Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 31, 36, 44, 45, 56, 57, 59, 63, 65, 68, 69, 72, 73, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86.
Question No. 31--Mr. Lloyd St. Amand
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?Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC)
The budget presented to the House of Commons on May 2, 2006 included an amount of $12 million for Industry Canada to support the City of Brantford's economic development priorities. Industry Canada officials are working with the municipality to finalize the necessary details. An announcement will be made in due course.Question No. 36--Mr. Wayne Marston
With regard to the agreement with the government of the United States of America 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 and (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 signedHon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), prior to the signing of the arrangement between the Canadian Forces, on behalf of the Government of Canada, with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on 18 December 2005, Canadian Forces transferred detainees to U.S. authorities. There is no written arrangement on transfer of detainees between Canada and the United States of America. The United States has provided public assurances that the detainees in its custody are being treated humanely and in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions, and Canada was satisfied with such assurances and is confident that the detainees who have been transferred to U.S. authorities have been, and will be, treated in accordance with international law. These assurances have been reinforced by the comments made by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States complies with its treaty obligations in the treatment of detainees and neither permits nor condones torture under any circumstances. The United States Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 is another positive development which confirms the public assurances by the United States government that detainees in the custody of the United States will be treated humanely. This act establishes uniform standards for the interrogation of people detained by United States military personnel and also prohibits “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” of persons in custody or under the physical control of the United States Government.
Item (i) is not applicable.
Item (ii) is not applicable.
In response to (b), no. Individuals detained by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan have been transferred to Afghan authorities since the signing of the arrangement on 18 December 2005.Question No. 44--Mr. Paul Dewar
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?Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), all of the financial details required to obtain Treasury Board approval, including a detailed business case, were submitted. The financial details submitted to Treasury Board cannot be disclosed.
In response to (b), 3000 Merivale Road, the former headquarteres of JDS Uniphase, became available and was offered to the Government as a result of the downturn in the high tech business. Minto purchased the complex from JDS and offered this unique facililty to the government at rental rates subvstantially less than those reflecting its replacement cost. PWGSC posted an Advance Contract Award Notice, ACAN, to provide an opportunity for other potential suppliers to submit bids. No suppliers came forward. The results demonstrate that the proposal from Minto Development Inc. to lease-purchase 3000 Merivale Road was the best accommodation option, since it provides the least disruptive, most cost-effective solution to meet the long term needs of the RCMP.
In response to (c), as in (b) above, there was no tender process, but the lease-purchase was subject to an Advance Contract Aware Notice.
In response to (d), before issuing the Advance Contract Award Notice, the government did a comprehensive 25-year present value cost analysis of different options, ranging from partial renovation of the current buildings, demolition and development of new buildings on the 1200 Vanier site, to complete replacement with a new building on an undeveloped site. After analysis, all these other options proved to be more costly by at least $70 million.
In response to (e), the proposed acquisition arose from an unsolicited proposal for an existing building, not for future development. Municipal growth strategies will be considered in situations involving new development. 3000 Merivale is near an existing transit node, and has a bus stop on the site. It is in close proximity to the proposed future light rail route. Both the RCMP and PWGSC have committed to work with OC Transpo to enhance public transit service to suit the increased population. This is consistent with the city's goal to intensify development and thus limit urban sprawl. In addition, the backfill of the 1200 Vanier campus with regional RCMP functions will help to maintain the RCMP's strong presence in the eastern part of the city, as well as provide opportunities for other federal government clients.Question No. 45--Ms. Olivia Chow
With respect to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has the CMHC 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?Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is involved in a variety of activities, ranging from housing programs aimed at Canadians in need to insurance and securitization which facilitate access to more affordable housing through the Canadian housing finance system. The activities relating to the housing programs are funded through government appropriations and are operated on a break-even basis.
Activities aimed at the efficiency of the housing finance markets are operated, as required by our mandate, in a commercially viable manner. Accordingly, none of CMHC's net income is derived from activities funded through budgetary appropriations.
CMHC's annual net income is derived solely from its activities that are not funded by annual parliamentary appropriations.
To answer the question, we have assumed that “budget surplus” meant CMHC's net income, including profits from lending activity, over the last five calendar years as set out below ($ million).
How has the government spent these surpluses? As a federal Crown corporation, CMHC's net financial results are accounted for on a fiscal year basis and consolidated with the government's financial statements, which means that CMHC's net income has been recognized in the goverment's revenues dollar for dollar.Question No. 56--Mr. Mark Holland
With regard to the comprehensive due diligence review of the role of airports in southern Ontario and future air traffic growth, which was announced by the Minister of Transport on September 9, 2005, in the context of the future of the Pickering Lands: (a) what are the terms of reference of this review; (b) when and by whom were these terms established; (c) which officials or outside organizations will be conducting this review; (d) which airport planning studies have been or will be reviewed as part of this process; (e) what criteria will be used to assess these studies; (f) when will this process be completed; and (g) when will the results of this process made public?Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)
In response to (a), the terms of reference have not yet been finalized.
