Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Thursday, June 1, 2006 (No. 31)


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 Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.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-4 — April 4, 2006 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to the report “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”: (a) what have been the specific responses prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to any or all of its recommendations; and (b) what have been the specific responses prepared by any other federal department or agency to any or all of the recommendations?
Q-5 — April 4, 2006 — Mr. Easter (Malpeque) — With regard to correspondence between the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Canadian Wheat Board: (a) did the Department correspond either in writing or by e-mail with the Canadian Wheat Board between November 1, 2005 and February 13, 2006 and, if so, on which dates; and (b) in any correspondence were specific questions or requests for information submitted to the Canadian Wheat Board and, if so, which questions or requests for information were submitted and on which dates were the responses due?
Q-92 — April 20, 2006 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With regard to the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI): (a) what criteria are used by the OSFI in determining whether the pension contributions by a company can be reduced; (b) what criteria are used by the OSFI in determining by how much a company's pension contributions can be reduced; (c) what criteria are used by the OSFI when determining whether the pension payouts by a company can be reduced; and (d) what criteria are used by the OSFI in determining by how much a company's pension payouts can be reduced?
Q-10 — April 20, 2006 — Mr. Fontana (London North Centre) — How much money has the government paid out (including federal grants, disbursements by granting councils and by the Business Development Bank of Canada) for science and technology projects undertaken at all Canadian colleges and universities since 2002-2003, and, in each case: (a) how much was disbursed; (b) which departments were involved; (c) who received the funds; (d) where are the recipients located; (e) what was the specific purpose of the disbursement; and (f) how long did the funding last?
Q-112 — April 20, 2006 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regard to Arctic sovereignty: (a) does the government believe that it has a strong claim to shipping rights in the Northwest Passage; (b) what is the legal basis for this claim; (c) does the government believe that climate change has the potential to affect claims to our Arctic sovereignty; (d) if climate change poses a threat to our claims, what steps will be taken to mitigate climate change; (e) is the government aware of any activity by foreign submarines in Arctic waters since 1991; (f) which countries possess the ability to operate in our Arctic waters undetected; (g) which countries agree with our Arctic claims; and (h) which countries contest our claims and on what grounds?
Q-122 — April 20, 2006 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regard to planned procurement and construction by the Department of National Defence: (a) will the government follow the fast-tracked process for procurement outlined by the previous Minister of National Defence; (b) how will any processes for procurement differ from previous processes; (c) what is the government proposing in terms of equipment procurement over the next two years; (d) is the government beginning any feasibility studies of new military ports, particularly in the Arctic; (e) has the government undertaken any environmental impact studies on the results of creating a deep water port near Iqaluit; (f) has the government done any feasibility studies for icebreakers that could be used in the Arctic, and, if so, what was recommended as the most useful icebreakers for Canada in the Arctic; (g) has the government done any feasibility studies on a sonar listening system in the Arctic to detect foreign submarines, and, if so, what was the recommended configuration and cost of the system?
Q-132 — April 24, 2006 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regard to Canada's commitments in Afghanistan: (a) what is the estimated cost of Canada's continuing commitments; (b) what is the current command structure of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, particularly their relation to United States of America (USA) forces; (c) what is the total number of Canadian soldiers present in Afghanistan at the moment and how will this change over the next 12 months; (d) how will force levels change over the next decade; (e) how does the government see the mission in Afghanistan aligning with Canada's role in the world; (f) is the government aware of the conditions in USA-controlled and Afghanistan-controlled detention facilities in Afghanistan, and, if so, what has the government determined about the conditions; (g) has the government sought assurances from the USA regarding the treatment of prisoners who are handed over to USA or Afghan forces; (h) does the government believe that the Prisoner Transfer Arrangement signed on December 18, 2005 by the Chief of Defence Staff prevents the onward transfer of prisoners to countries other than Canada and Afghanistan; (i) have foreign forces ever surrounded Canadian encampments or bases with anti-personnel land mines; (j) are Canadian bases surrounded by any anti-personnel landmines that have been left from previous conflicts in Afghanistan; (k) how long does the government expect the Canadian military presence in Afghanistan to last; (l) does the government have any plans for further debate in the House of Commons regarding the deployment in Afghanistan; (m) does the government have any plans for a vote in the House regarding new deployments in Afghanistan; (n) are Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan part of the American Operation Enduring Freedom; (o) will Canadian Forces in Afghanistan come under North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) command, and, if so, when will this happen; (p) does the government believe that the current mission has a United Nations mandate, and, if so, how was it achieved; (q) has the government considered a possible renewal or modification of the Canadian mission, once current commitments have been fulfilled; (r) what is the date on which Canada will have to notify NATO if it wishes to make commitments past February 2007; (s) has the government considered building a joint detention facility with the Netherlands to hold prisoners; (t) have Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan been instructed to uphold both the spirit and the letter of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel land mines; (u) has the government created an exit strategy for our deployment; (v) if we continue at current force levels in Afghanistan, what would be the number of deployable troops available to the Canadian Forces, both at home and abroad, over the next five years; and (w) what is the expected wear on equipment if a long-term mission is taken on?
