removed; (x) what affect will Canada's free trade agreement with the members of the European Free Trade Association, announced on June 7, 2007, have on Canadian manufacturers and will any safeguards be in place to protect Canadian industry from European competition; and (y) will the government conduct a comprehensive study on the economic impact of NAFTA and other free trade agreements and implement strategies to deal with any negative impacts?

Q-2682 — June 11, 2007 — Mr. Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) — With reference to the work of Bernard Grenier, the Commissioner of Inquiry appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec to investigate the activities of Option Canada during the referendum held in Quebec in October 1995: (a) how many lawyers with the Attorney General of Canada worked on this matter; (b) what was the cost of the federal government's involvement in the work of this inquiry; (c) how many witnesses were assisted by the lawyer or lawyers with the Attorney General of Canada; and (d) did the Attorney General of Canada retain the services of private-sector lawyers to work on this matter and, if so, what are their names and how much were they paid?

Q-269 — June 11, 2007 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With respect to workplace skills programs as listed in the 2007-2008 Estimates: (a) why did the government cut $22 million from workplace skills programs; (b) which programs qualify under the government’s definition of “workplace skills program” as listed in the line item in the 2007-2008 Estimates; (c) which programs received funding from the government for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 fiscal years, broken down by province or territory; (d) how much money did each program receive from the government for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 fiscal years; (e) which programs received funding from the government for the 2006-2007 fiscal year, but not for the 2007-2008 fiscal year; (f) what are the expiration dates for each specific program that received funding from the government for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 fiscal years; (g) which programs received funding from the government for the 2007-2008 fiscal year, but not for the 2006-2007 fiscal year; (h) for those groups that did not receive funding this fiscal year, was there a review process where applications were re-evaluated, and, if so, was more funding applied to those programs; (i) with respect to those programs that had decreased amounts of funding or received no funding, what effect did that have on those specific programs; (j) for those programs that lost funding, what methods did those programs use to compensate for the amount of money not provided by Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), specifically in regard to private donations, public fundraisers, and applications for other grants outside of HRSDC; (k) what specific services had to be cut or eliminated from those programs because of a loss of funding; (l) what impact did the decrease in or elimination of services have on the surrounding community with the specific groups; (m) what specific demographic groups lost the most from the decrease in or elimination of services; and (n) with respect to workplace skills continued on p. 14-11 of the 2007-2008 Estimates, can the government provide a more detailed breakdown of this figure in the same manner as described in (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)?

Q-270 — June 11, 2007 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With respect to the Investment Canada Act and foreign corporate takeovers of Canadian companies: (a) how many takeovers were approved and rejected on an annual basis from 1993 to 2007; (b) for each takeover, what was the value of each acquisition and the name of the foreign owner; (c) in which year since 1993 did the most foreign takeovers of Canadian companies occur; (d) in terms of the value of the acquisitions sold, which years since 1993 saw the biggest volume of sales; (e) what are the top ten economic sectors to face foreign takeovers since 1993 and how many takeovers have occurred in each of the respective sectors; (f) what is the current position of the government on foreign takeovers; (g) has the Investment Canada Act mandate changed since it was created and, if so, when and how; and (h) in regard to takeovers approved between 1993 and 2007, are there any statistics on the number of jobs affected by these takeovers and, if so, what are they and are unionized positions affected differently than non-unionized positions?

Q-2712 — June 11, 2007 — Mrs. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to Status of Women Canada's Women's Program, for each of the fiscal years 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, in the ridings of London—Fanshawe, London West, London North Centre, Durham, Sarnia—Lambton, Fleetwood—Port Kells, Kildonan—St. Paul, Simcoe North and Simcoe—Grey: (a) how many organizations have applied for funding and what is the name of each organization and amount of funding requested, broken down by fiscal year and riding in which the organizations are located; (b) how many organizations have been granted funding, what is the name of each organization and amount of funding, and the date it was granted, broken down by fiscal year and ridings in which the organizations are located; and (c) how many organizations were rejected for funding and what is the name of each organization, amount of funding requested, date and fiscal year requested, reason for rejection and the name of the riding in which the organization is located?

Q-2722 — June 11, 2007 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — For the fiscal years 2004–2005, 2005–2006, 2006–2007, 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec: (a) what is or was the total budget for grants and contributions; (b) what is or was the total amount of approved grants and contributions; and (c) for previous fiscal years, what was the total amount of grants and contributions awarded?

Q-2732 — June 12, 2007 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — Regarding the Office of the Umpire acting under the Employment Insurance Act: (a) how many umpires are there in Canada; (b) how many of these umpires are bilingual; (c) where are these bilingual umpires located; and (d) once it has been established that a matter should go before an umpire, how long does it take from the initial request to be heard by an umpire until the appearance before an umpire for matters to be heard in English and French respectively?