In response to (b), the terms of reference are being developed by Transport Canada officials, and will be finalized after discussion with the Due Diligence Review Committee.
In response to (c), the due diligence review will be led by senior Transport Canada officials, using departmental and external technical experts. This will include representatives from the public who have technical expertise in the study areas. The list of members has not been finalized.
In response to (d), the review will look at all planning studies including aviation demand, airport capacity and ground transportation access that were completed as part of a potential future airport on the Pickering lands.
In response to (e), the criteria to assess the studies have not yet been finalized, and will be completed after discussion with the Due Diligence Review Committee.
In response to (f), the due diligence review will take several months to complete once it is fully initiated. As there is further study taking place at this time, it is difficult to speculate on a date.
In response to (g), once the due diligence review is completed, the department will brief stakeholders and the interested public, and Transport Canada will make its findings public.
Question No. 57--Mr. Todd Russell
With regard to employment at 5 Wing Goose Bay, Labrador, how many uniformed military personnel, civilian employees of the Department of National Defence and employees of Serco were stationed or employed there, as the case may be, as of November 1, 2005, and June 1, 2006?Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC)
On November 1, 2005, there were 25 civilian employees of the Department of National Defence, 68 regular force and 11 reserve members of the Canadian Forces stationed or employed in Goose Bay. As well, 102 other individuals were employed on the base including five with Defence Construction Canada, 28 members of the 5 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, 34 Canex employees, 20 with the personal services program, seven funded through non-public funds, and eight working in the Military Family Resource Centre.
On June 1, 2006, there were 26 civilian employees of the Department of National Defence, 68 regular force and 11 reserve members of the Canadian Forces stationed or employed in Goose Bay. As well, 101 other individuals were employed on the base including five with Defence Construction Canada, 28 members of the 5 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, 33 Canex employees, 20 with the personal services program, seven funded through non-public funds, and eight working in the Military Family Resource Centre.
Serco is a private company with whom the Department of National Defence has a contract for specific services. The number of personnel that Serco chooses to utilize to deliver these services is a business decision internal to the company. Accordingly, the Department of National Defence cannot report on the number of Serco employees stationed or employed at Goose Bay.Question No. 59--Mr. Richard Nadeau
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 vacant premises in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region in 2006?Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:
OFFICE SPACE (space acquired from private sector landlords)
Expiring leases in calendar year 2006: 72 (61 NCA Ontario and 11 NCA Quebec)
Expiring leases in calendar year 2007: 56 (51 NCA Ontario and 5 NCA Quebec)
Vacant premises in NCA for 2006: 51 (43 NCA Ontario and 8 NCA Quebec)
COMMERCIAL SPACE (Crown owned space leased to private sector tenants)
Expiring leases in calendar year 2006 : 168 (125 NCA Ontario and 43 NCA Quebec)
Expiring leases in calendar year 2007: 130 (115 NCA Ontario and 15 NCA Quebec)
Vacant premises in NCA for 2006: 24 (18 NCA Ontario and 6 NCA Quebec)Question No. 63--Hon. Andy Scott
With regard to the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund and the Prime Minister’s announcement in March 2006 of $200 million in support for highway upgrades in New Brunswick: (a) what is the status of the $7 million approved by Infrastructure Canada in November of 2004 for Phase 1 of the Nashwaak/Marysville bypass; (b) did the government receive any revised proposals or designs in 2006 from the government of New Brunswick for this project enabling Treasury Board to forward this $7 million; (c) which program will be used to deliver the $200 million that has been committed by the Prime Minister; (d) when will these monies start flowing to the province; (e) what is the order of precedence in which individual highway projects will be funded under the $200 million commitment; and (f) has the government of New Brunswick submitted a design for the Route 8 Marysville bypass to South Portage?Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)
In response to (a), the Marysville bypass project was the subject of a joint $14 million commitment by Canada and
New Brunswick under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, CSIF. The federal funds were allocated to the project, but the seven million in expenditure remains to be negotiated since the project was pulled by the proponent from the package. We are awaiting an official request by the provincial government to renew discussions for this project.
In response to (b), Infrastructure Canada has not yet received any revised proposals or designs from the Government of
In response to (c), the program to expend the $200 million has not yet been determined.
In response to (d), the federal government is consulting now with provincial and territorial governments and others to determine the next generation of infrastructure programs. Once the consultations are complete the federal government will seek approval of the program terms and conditions from the federal Treasury Board. Following Treasury Board approval, new projects will proceed under the program guidelines in place at that time.
In response to (e), it is premature to speculate until the new program is designed, approved and operational.