Q-142 — April 25, 2006 — Mr. Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces presence in Afghanistan: (a) how many humanitarian, restoration or development construction projects has the Canadian Armed Forces participated in during its deployment in Afghanistan; (b) how many have been completed; (c) how many are currently under construction; (d) what is the specific nature of these projects; (e) what are the locations, by province or region, of these projects; and (f) how many of these projects have subsequently been attacked or damaged by insurgents or others, and, of those affected or damaged, how many are under repair, damaged and waiting for repair, destroyed, intact but unused, or intact but being used for purposes other than originally intended?
Q-152 — April 25, 2006 — Mr. Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas) — With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces presence in Afghanistan: (a) how many persons taken prisoner or detained by the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan have been turned over to (i) Afghani officials, (ii) American officials, (iii) officials of other countries or organizations; and (b) how many of these persons remain in custody?
Q-16 — April 26, 2006 — Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North) — With regard to the decision by the Minister of Natural Resources to discontinue or cancel the funding of certain programs and initiatives relating to climate change, the reduction of pollution and the reduction of greenhouse gases: (a) for which of these programs and initiatives was funding cancelled or not renewed; (b) what current, statistical or empirical data, rationale and evidence can the Minister demonstrate to support the discontinuation or cancellation of the funding of these programs and initiatives; (c) what cost-benefit analysis, or financial estimates compiled for or by the Department of Natural Resources, relating to the discontinuation, cancellation or otherwise withdrawal of funding of these programs and initiatives, can the Minister provide; (d) what information was provided to the Minister or his staff by way of analysis prior to this decision; (e) what recommendations, pertinent to the decision to discontinue or cancel funding of these programs and initiatives, were made by the Department of Natural Resources to the Minister; and (f) what information, pertinent to the decision to discontinue or cancel funding of these programs and initiatives, was provided by other departments or the Privy Council Office to the Minister?
Q-17 — April 26, 2006 — Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North) — With regard to the proposal by the government to give public transit riders a tax credit to cover the cost of monthly transit passes: (a) what data, in either summary or raw form, or analysis relating to the cost for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved (not emitted) has been provided to the Minister of Natural Resources by (i) the Department of Natural Resources, (ii) the Department of Finance, (iii) Environment Canada; and (b) what analysis was provided to the Minister of Natural Resources comparing a tax credit, to cover the cost of monthly transit passes, with the benefits of providing capital investments, to be shared with provinces and municipalities, in public transit infrastructure?
Q-181 — April 27, 2006 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to the Goose Bay Diversification Fund, announced by the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency on November 24, 2005: (a) how many applications or proposals have been received in respect of this fund, and, of those, how many have been (i) accepted, (ii) rejected, (iii) otherwise treated; and (b) what has been the total contribution to each of the accepted applications or proposals?