Q-2742 — June 12, 2007 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages' Preliminary Investigation Report of May 2007, “Investigation of Complaints Concerning the Federal Government's 2006 Expenditure Review”: (a) when is the government going to provide certain documents that the Office requested; (b) why did the government delay in providing a definitive response to the written request for these documents; and (c) are the documents still confidential and, if so, why?

Q-2752 — June 12, 2007 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the document entitled “In the Hot Seat: an Evening Primer for Committee Chairs”, did the Government House Leader’s Office and the Privy Council Office (PCO) devote any resources to the creation of the manual and, if so: (a) what was the monetary value of the resources devoted by PCO and the Government House Leader’s Office; (b) when did this activity occur; and (c) who were the government employees involved in this work?

Q-2762 — June 12, 2007 — Mr. Nadeau (Gatineau) — With respect to the total number of government agency and Crown corporation jobs in the capital region from 1998 to 2007, how many were with the following government agencies, Crown corporations or other government organizations, broken down by the number of jobs either on the Outaouais side or the Ottawa side of the capital region: Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada; Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Canada; Northern Pipeline Agency Canada; Laurentian Pilotage Authority Canada; Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada; Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency; National Literacy Secretariat; Competition Bureau; Office of the Correctional Investigator; Transportation Safety Board of Canada; Public Service Integrity Office; Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner; Office of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals CPP/OAS; Office of the Prime Minister; Cadets Canada; Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety; Canadian Police College; Security Intelligence Review Committee; Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; Office of the Ethics Commissioner; Pension Appeals Board; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada; National Battlefields Commission; Status of Women Canada; Employment Insurance Board of Referees; Canadian Judicial Council; National Joint Council; Cape Breton Growth Fund Corporation; Tax Court of Canada; Federal Court of Appeal; Federal Court; Supreme Court of Canada; Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists; Elections Canada; Federal Labour Standards Review; ExportSource.ca; Canadian Race Relations Foundation; Canadian Coast Guard; Governor General of Canada; Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics; Infrastructure Canada; Royal Canadian Mint; Marine Atlantic; Currency Museum; Public Sector Pension Investment Board; Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation; Canadian Intellectual Property Office; Government of Canada Regulation Web Site; Federal Healthcare Partnership; Technology Partnerships Canada; Policy Research Initiative; Receiver General for Canada; Defence Research and Development Canada; Species at Risk Act Public Registry; Leadership Network; Canada Business Network; Networks of Centres of Excellence; Environmental Protection Review Canada; National Search and Rescue Secretariat; Service Canada; Criminal Intelligence Service Canada; Public Prosecution Service of Canada; Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation; Federal Bridge Corporation Limited; Canada Lands Company Limited; Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility; Veteran Review and Appeal Board?

Q-2772 — June 12, 2007 — Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — With respect to the National Homeless Initiative (NHI) and the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (NPS): (a) what is the process and protocol for making local or regional announcements regarding funding for specific projects, from the time of approval of application to the time of formal announcement and media releases; (b) what is the protocol for inviting the local MP to participate in such announcements; (c) broken down by each federal party represented in the House of Commons, in how many such announcements has a non-Cabinet M.P. been invited to participate; (d) broken down by each federal party represented in the House of Commons, in how many media releases related to the NHI and NPS posted on the government web site is a non-Cabinet M.P. mentioned; (e) to date, what projects have been funded by the NHI and NPS, with dollar amount, broken down by federal constituency; and (f) what is the total and the average-per-constituency number of projects funded by NHI and NPS and dollar amount for each federal party represented in the House of Commons?

Q-2782 — June 12, 2007 — Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park) — With respect to the planned sales of federal buildings currently owned by the Canadian Government through Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC): (a) how many buildings currently owned by the federal government are being considered under sale and lease back agreements; (b) which buildings are so being considered, what is their location; (c) what market value assessments have been undertaken with respect to these buildings; (d) what is the market value of each building; (e) what is the anticipated cost to the taxpayer of leasing each building over a 25 year lease period; (f) how does this amount compare with maintaining the status quo; (g) what is the average vacancy rate of each building on an annual basis over the last five years; (h) what percentage of each building is leased to private interests; (i) what revenues does each building earn for the federal government through rent or concession fees; (j) what is the current mortgage of each building; (k) when will the cost of building and owning each building be recouped; (l) what studies and evaluations about the building sales have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by PWGSC or the Treasury Board Secretariat; (m) what individuals, what department, or what organization undertook these studies; (n) what is the cost of these studies; (o) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; and (p) what recommendations does the government agree with?

2 Response requested within 45 days