In response to (f), no. The Government of New Brunswick has indicated publicly that it favours a modified 36 km bypass project to supersede the original project that was announced for federal funding in November 2004.Question No. 65--Ms. Jean Crowder
With regard to the decision to discontinue or cancel funding of the Métis National Council of Women (MNCW): (a) for which Canadian Heritage programs and initiatives was funding cancelled or not renewed; (b) what current statistical or empirical data, rationale and evidence supports the discontinuation or cancellation of the funding of MNCW programs and initiatives; (c) what cost-benefit analysis or financial estimates compiled for or by Canadian Heritage exist relating to these decisions; (d) what information was provided to the Minister of Canadian Heritage or her staff by way of analysis prior to these decisions; (e) what recommendations, pertinent to these decisions, were made by the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Minister; (f) what recommendations, pertinent to these decisions, were provided to or by the Corporate Review Branch of the Department concerning the internal review and decision-making procedures used in arriving at such funding decisions; and (g) what information, pertinent to these decisions, was provided to or by other departments or the Privy Council Office to the Minister?Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC)
Description of the research made: Program files and correspondence related to the Métis National Council of Women were reviewed.
In response to (a), the national women's organizations, NWO, programming element of the aboriginal peoples program provides operational funding to national aboriginal women's organizations to represent the interest of aboriginal women. An eligible organization is required to submit a proposal which meets program requirements. The proposal is assessed using the same criteria for all organizations. On March 24, 2003, Canadian Heritage terminated funding to the Métis National Council of Women, MNCW, under the national women's organization programming element because it did not meet the reporting requirements of the contribution agreement;
In response to (b), since 2003, funding proposals from the MNCW have not been recommended for approval because they have not met the program requirements. The proposals submitted have not provided sufficient evidence that the organization effectively represents Métis women, nor have they demonstrated their intention to reach further into the communities. The proposals also have not demonstrated that this organization has the capacity, whether through the provision of funds or human resources, to undertake and successfully deliver the proposed activities.
In response to (c), there was no cost-benefit analysis done nor were financial estimates compiled. Funding was not provided to the MNCW because their proposal did not meet the program requirements;
In response to (d), the Minister of Canadian Heritage was not apprised prior to the decision to discontinue funding to the MNCW. The review and assessment of information provided by applicants and the subsequent recommendation to approve or not to approve is the responsibility of the departmental officials. The Minister of Canadian Heritage approves funding applications that meet the program requirements based on the assessment and recommendations by the departmental officials;
In response to (e), the Minister of Canadian Heritage only approves funding applications that meet the program requirements based on the assessment and recommendations by departmental officials.
In response to (f), corporate Review Branch is not responsible for the assessment of funding applications. The review of information provided by applicants as part of the project submission or reporting on funding is the responsibility of the officials in the aboriginal peoples program. These procedures are part of Treasury Board authorities including the basis for which funding is approved;
In response to (g), officials in the department have provided information on the status of funding to the MNCW to other federal departments, such as Status of Women Canada and Indian Affairs Canada, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, when requested.Question No. 68--Mrs. Irene Mathyssen
With regard to government affordable housing programs, is it the intention of the government to: (a) cease funding for the programs after March 31, 2007; (b) renew all programs that are due to expire after March 31, 2007; and (c) renew funding after March 31, 2007, for the following programs, (i) Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI), (ii) Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), (iii) Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independance (HASI), (iv) Emergency Repair Program (ERP)?Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC)
The member for London-Fanshawe asked, on June 13, 2006, what are the government's intentions regarding funding for the housing programs that are due to expire on March 31, 2007. Those programs are the national homelessness initiative, NHI, and the federal suite of renovation programs that is, residential rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP, the home adaptations for seniors independence, HASI, the emergency repair program, ERP, and the shelter enhancement program, SEP.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is responsible for the federal suite of renovation programs.
These federal housing programs were extended for a year, effective April 1, 2006.
During the fall of 2006, the government will examine whether to extend and enhance the suite of renovation programs that are due to expire on March 31 2007.
The national homelessness initiative and its cornerstone program, the supporting communities partnership initiative, were extended in November 2005 for a further year to March 31, 2007. This extension will ensure that essential services for homeless are maintained in urban and rural communities across Canada. Human Resources and Social Development Canada officials are developing options and considerations for a Government of Canada role in addressing homelessness beyond March 2007.
A total of $175 million in program funding is available for 2006-07. Included in this total is $109 million in standard program funding for 2006-07, $29 million in reprofiled funds, or unspent program funds, from 2004-05, and $37 million in reprofiled funds from 2005-06.Question No. 69--Mr. Lloyd St. Amand
With regard to the wind power production incentive program and its allocation in the 2005 Budget of $920 million over 15 years, which has been frozen: (a) when will these funds be released; and (b) what additional plans does the government have to support the development of the wind energy industry in Canada?Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC)
In response to (a), the government is pursuing new directions in the area of climate change policy through the development of a made in Canada plan that is focused on ensuring future generations enjoy clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy here in Canada.
The government recognizes the important contributions that renewable energy sources, such as wind, can provide to a diversified energy supply mix for Canada. We recognize the role that the wind power production incentive, WPPI, has played in leveraging provincial and industry support for wind energy.