Q-192 — May 1, 2006 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — With regard to the government’s fiscal and economic policy: (a) how much per year does the average person earning less than the basic personal exemption pay in GST; (b) how much money per year would the average person earning less than the basic personal amount save from a one percent reduction in the GST; (c) how much does the average person earning $200,000 per year pay in GST; (d) how much have the average and median personal incomes, before federal tax, increased since 1993; (e) how much have the average and median personal incomes, after federal tax, increased since 1993; (f) how much have the average and median family incomes, before federal tax, increased since 1993; (g) how much have average and median family incomes, after federal tax, increased since 1993; (h) how much less or more tax did a person earning the median income in Canada pay in 2005 versus 1993 after adjusting for inflation and wage increases; and (i) how many jobs were created in Canada between 1993 and 2006?
Q-20 — May 2, 2006 — Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in Robbinston, Maine: (a) would the constant intense light canopies at the proposed LNG terminals influence fisheries and aquaculture experiments involving photoperiod or other light related research being conducted now or in the future; (b) would vibration and noise from the regassification plant, the ships, or the tugs have any impact on the areas currently used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Huntsman Marine Science Centre or universities for research and education, or on the St. Andrews Biological Station itself; (c) what will these impacts be; (d) if seawater is used in the regassification process, would the resultant temperature change (reputed to be 10 degrees Celsius) and the resultant reduction of plankton populations influence the fish and invertebrate populations currently being studied in Passamaquoddy Bay or the anadromous fish runs using the St. Croix watershed; and (e) will physiological barriers be established that will interfere with the migration of important migratory species such as smelt, alewives and salmon?
Q-21 — May 2, 2006 — Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North) — With respect to the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in Robbinston, Maine: (a) what impact will increased passage of ships, tankers and tugs have on marine mammal populations, such as fin, minke, right whale and harbour porpoise, that depend on Head Harbour Passage, Friar’s Bay and Western Passage; (b) what impact will the vibration and noise have on echolocation in listed species such as the northern right whale and harbour porpoise as well as species of concern like the finback whale; (c) what impact will the vibration and noise have on communications between mother harbour porpoise and their calves at the entrance to Head Harbour; (d) will increased ship traffic influence the summer population known to frequent the right whale sanctuary off Grand Manan; (e) what is the legal role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in protecting these species as it relates to the passage of foreign vessels; (f) what assurances can DFO give that the interests of Head Harbour Passage, Friar’s Bay and Western Passage aquaculture operations and fishermen throughout the area; particularly handliners, weed gatherers, urchin fishermen, scallopers, longliners, draggers, herring fishermen, lobster fishermen, and others will be protected; (g) what laws will keep fishing activities such as lobster fishing from being banned if LNG terminals are built in the Passamaquoddy Bay region; (h) what assurances will fishermen and aquaculture operations on Grand Manan have that the ferry route between the island and the mainland will not be disrupted by the passage or layover of LNG tankers; (i) if LNG tankers lay over off Head Harbour Passage, in Friar’s Bay or in Passamaquoddy Bay, what efforts will DFO make to insure that these waters are open to Canadian fishermen and citizens in pursuit of their livelihood and recreational interests; and (j) are these above-mentioned rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Q-222 — May 3, 2006 — Mr. Fontana (London North Centre) — What projects has the government undertaken, or does it plan to undertake, in the fields of science and research from 2002-2003 to the forecasted fiscal year of 2007-2008, and, in each case and for each ministry or department involved: (a) how much was disbursed; (b) were the projects partnered with (i) private firms, (ii) public firms, (iii) academic institutions; (c) what was the specific purpose of the disbursement; and (d) what is the projected duration of the project, and, if the program has been discontinued, cancelled, suspended or not renewed since February 1, 2006, what is the reason for the action taken?
Q-232 — May 4, 2006 — Mr. Thibault (West Nova) — With respect to the arbitrator’s report on the dispute between Transport Canada and the Maritime Harbour Society over the Port of Digby: (a) what action does the government intend to take in response to the arbitrator’s report; (b) how will the government assure that the interests of the people of Digby are respected, promoted and protected; and (c) will this facility be acquired by the government, entrusted to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and managed by a local harbour authority?
Q-24 — May 9, 2006 — Mr. Dryden (York Centre) — With regard to government compensation to all victims who received blood tainted with Hepatitis C: (a) how many people are currently receiving compensation; (b) how many people have already received full compensation; (c) how many people are waiting for compensation; (d) how long will it take for all victims to receive compensation; and (e) what is the current status of negotiations between the government and the representatives of the class action suit?