The 2006 federal budget committed $2 billion over the next five years to the environment, energy efficiency and clean energy technologies. This funding will be allocated to measures that are effective in achieving real results for Canada. Some of the measures funded may be those previously supported; others will be new. Decisions will be made as part of the made in Canada plan.
In response to (b), government support for wind energy development consists of a variety of measures including investment tax credits, support for innovative research, technology development and demonstration. Below are some of the initiatives supported by the Government of Canada related to wind energy.
Under class 43.1 of the federal Income Tax Act, energy investors have access to an accelerated capital cost allowance, CCA, rate of 30% on a declining basis to encourage investments in certain equipment used to either produce heat for an industrial process or to generate electricity. The equipment must use a designated renewable energy source, such as wind, or burn fossil fuel efficiently. The new class 43.2 will provide a 50% CCA writeoff for certain high efficiency co-generation equipment and the full range of renewable energy generation equipment currently included in class 43.1, such as wind generators. This increased rate will apply to equipment purchased between February 23, 2005 and December 31, 2012.
Another tax measure provinding support for wind energy development is the Canadian renewable and conservation expense, CRCE, category, which allows certain wind exploration expenses to be deducted immediately or transferred to investors using flow through shares. Natural Resources Canada provides technical advice to investors and developers on the applicability of class 43.1, class 43.2 and CRCE on eligible energy projects.
Natural Resources Canada, through its renewable energy technology group, RET, part of the CANMET Energy Technology Centre, CETC, provides support to the Canadian renewable energy industry in its research and development efforts to develop and deploy renewable energy technologies, such as wind, biomass and micro-hydro. The RET helps industry to generate competitive and environmentally responsible alternatives to conventional energy generation through cost sharing and technical assistance in support of technology development and field trials. Examples of this work include the Canadian wind energy atlas, the development of Canadian wind turbine standards, and research into cold climate operation of wind turbines.
The government, in partnership with the Government of Prince Edward Island, P.E.I., provides funding for the Wind Energy Institute of Canada, WEICan, located at the Atlantic Wind Test Site in P.E.I.. WEICan supports the development of wind power generation in Canada and wind energy related products and services for Canadian and export markets. The institute's activities are focused on four key areas of work: testing and certification; research and innovation; industry training and public education; and technical consultation and assistance.Question No. 72--Hon. Roy Cullen
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?Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC)
No documents were provided to the Minister of Natural Resources since the tax credit for public transit is a tax measure which is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, and due to the normal secrecy considerations associated with tax measures announced in the budget.Question No. 73--Hon. Roy Cullen
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?Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC)
The government of Canada does not currently possess the information needed to answer these questions. The specific issues raised in parts (a) to (e) of this question deal with issues related directly to the physical properties of the proposed liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals on the U.S. coast and therefore will most likely be dealt with during the U.S. Federal Energy Commission, FERC, regulatory review process. The Canadian government has brought to the attention of the U.S. FERC the concerns expressed by local Canadian communities about the potential environmental, navigational and safety risks of the proposed projects.
The Government of Canada considers the Bay of Fundy and Head Harbour Passage sovereign waters and will take every legal and diplomatic means to prevent LNG tankers from using this passage. A study 30 years ago confirmed that there would be an unacceptable level of risk to people and aquatic life in and around Head Harbour Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay associated with the use of this body of water and passage by large tankers carrying marine pollutants.Question No. 78--Ms. Chris Charlton
With regard to the changes in the Solvency Funding Relief Regulations of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, what is the mechanism that will be used to determine when less than one third of the members object to a move to ten-year solvency funding (6.2(a)) under the new ten-year funding rules?Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC)
The proposed solvency funding relief regulations, the regulations, provide four options for temporary solvency funding relief, including extending the payment period for making solvency payments to 10 years from five where buy-in is achieved. Where an administrator of a plan seeks the buy-in of its members and retirees, the regulations require plain language disclosure to ensure that all interested parties have the necessary information to be fully informed of the decision they have to make. The disclosure would include, for example, the solvency funding status of the plan, that plan improvements would be restricted for the first five years of the 10 year funding period unless pre-funded, and an explanation of the potential implications of paying off a solvency deficiency over a longer period of time. The disclosure would also include an explanation that buy-in would be achieved where less than one-third of members and one-third of other beneficiaries object to the proposal, and that in order to register a disagreement, an objection would need to be sent to the administrator at a particular address and by a particular date. In the case where a beneficiary has a representative, such as a union that represents its members, the administrator must provide the information to the beneficiary representative, who could act on behalf of its members. Where the buy-in had been achieved, the administrator of the plan would be required to file a written statement with the Superintendent of Financial Institutions that the disclosure had been provided to all parties as required under the regulations and that the buy-in requirements had been met.Question No. 79--Ms. Peggy Nash
With respect to eligibility for Canada Access Grants and Canada Learning Bonds in 2005 or the most recent year for which information is available: (a) how many households were eligible to receive the National Child Benefit Supplement for a child between the ages of 0 and 15 years of age; (b) how many households, with one or more dependent children between the ages of 17 and 25, which filed federal income tax returns, had net incomes low enough that they would be eligible to receive the National Child Benefit Supplement for that child or those children, if that child or those children were below the age of 18; (c) how many households, with one or more dependent children between the ages of 17 and 25, which filed federal income tax returns, had net incomes below $36,000; and (d) how many total children are included in sections (a), (b), and (c)?Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC)
The department receives information from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, to determine eligibility for Canada access grants and Canada learning bonds based on eligibility for the national child benefit supplement, NCBS. However, the information received is limited to what is required to deliver these programs, and is insufficient to answer the member's question.
Human Resources and Social Develpment Canada has policy responsibility for the national child benefit supplement; however, Canada Revenue Agency delivers and administers the benefit. The member's inquiry relates to information that would be found in CRA's tax filer database.
CRA has provided to the Canada education savings program the number of children and families who benefited from the NCBS in June 2006. Based on this information, 1,408,889 families and 2,472,726 children aged 0 to 18 benefited from the national child benefit supplement. Of these, there were 268,048 children from birth to age two who were eligible for the Canada learning bond. Note that only those children born after 2003 are eligible for the Canada learning bond. In respect of the Canada student loans program, from August 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006, the program granted Canada access grants to 22,007 students.Question No. 82--Mr. Lloyd St. Amand
With respect to the $11.9 million allocated by the government to the Integrated Grain Processor's Co-operative (IGPC) under the Ethanol Expansion Program, which has been frozen while the climate change envelope is under review: (a) when will the review on the climate change envelope be completed; (b) when the review is completed, will the $11.9 million previously allocated to the IGPC be released and, if so, when; and (c) how much money has already been released to the IGPC?Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC)
With respect to the $11.9 million contribution allocated to the Integrated Grain Processor's Co-operative, IGPC, project in July 2005 under the ethanol expansion program, in response to
(a), a short term extension of climate change programs including the ethanol expansion program has now been approved. This will serve as an interim measure until the government's new policy directions have been finalized. The Government of Canada is providing substantial resources, close to $380 million this year, which is comparable to spending last year. Programs, including the ethanol expansion program, belonging to four groups--mitigation, international, policy, and public education and outreach--will have their program authority extended by one year until March 31, 2007.
In response to (b), Natural Resources Canada is now working with the IGPC towards the finalization of a contribution agreement for the allocated funding. Upon successful completion of this agreement, the funding will be released to the IGPC as the project incurs eligible costs in accordance with program terms and conditions.
In response to (c), no funds have been released to IGPC to date.Question No. 83--Mr. Roger Valley
With regard to the gas tax rebates announced in 2005, will the government uphold the commitment to provide rebates to unincorporated areas?Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)
The government fully intends to uphold its commitment to provide funding to unincorporated areas of Ontario under the transfer of federal gas tax revenues program.Question No. 84--Mr. Christian Ouellet
Regarding the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) ending March 31, 2007: (a) will the program be renewed past that date and, if so, for how long; (b) or will it be made permanent; (c) will the amounts allocated be increased; (d) will the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on May 16, 2006, be taken into account; and (e) will a strategic plan on homelessness and housing be developed?Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC)
The national homelessness initiative, including its cornerstone program the supporting communities partnership initiative, has been extended by one year, to March 2007. This extension will ensure that essential shelters and related support services for homeless people are maintained in urban and rural communities across Canada. Human Resources and Social Development Canada officials will take into account the recommendations made by the United Nations committee on May 16, 2006, as they develop options for the Government of Canada's role in addressing homelessness beyond March 2007.Question No. 85--Mr. David Christopherson
With regard to the 1% reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST): (a) what measures have the government put in place to ensure that the vendors of products with GST included in the price pass the GST cut along to consumers; and (b) how will the government ensure that vendors do not take advantage of the GST decrease to implement a price increase and pocket the savings that were intended for consumers?Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC)
The Government of Canada does not regulate the pricing of goods and services in the Canadian marketplace. Canadian suppliers and consumers are well informed that the rate of the GST changed to 6% from 7% on July 1, 2006. The competitive aspects of the marketplace determine the pricing of goods and services, including the price of products with GST included.
Canadian consumers are aware that the rate of the GST changed to 6% from 7% on July 1, 2006. Given the competitive aspects of the marketplace, consumers should realize real savings from the tax rate cut. For consumers, savings from the GST reduction will amount to approximately $8.7 billion over the next two years.Question No. 86--Mr. David Christopherson
With regard to Natural Resources Canada's biofuels incentive program: (a) does the government provide financial incentives for testing biofuels; (b) will the government provide those incentives for tests carried out by any qualified Canadian testing facility; (c) does the government have a preferred supplier for biofuels testing and, if so, how was the decision made to use that preferred supplier; and (d) if there is a preferred supplier, does it carry out tests at the same, lower or higher price than other qualified testing facilities in Canada?Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC)
The biodiesel targeted measures, BTM, program under Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, selected the fuels and lubricants group at the Alberta Research Council, ARC, to assist them in providing technical support in developing a biodiesel industry in Canada. The ARC was chosen based on its qualifications and recommendations provided by a steering committee consisting of representatives from Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian General Standards Board.