Q-252 — May 9, 2006 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With regard to the 2006 Census of Canada: (a) what are the precise terms and conditions of any contracts between the government and Lockheed Martin Corporation or any of its subsidiaries; (b) will Lockheed Martin Corporation or any of its subsidiaries have access to confidential information collected in the Census from Canadian citizens or Canadian residents; (c) what guarantees, if any, does the government have that absolutely none of the information collected in the 2006 Census will be subject to access by the United States government or any of its agencies through the United States Patriot Act of 2001; and (d) is the government aware of any other private information that the Canadian government and its agencies collect that would be subject to access by the United States government or any of its agencies through the United States Patriot Act of 2001, and, if yes, what specific information?
Q-262 — May 9, 2006 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With regard to Exercise Trident Fury: (a) how many United States troops and military hardware are part of the exercise; (b) how many troops and military hardware from countries other than Canada and the United States are part of the exercise, broken down by country; (c) is the government aware of the presence of any nuclear-arms capable aircraft participating in the exercise; (d) did the government seek assurances that there would be no nuclear weapons present; (e) does the government consider that there may be any heightened risk of a terrorist attack as a result of the exercise; (f) did the government communicate the nature of the mission to city councils and citizens in the greater Victoria area; (g) will the government guarantee the citizens of the area that there will be no health or environment risks; (h) has there been an environmental assessment of the potential impacts on the environment; and (i) has the government considered cancelling the exercise if there are environmental and security risks?
Q-272 — May 9, 2006 — Ms. McDonough (Halifax) — With respect to Canadian funding of Venezuelan non-governmental organizations: (a) has the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) provided funds to Súmate, a Venezuelan non-governmental organization, and if it has, what is the total amount of funding in each of the following fiscal years: 2001-2002; 2002-2003; 2003-2004; 2004-2005; and 2005-2006; (b) will CIDA be funding Súmate in the current fiscal year; (c) how many meetings or consultations has it held with Maria Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaz; (d) what is the purpose of funding Súmate; and (e) has the government assessed whether Súmate has achieved the stated goals for CIDA's funds?
Q-28 — May 9, 2006 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to the procedures and practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness regarding immigrant students: (a) how many schools and school board officials have been approached by either department for information regarding the status of their students; (b) how many students have been apprehended or approached by either department since January 1, 2004; (c) what are the policies and procedures regarding entering educational institutions; and (d) have any officers of either department been reprimanded because policy was not followed?
Q-292 — May 9, 2006 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — How much money has been spent on the creation of the new Government of Canada Web site?
Q-301-2 — May 10, 2006 — Ms. Priddy (Surrey North) — With respect to the government’s plan to compensate people who were infected with Hepatitis C-tainted blood through Canada’s blood supply before 1986 and after 1990: (a) what is the timetable for compensating these victims; (b) what are the reasons why compensation for these victims was not announced between February 6 and May 8, 2006; (c) what barriers or challenges exist that might delay compensating these victims after May 8, 2006; and (d) what is the medical model intended for determining a victim’s eligibility for compensation?
Q-312 — May 10, 2006 — Mr. St. Amand (Brant) — With respect to the money required to clean the Greenwich-Mohawk brownfield site located in the riding of Brant (Ontario): (a) has the government approved the allocation of any government funds for the clean-up of the site; (b) has the government taken any steps to stop or reduce the previous allocation of any government funds for the clean-up of the site; (c) what steps have been taken by the government to determine whether to fund the clean-up of the site; (d) are there any funds available in either the estimates tabled by the government in April 2006, or the budget tabled by the government in May 2006 to fund the clean-up of the site; (e) has the government received any advice from the public service on whether it would be appropriate to provide funding to clean up the site; and (f) are there any proposals to fund the clean-up of the site currently being studied by cabinet, a cabinet committee, or any department and, if so, at what stage are each of the proposals, and what steps need to be taken before a final decision is made?