The objective of the biodiesel work conducted at the ARC, supported by NRCan, was to establish a centre of excellence for biodiesel testing whereby two major program components would include a biofuels quality registry and an international quality assurance exchange program. The overall goal was to promote increased biodiesel use by conducting fuel quality testing of biodiesel samples establishing an accessible database tracking fuel quality metrics for biodiesel fuels and to develop an industry protocol and standard for fuel analysis.
The biofuels quality registry was established to be a national online database and website with analysis results of candidate biofuels being entered into the registry. The information collected is used by Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada to support research and policy activities. Fuels used in demonstration programs, fuels that are commercially available, and in some cases, fuels from process development are eligible for inclusion in the registry. As part of this program, the Government of Canada reserves the right to use this data to compile an annual trends report that will be available on this website. It is important to stress that only certain fuels will be accepted for analysis under the registry. A biofuels technical steering committee, BTSC, consisting of representatives from NRCan and Environment Canada approves all applications for incentives. As part of the biofuels quality registry, an incentive program was established to encourage biodiesel fuel quality testing. The results of the testing will facilitate in the generation of a national database.
Under this program, analytical services are partially subsidized by the biofuels quality registry based on a sliding scale: 70%, first application; 50%, second application; and 30%, subsequent applications.
This quality registry program was only intended to operate for two years ending March 31, 2007. The rates provided for the testing of samples were in accordance with standard industry practices.
The international quality assurance exchange program, IQAEP, is an interlaboratory proficiency testing program. It consists of a series of petroleum related tests, frequent exchanges of a wide range of products, and rapid report turnaround times. It enables customers to monitor their laboratory equipement, test methodology, personnel, and reporting procedures to ensure they are in compliance with international quality standards.
Proficiency testing through an interlaboratory exchange program is an invaluable tool to allow organizations to eveluate their performance in physical testing of petroleum products.
The fuels and lubricants group at ARC was chosen to manange this program because it has coordinated petroleum exchanges for more than 30 years and has no vested interest in the results. Through the administration of the proficiency testing program, we are working to ensure that there are more qualified laboratories with biodiesel testing capabilities.
To summarize the response, in response to (a), yes, the government provides financial incentives for testing of biofuels. These incentives are provided for sample submissions and are based on a sliding scale of 70% first application, 50%, second application, and 30% subsequent applications.
In response to (b), no, these incentives are only provided to the programs delivered under the Alberta Research Council.
In response to (c), the government selected the ARC to carry out fuel quality testing because of its qualifications and the recommendations provided to it by a steering committee consisting of representatives from Environment Canada. NRCan and the Canadian General Standards Board.
In response to (d), the rates provided by the ARC are in accordance with standard industry practices.
Mr. Speaker, if the answers to Questions Nos. 33, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81 and 87 could be made orders for returns, these returns would also be tabled immediately.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 33--Ms. Dawn Black
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 this 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 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 under the Arrangement; (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?
(Return tabled)Question No. 40--Mr. Charlie Angus
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?
(Return tabled)Question No. 41--Mrs. Irene Mathyssen
With regard to House committee reports on the subject of status of women, how has the government provided action on: (a) the 1991 report titled “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 “Living without Fear Everyone’s Goal, Every Women’s Right”; (c) the 2005 report titled “Increasing Funding to Equality-Seeking Organizations”; (d) the 2005 government response titled “First Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (study on the concerns of women's organizations and equality-seeking organizations)”; (e) the 2005 report titled “Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”; (f) the 2005 government response titled “Second Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women: Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”; (g) the 2005 report titled “Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”; (h) the 2005 government response titled “Funding through the women's program: Women's groups speak out”; (i) the 2005 report titled “Pay Equity”; (j) the 2005 government response titled “Fourth Report of the Committee on the Status of Women, Moving Forward on the Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations”; and (k) the 2005 report titled “Interim Report on the Maternity and Parental Benefits Under Employment Insurance: The Exclusion of Self-Employed Workers”?
(Return tabled)Question No. 46--Ms. Olivia Chow
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?
(Return tabled)Question No. 48--Ms. Denise Savoie
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) 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 and (vi) post-secondary institutions for capital expenses; (c) if the response to (a) is not yes, what is the precise proportion, in dollars and in percentage, of the Canada Social Transfer dedicated to post-secondary education; (d) what mechanism exists to guarantee that the funding for post-secondary education included in the Canada Social Transfer ensures high-quality, accessible education for all Canadians; (e) what is the precise amount of federal spending on post-secondary education outside of the Canada Social Transfer; (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 and (vi) post-secondary institutions for capital expenses; and (g) what mechanism exists to guarantee that the funding for post-secondary education outside of the Canada Social Transfer ensures high-quality, accessible education for all Canadians?