Q-322 — May 11, 2006 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — With respect to the calculation by the Department of Finance of the loss of federal revenue from corporations converting to income trust structures: (a) what is the total reduction in federal revenue in foregone corporate income tax as a result of corporations converting to income trusts during the fiscal years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005; (b) what is the projected loss in federal revenue for the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007; and (c) what is the projection of the total reduction in federal revenue from foregone income tax as a consequence of the increase in the dividend tax credit announced by the Minister of Finance on November 23, 2005, to lessen the attraction of income trust conversions?
Q-332 — May 15, 2006 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regard to the Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees with the Afghan government: (a) the Arrangement states that it applies “in the event of a transfer”, does the government intend to transfer all detainees to the Afghan authorities, or would Canada retain custody of some detainees or transfer them to recipients other than the Afghan authorities; (b) what is the scope of application of the Arrangement and does it apply to all Canadian troops operating in Afghanistan, particularly to embedded staff officers at Combined Joint Task Force 76 (CJTF-76) in Bagram; (c) do the embedded staff officers at CJTF-76 in Bagram in any way participate in the detention or interrogation of detainees by the United States; (d) how will the Arrangement operate when Canadian soldiers are engaged in a joint operation with Afghan soldiers or police, particularly Afghan Forces; (e) if an Afghan soldier or police officer physically apprehends a detainee or prisoner during joint operations, would it be considered a transfer and would the Arrangement apply; (f) does the government consider that the armed conflict, in which Canadian Forces (CF) are engaged in Afghanistan, is or is not an “armed conflict not of an international character”, as that phrase is used in Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention; (g) does the government consider that persons detained by CF under the Arrangement could be “prisoners of war”, as that phrase is used in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention; (h) does the government consider that persons detained by CF under the Arrangement are entitled to have their status “determined by a competent tribunal” as that phrase is used in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention; (i) if other articles of the Third Geneva Convention or its Additional Protocols apply to CF deployed to Afghanistan, whether by legal obligation or by Canada’s agreement, what are each of them, accurately enumerated; (j) upon detaining a person, will the CF always offer that detained person access to legal counsel; (k) does the government believe that CF detaining non-Canadian persons in Afghanistan must respect section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in so doing; (l) what is the government's position as to the possible criminal culpability of a Canadian soldier if he or she transfers a detainee into Afghan custody and that detainee does indeed experience torture as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Torture Convention, Criminal Code or Canadian military law; (m) does the government consider that this Arrangement guarantees that there will be no further transfers of detainees by the Afghan authorities into the custody of any other government without Canada’s consent; (n) why does the Arrangement not provide a right for the Canadian government or for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to monitor and inspect detainees after they are transferred to the Afghan authorities, as the government of the Netherlands sought and obtained; (o) why has Canada chosen not to develop and maintain its own detention facility in Afghanistan, or a detention facility operated jointly with either the Afghan government or other NATO states; (p) does the government consider the terming of the document as an "Arrangement" as affecting the document's legal weight; (q) how many detainees have CF transferred to the Afghan authorities since the Arrangement was signed; (r) has the Canadian government requested access from the Afghan authorities to any of the transferred detainees, to verify their well-being and, if so, did Afghanistan agree to the request; (s) does the government consider that this Arrangement is a treaty, consistent with statements made by the Prime Minister as reported on May 13, 2006; (t) what are the personal details regarding the detainees that can be discussed publicly, consistent with the Geneva Conventions and other human rights obligations; (u) given that the Arrangement provides for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to inspect and monitor the treatment of detainees after CF transfer them to the Afghan authorities, does the government now consent to the ICRC sharing the results of these inspections on a routine basis with Parliament and the public; (v) when Canadian operations in southern Afghanistan are transferred to NATO control later this year, will a NATO-Afghanistan detainee transfer agreement supercede the Canada-Afghanistan Arrangement; (w) will the NATO agreement contain all of the rights of visit and notice found in the Netherlands-Afghanistan agreement, and, if not, why; (x) will the government make the NATO agreement available to Parliament as soon as possible, and, if not, why; (y) what additional procedures or safeguards do the CF apply when transferring a detainee who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18 to the Afghan military; (z) has Canada detained anyone in Afghanistan under the age of 18; (aa) what additional procedures or safeguards do the CF apply when transferring a female detainee to the Afghan military; (bb) whether owing to ICRC inspections or any other source of information, is the Canadian government aware of any instances where a detainee transferred to the Afghan military was subsequently tortured or abused and, if so, what were the circumstances in each case; and (cc) did any government or representatives of any foreign government other than that of Canada and Afghanistan review the text of this agreement before its signature?
Q-34 — May 16, 2006 — Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) — What are Transport Canada's annual maintenance costs for the hopper car fleet?
Q-352 — May 16, 2006 — Mr. Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to the Federal Ocean Energy Working Group (FOEWG): (a) which departments, agencies, or Crown corporations have representatives on the FOEWG; (b) how many representatives from the various departments and agencies make up the FOEWG in total; (c) how many times has the FOEWG met since its formation in 2005; (d) which department, agency, or Crown corporation is responsible for the funding and organization of the FOEWG; (e) what is the mandate of the FOEWG; (f) does the FOEWG have an official relationship with similar provincial organizations such as the Alternative Energy & Power Technology Task Force in British Columbia; (g) are there representatives from provincial or territorial governments in the FOEWG and, if so, how many; (h) what is the total amount of funding that has been distributed to the FOEWG to date; and (i) what are the long-term priorities and goals of the FOEWG?
Q-36 — May 16, 2006 — Mr. Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek) — With regard to the agreement with the government of the United States of America (USA) concerning the handling of detainees in Afghanistan: (a) is there a Canada-USA detainee transfer agreement and, if so, (i) does that agreement remain in force notwithstanding the existence of the Canada-Afghanistan agreement, (ii) how do the two agreements relate to each other, especially in a situation where an individual detainee is specifically requested by the USA; and (b) have any detainees been transferred to USA custody since the Canada-Afghanistan arrangement was signed?
Q-372 — May 17, 2006 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the Canadian Heritage program entitled “Encounters with Canada”: (a) when was the initial decision made to cancel the Canadian Unity Council; (b) what factors went into making this decision; (c) when was the decision made to continue funding the program; (d) what factors went into making this decision; (e) under what section of the department is the program now functioning; (f) what changes to the structure or mandate will the program see as a result of the recent transition; (g) will the program be running at its full capacity this year; and (h) what are the details of the commitment to the future of the program in terms of dollars to be spent annually and the number of years the program will be maintained?
Q-382 — May 17, 2006 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to the recent General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations in Geneva: (a) what bilateral, multilateral, and plurilateral proposals, requests and offers was Canada a signatory to; (b) what were the responses to and results of these proposals; (c) what proposals, requests and offers were made to Canada; (d) what were the responses to and results of these proposals; (e) what new agreements have been signed by Canada; (f) were changes made to Canada’s policy on the foreign ownership restrictions in telecommunications and audio-visual industries before the conference and, if so, what were they; (g) did consultations take place between the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage with respect to these policies; (h) what provisional agreements or agreements in principle were signed by Canada; and (i) when is the next formal negotiation conference planned?
Q-392 — May 17, 2006 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to television programming shown on all standard Canadian private broadcasters: (a) has the government collected cumulative and individual statistics of their percentage of Canadian programming and, if so, (i) what are they, (ii) what are the most recent cumulative and individual statistics on the percentage of Canadian programming shown during primetime, (iii) what are the most recent cumulative and individual statistics on the breakdown of type of Canadian programming that is being shown during and outside of primetime, (iv) what are the most recent statistics on the percentage of Canadian programming that is actually being watched both during and outside of primetime; (b) are private broadcasters receiving government funding for the purposes of promoting Canadian programming and, if so, what are the specifics of this funding; and (c) what is government’s plan for promoting Canadian programming in the future and what specific initiatives are being planned to guarantee a healthy future for Canadian programming by private broadcasters?