(Return tabled)Question No. 49--Ms. Denise Savoie
With respect to federal government funding for literacy initiatives, programs, and organizations; and to the National Literacy Secretariat (NLS): (a) what is the current status of the National Literacy Secretariat; (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 contributions agreements related to literacy have been distributed by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) 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 the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development 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?
(Return tabled)Question No. 52--Ms. Raymonde Folco
With regard to the Off-campus Work Program announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on April 27, 2006, what was the rationale for excluding: (a) Canadian International Development Agency-funded foreign visa students; (b) Canadian Commonwealth Scholarship Program students; (c) Government of Canada Awards Program students; and (d) exchange students, enrolled in English or French as a Second Language Programs?
(Return tabled)Question No. 53--Ms. Raymonde Folco
With regard to graduate students possessing Canadian International Development Agency-funded foreign student visas: (a) how many were studying at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 1995 and April 2000 and how many completed graduate degrees during this period; and (b) how many were studying at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 2000 to April 2005 and how many completed graduate degrees during this period?
(Return tabled)Question No. 54--Ms. Raymonde Folco
With regard to students possessing Commonwealth Award Program Foreign Student Visas: (a) how many studied at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 1995 and April 2000; (b) how many studied at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 2000 and April 2005; (c) how many were undergraduate students; (d) how many were graduate students; (e) how many completed their studies during the prescribed periods; and (f) what were the countries of origin of these students?
(Return tabled)Question No. 55--Ms. Raymonde Folco
With regard to undergraduate students possessing Canadian International Development Agency-funded foreign student visas: (a) how many were studying at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 1995 and April 2000; (b) how many completed undergraduate degrees during this period; (c) how many were studying at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 2000 and April 2005; (d) how many completed their studies during this period; and (e) what were the countries of origin of these students?
(Return tabled)Question No. 58--Mr. Richard Nadeau
With regard to government jobs in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of Public Service employees in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (b) the number of employees of government agencies, Crown corporations or any other government bodies in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region, from 1998 to 2006?
(Return tabled)Question No. 60--Hon. Joe Fontana
With respect to the budget plan for 2006 distributed by the Department of Finance, which states specifically on page 85, in Section 3: “Building a Better Canada” (subsection: “Opportunity”): “Over the coming year, the Minister of Industry will be developing a science and technology strategy, in collaboration with the Minister of Finance, that will encompass the broad range of government support for research, including knowledge infrastructure”: (a) has the development of this strategy begun; (b) when is it expected that this science and technology strategy will be completed; (c) who will be or who has been consulted in developing the strategy; (d) will the Minister of Industry, Minister of Finance or departmental officials travel outside of the Ottawa region while developing this strategy and, if so (i) what are the names and titles of the traveling participants, (ii) how much will the travel cost, (iii) what will be the duration of the travel, (iv) what will be the destinations of the travel; (e) will the general public be consulted and, if so, how should they direct their concerns; (f) will Industry Canada or the Department of Finance hold public meetings while developing this strategy and, if so (i) where will the meetings be held, (ii) what is the budget forecasted for these meetings, (iii) will the meetings be advertised and, if so, how; (g) what will be the focus of the strategy; and (h) what is the total expected cost of the development of the strategy?
(Return tabled)Question No. 61--Hon. Andy Scott
How much money has the government paid out through all programs from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) since 2000-2001, and, in each case: (a) how much was disbursed annually in each province; (b) which programs were used to finance the projects; (c) who received the funds; (d) what was the specific purpose of the disbursement; and (e) how long did the funding last?
(Return tabled)Question No. 62--Hon. Andy Scott
With regard to the Innovative Communities Fund (ICF) operated by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and the government’s commitment to use funds from ACOA to support the construction of the Moncton Stadium and completion of the Fundy Trail: (a) which ACOA programs are being used to finance the Stadium and Trail projects; (b) precisely how much federal money will be provided for these two projects and over what time period; and (c) how many applications to the ICF have been received from each province in Atlantic Canada since the fund’s creation, including (i) which projects have been approved and announced so far to receive funds from ICF, (ii) how much money has been disbursed from the ICF, (iii) who are the recipients of these disbursements, (iv) what is the breakdown of ICF disbursements by province?
(Return tabled)Question No. 66--Ms. Jean Crowder
With regard to the 2000 Auditor General report, “Chapter 30 Fisheries and Oceans — The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks”: (a) how many of the Auditor-General’s recommendations have been implemented and what are the details of that implementation; and (b) how many of the Auditor-General’s recommendations have not been implemented and why?
(Return tabled)Question No. 67--Mr. Peter Julian
What was the government's total contribution, monetary and non-monetary, to the 2005 World Police and Fire Games in Quebec City?
(Return tabled)Question No. 74--Hon. Roy Cullen
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?