Q-402 — May 17, 2006 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the distribution of promotional Canadian materials by the government, including, but not limited to, flags, pins and posters: (a) what was the total value of the materials distributed in each of the last 5 years and the percentage in each year of material that was produced in Canada; (b) what is the breakdown of countries that produced these materials and the value of the materials that were produced; (c) what companies were responsible for shipping the portion of the materials that were foreign-made; (d) what was the value of the portion of these materials that each company shipped to Canada; (e) in which countries are these companies based; (f) what was the overall weight of the portion of the goods shipped from overseas; (g) what protocol is associated with the awarding of contracts for the production and shipment of these goods; (h) what assurances does the government have that any of the materials produced overseas were not produced in sweat-shop-style conditions; and (i) what initiatives have been undertaken to increase the amount of domestic production of these goods since June 2004?
Q-412 — May 17, 2006 — Mrs. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to House committee reports on the subject of status of women, how has the government provided action on: (a) the 1991 report entitled “The war against women : report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women”; (b) the 1991 government response entitled “Living without Fear Everyone’s Goal, Every Women’s Right”; (c) the 2005 report entitled “Increasing Funding to Equality-Seeking Organizations”; (d) the 2005 government response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Increasing Funding to Equality-Seeking Organizations”; (e) the 2005 report entitled “Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”; (f) the 2005 government response to the Second Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”; (g) the 2005 report entitled “Funding through the women's program: Women's groups speak out”; (h) the 2005 government response to the Third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Funding through the women's program: Women's groups speak out”; (i) the 2005 report entitled “Moving Forward on the Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations”; (j) the 2005 government response to the Fourth Report of the Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Moving Forward on the Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations”; and (k) the 2005 report entitled “Interim Report on the Maternity and Parental Benefits Under Employment Insurance: The Exclusion of Self-Employed Workers”?
Q-422 — May 17, 2006 — Mrs. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) — With regard to the government's agreements with the provinces for funding for affordable housing: (a) what are the exact parameters of the agreements with each province specifically; (b) what restrictions, if any, will be placed on the money spent; (c) how is affordable housing defined; (d) can money be used to upgrade current housing stock or is it strictly for new housing; and (e) will the government maintain previous multi-year housing agreements?
Q-432 — May 18, 2006 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to the announcement, in the 2006 Budget, that all income from scholarships will be exempt from taxation starting in 2006 instead of exempting only the first $3,000 of scholarship income: (a) how many students received more than $3,000 of income from scholarships in 2004 or the last year for which information is available; (b) how many students identified in section (a) had net income of more than the Basic Personal Exemption; (c) what was the average income of the students identified in section (b); and (d) what was the average income tax paid by the students identified in section (b)?
Q-442 — May 25, 2006 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With regard to the lease-purchase agreement between Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Minto Developments for the property at 3000 Merivale Road: (a) what financial details have gone to Treasury Board to support this agreement in principle; (b) was the search for a lease agreement publicly tendered; (c) what are the details of the tendering process for the relocation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters from 1200 Vanier Parkway; (d) what are the details of the analysis for all of the options considered by PWGSC prior to the agreement in principle with Minto Developments; and (e) was the City of Ottawa’s 2001 policy of stimulating growth by encouraging the location of “future federal workplaces near Transitway Stations and give particular consideration to the east-end part of the City” considered in this decision and, if so, how?
Q-45 — May 29, 2006 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — Has the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had a budget surplus during the last five years and, if so, what was the surplus for each year; and how has the government spent these surpluses?
Q-46 — May 29, 2006 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to the $474 million that has not been spent of the $1 billion allocated to federal housing programs in November 2001, what does the government plan to do to speed the flow of federal dollars allocated to housing?
Q-47 — May 29, 2006 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006 (Budget Implementation Act), which only allocates for affordable housing $1.4 billion of the $1.6 billion allocated in Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, adopted in 2005, what has happened to the remaining $200 million in affordable housing funding secured in Bill C-48?
Q-482 — May 29, 2006 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With respect to government spending on post-secondary education: (a) is the figure cited by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development in the House on May 3, 2006, specifically “the $16 billion for education that is included in the Canada Social Transfer,” a precise figure; (b) and, if so, what is the breakdown of that spending, if available, allocated to (i) direct student financial assistance in the form of loans, (ii) direct student financial assistance in the form of non-repayable grants, (iii) indirect student financial assistance, (iv) post-secondary institutions for operating expenses, (v) post-secondary institutions for research expenses, (vi) post-secondary institutions for capital expenses; (c) if the response to section (a) is no, what is the precise proportion, in dollars and in percentage, of the Canada Social Transfer (CST) dedicated to post-secondary education; (d) what mechanism exists to guarantee that the funding for post-secondary education included in the CST ensures high-quality, accessible education for all Canadians; (e) what is the precise amount of spending on post-secondary education outside of the CST; (f) what is the breakdown of that spending, if available, allocated to (i) direct student financial assistance in the form of loans, (ii) direct student financial assistance in the form of non-repayable grants, (iii) indirect student financial assistance, (iv) post-secondary institutions for operating expenses, (v) post-secondary institutions for research expenses, (vi) post-secondary institutions for capital expenses; and (g) what mechanism exists to guarantee that the funding for post-secondary education outside of the CST ensures high-quality, accessible education for all Canadians?
Q-492 — May 29, 2006 — Ms. Savoie (Victoria) — With respect to government funding for literacy initiatives, programs, and organizations; and to the National Literacy Secretariat (NLS): (a) what is the current status of the NLS; (b) what is the status of the departmental reorganization in reference to the NLS; (c) what details can the government provide about the new national literacy program or secretariat that will emerge, or has emerged, in response to the mandated Treasury Board review and departmental reorganization; (d) how will the transition affect the level of literacy funding transferred to literacy projects and organizations; (e) what is the status of the 3-year, $30 million funding allocated specifically to the NLS in Budget 2005; (f) what is the status of the former NLS’ annual call for proposals for the literacy community; (g) how many grants or contribution agreements related to literacy have been distributed by the Department of Human Resources and Social Development since January 24, 2006; (h) how many proposals for funding for literacy initiatives, programs and organizations have been submitted to the NLS, or to any new national literacy program or secretariat under the department, or to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada since November 1, 2005; (i) of those submissions, how many have not yet been processed; (j) how much money will the government allocate to funding literacy initiatives, programs and organizations between May 18, 2006, and the release of the next budget; (k) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for raising the level of literacy in Canada; (l) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for maintaining and raising the level of literacy in the French language in Canada; (m) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for maintaining and raising the level of literacy in the French language in Canada outside of Quebec; (n) what is the government’s official commitment to funding and supporting literacy initiatives, programs and organizations across Canada; and (o) what specific plans does the government have to fund local literacy organizations and initiatives between May 18, 2006, and the release of the next budget?
Q-501-2 — May 30, 2006 — Ms. Keeper (Churchill) — With regard to First Nations Inuit Health Branch tuberculosis funding and outbreaks of tuberculosis (TB) in Canada: (a) since the program’s inception in 1992 what has been the rate of TB in Canada; (b) what has been the rate in each province; (c) has the government assessed what reasons exist for different rates among the provinces and territories; (d) has the government undertaken or contracted for any audits, evaluation reports or analyses of its TB prevention and control activities, including the Tuberculosis Elimination Strategy (TES); (e) what have been the annual allocations and expenditures by the government for the TES since its inception; (f) what have been the annual expenditures and allocations for the TES in each province and territory; (g) what are the annual allocations and expenditures of the government on First Nations disease prevention and health promotion programs in the 2006-2007 main estimates and the budget tabled in May 2006; (h) has the government received any advice from the public service on whether it would be appropriate to provide further funding to prevent TB among First Nations; (i) has the government approved the allocation of any funds for community-wide screening at the Garden Hill First Nations community in Manitoba; (j) what is the number of active cases in the community as of May 15, 2006; (k) has the government approved the allocation of any funds for additional nursing staff to support directly observed therapy in the community; (l) has the government allocated funding for an independent investigation into what led the TB source case in the community to remain undetected for so long; (m) has the government allocated funding for a full time doctor for the community; (n) are there any increased funds to support programs to eradicate TB in Canada in the estimates tabled in April 2006 or the budget tabled in May 2006; (o) are there any funds allocated in the estimates tabled in April 2006 or the budget tabled in May 2006 to fund activities to prevent and treat TB in countries outside of Canada; and (p) when will appropriate and adequate funding and services be provided to prevent and treat TB among First Nations?

1 Requires Oral Answer
2 Response requested within 45 days