(Return tabled)Question No. 75--Ms. Dawn Black
With regard to the use of weapons in Afghanistan: (a) do Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan use depleted uranium (DU) in their weapons or armour; (b) do Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in Afghaniston use DU weapons or armour; (c) do American or allied forces in Afghanistan use DU weapons or armour; (d) does Canada supply any other country with DU and, if so, what are the quantities; (e) does Canada supply any company, foreign or domestic, with DU and, if so, what are the quantities; (f) if Canada does supply DU to American companies who manufacture DU weapons, what proportion of DU weapons manufactured in the United States of America use Canadian-created DU; (g) does the government believe that DU is a weapon with indiscriminate effect; (h) does the government believe that DU poses any long term health effects in areas where it is used; (i) if DU is being used, does the government think that there is any possibility of future liability against Canada; (j) do CF in Afghanistan use White Phosphorus (WP) as an antipersonnel weapon; (k) do Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan use WP as an antipersonnel weapon; (l) do American or allied forces in Afghanistan use WP as an antipersonnel weapon; (m) have Canadian troops trained to use WP as an antipersonnel weapon in Afghanistan; (n) does the government consider WP to be a chemical weapon under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention; and (o) does the government consider that WP is banned under Protocol II of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons?
(Return tabled)Question No. 76--Ms. Dawn Black
With regard to government spending in Afghanistan: (a) what are the total expenditures of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan from 2001 to present; (b) what are the expected expenditures from now until February 2009; (c) what are the top 20 contracts by value; (d) which United States-based companies are receiving contracts?
(Return tabled)Question No. 77--Ms. Denise Savoie
With respect to the Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund for the whole of Canada and the Capital Regional District of British Columbia: (a) how many applications for projects have been received and are awaiting approval; (b) how many projects have been approved and are awaiting the first instalment of funding; (c) how many projects have been completed and are awaiting the final instalment of funding; (d) how many applications have been submitted and withdrawn, by fiscal year, since the inception of this Fund; (e) what is the shortest, longest, and average period of time between submission and withdrawal of applications in section (d), for each respective fiscal year; (f) does Parks Canada recognize any unusual or undue delays in the approval of projects or the release of funds to approved projects; (g) what explanation can Parks Canada give for any public perception of unusual or undue delays in the approval of projects or the release of funds to approved projects; (h) what is the average period of time between application and approval of projects; (i) what is the average period of time between approval and the first instalment of funding; (j) what is the average period of time between application and the first instalment of funding; (k) what is the average period of time between project completion and the final instalment of funding; (l) when was the last call for proposals or applications; (m) when will the next call for proposals or applications be; (n) what are the minimum, maximum, and average amounts awarded to projects from this Fund?
(Return tabled)Question No. 80--Ms. Peggy Nash
With respect to government spending on skills training outside the formal post-secondary education system, in the three most recent years for which information is available: (a) what is the total amount, broken down by federal department, allocated to skills training programs; (b) what is the total amount transferred to the provinces and territories for skills training programs; (c) what is the total amount, broken down by program, allocated to programs to encourage private employers to provide skills training to their employees; (d) what is the total amount, broken down by program, allocated to programs to provide mid-career skills upgrading for currently employed Canadians; (e) what is the total amount, broken down by program, allocated to programs to provide skills training for Canadians to transition to a new career; and (f) what is the total amount, broken down by program, allocated to programs not listed in sections (c), (d) or (e), to provide skills training to Canadians?
(Return tabled)Question No. 81--Ms. Peggy Nash
With respect to the government’s financial support and incentives for post-secondary students and savings, in the most recent three years for which information is available: (a) how many students applied for the Canada Access Grant for Students from Low-Income Families and the Canada Access Grant for Students with Permanent Disabilities, respectively; (b) how many students were awarded the above two Canada Access Grants, respectively; (c) what was the average amount awarded to recipients of the above two Canada Access Grants, respectively; (d) what was the total amount awarded by the government for the above two Canada Access Grants, respectively; (e) how many students applied for (i) Millennium Bursaries, (ii) Millennium Access Bursaries, (iii) Millennium Excellence Entrance Awards, (iv) Millennium Excellence In-Course Awards, (v) World Petroleum Council Millennium Scholarships, respectively; (f) how many students were awarded the above five awards, respectively; (g) what was the average amount awarded to recipients of the above five awards, respectively; (h) what was the total amount awarded by the government for the above five awards, respectively; (i) how many persons received a Canada Education Savings Grant; (j) what was the average amount awarded to recipients of this grant; (k) what was the total amount awarded by the federal government for this grant; (l) how many persons received (i) an initial $500 Canada Learning Bond, and (ii) a $100 Canada Learning Bond; (m) what was the total amount awarded by the government for Canada Learning Bonds; (n) what other federal government programs exist to give direct financial support to students or families for post-secondary education that are not listed above; (o) how many individuals received assistance under these other programs; and (p) what was the total amount received by recipients of these programs?
(Return tabled)Question No. 87--Mrs. Irene Mathyssen
With regard to government action in response to the fifth periodic report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: (a) is the government addressing the 23 recommendations contained in the report; (b) what action has the government taken in addressing these recommendations; and (c) will the government consult with women’s non-governmental organisations in preparing the next report?