Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Question Nos. 26, 36, 40, 61 and 68.
Question No. 26--Mr. Wayne Marston
With respect to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT): (a) will the government ratify the OPCAT; (b) does the government have a timeline to ratify the OPCAT and, if so, when; (c) since OPCAT was adopted at the United Nations in December 2002, why has the government delayed its ratification; (d) what are the government’s concerns with respect to ratifying the OPCAT; (e) has there been a change in the government’s position on ratification since January 26, 2006 and, if so, what; (f) does the government plan to bring the issue of ratifying the OPCAT before Parliament or any of its committees and, if so, when and to which committees and, if not, why; and (g) what studies and evaluations about the OPCAT have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government and (i) what individuals, what department, or what organization undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies, (iii) what are their findings and recommendations?Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:
a) The government of Canada is strongly committed to the prevention, the prohibition and the elimination of torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, globally and at the national level. Canada is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Canada actively participated in the negotiation of the optional protocol to the Convention Against Torture, the Optional Protocol. It supports its principles and voted in favour of its adoption by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly in 2002. We believe that the optional protocol can be an important tool in protecting human rights. Indeed, Canada has many mechanisms already in place to protect persons in places of detention from torture. These include correctional investigators, police oversight agencies, ombudsmen, human rights commissions, and the courts. Canada collaborates with many international mechanisms that can review conditions of detention in Canada. These include the committee against torture and the human rights committee through the periodic reporting process and individual complaints mechanisms, as well as the working group on arbitrary detention through its 2005 visit to places of detention in Canada. The Government of Canada has extended a standing invitation to all UN special procedures to visit Canada, including the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The government is currently considering becoming a party to the optional protocol as it pledged to do when it presented its candidacy for a seat at the Human Rights Council in 2006. Canada takes its international human rights obligations very seriously. Accordingly, the general practice for human rights treaties has been to become party only after Canada is satisfied that its domestic laws and policies meet the obligations they impose or has clearly identified the required measures to meet these obligations. Consultations and analysis began after the adoption of the optional protocol, and are still ongoing. Ensuring that domestic laws and policies will meet international obligations requires that extensive and complex consultations involving multiple departments and levels of government be undertaken, as explained in responses c) and d), below. The complexities of establishing independent proactive domestic visiting mechanisms, particularly in a federal state, with a vast territory, must not be underestimated. This work takes time. Only after this analysis is completed will Canada be in a position to make a decision as to whether to become a party to the optional protocol.
b) Owing to the extensive consultations required and the complexities of the issues raised by the implementation of the optional protocol, no timeline has been developed for Canada to become a party to the optional protocol.
c) The government is committed to actively considering whether Canada should become a party to the instrument. However, the analysis is complex and many issues require further clarification.
The length of time for the review process to determine whether Canada should become a party to a human rights instrument depends on several factors:
1) whether the treaty obligations impact solely on matters under federal jurisdiction or whether they relate to matters under the responsibility of the provinces and territories and First Nations;
2) whether the analysis of the domestic implications of becoming a party is complex involving many issues and numerous federal departments and agencies, as well as the provinces and territories and First Nations; whether new measures are likely to be required, including new legislation and significant resources;
3) the level of priority and resources dedicated to the review process across federal departments and in the provinces and territories;
4) the level of priority of other international human rights work including: review of other treaties for ratification; establishing Canada's positions on human rights issues and negotiating positions on new instruments at various multilateral fora; preparation of periodic reports to UN committees; visits by international bodies and responding to individual complaints.
With respect to the optional protocol, in particular, the process is complicated due to several factors:
1) the scope of “places of detention” is broad and includes: prisons, police stations, immigration detention centers, youth facilities and psychiatric hospitals. Responsibility for these institutions falls under several federal departments and agencies as well as the provinces and territories and, in some instances, First Nations;
2) the analysis of the issues is complex and resource intensive. Some of the issues include: determining whether existing bodies at federal, provincial and territorial levels that conduct visits to places of detention meet the requirements of the protocol (i.e. whether they conduct “regular visits”; whether they are sufficiently independent from government; whether privacy legislation will permit the sharing of personal information with the UN subcommittee and other information sharing issues). If new measures are required, then an analysis of the potentially substantial resource implications is also required;
3) several concepts, such as the requirement of “regular visits”, are not well defined and could have an impact on resource requirements. The Government of Canada is presently analysing these concepts with a view to clarifying their meaning.
The experience of other countries shows that there are challenges to the implementation of the optional protocol. In order to ensure that Canada can live up to its future commitments and preserve its international reputation, we should continue to do the necessary homework.
d) It is more apt to speak of “challenges” related to Canada becoming a party to the optional protocol than “concerns”.
In examining whether to become a party to the optional protocol, a decentralized federal state such as Canada faces a particular set of challenges. As a first step, we must determine whether the federal, provincial and territorial mechanisms to prevent torture that are already in place in Canada, are in accord with the provisions of the optional protocol. This analysis includes determining whether existing bodies at federal, provincial and territorial levels that conduct visits to places of detention meet the requirements of the optional protocol regarding regular visits to places of detention and, if not, what is needed to make them compliant with the requirements of the optional protocol. Further, there is a need to determine the frequency of monitoring visits to places of detention, as the frequency of such visits will have a direct impact on the financial implications for Canada implied by the protocol. The analysis also includes whether the mechanisms already in place are sufficiently independent from government and whether privacy legislation will permit the sharing of personal information with the UN subcommittee on the prevention of torture and other information sharing issues. We will also need to examine to what extent the optional protocol requires, or it would be desirable to, ensure proper communication and coordination of work between visiting mechanisms.
As a matter of policy, Canada does not ratify or accede to an international treaty until satisfied that we are in compliance with its provisions. While Canada, as a party to the optional protocol, would be responsible for compliance with its provisions under international law, the constitutional division of powers mandates that implementation be carried out at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. The Canadian government consults with the provinces and territories to seek their support for signature, ratification or accession.
e) There has not been a change in the government's position with respect to the optional protocol.
f) The House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights is studying this issue. We will closely follow the work of the subcommittee and look forward to examining its recommendations.
g) The government has not requested or commissioned any formal studies or evaluations of the optional protocol. Therefore, no individuals or organizations have been involved in such activities, no related costs have been incurred, and no recommendations have been issued.
The normal process when the government is considering becoming a party to a human rights treaty is for an internal analysis to be done of the provisions of the treaty in order to determine the treaty's domestic implications. Different departments, including Department of Justice, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, and Public Safety Canada, have been involved in the analysis of the optional protocol and its domestic implications. The process is ongoing.
Question No. 36--Mr. Bill Siksay
With respect to Canadian citizens who are captured and detained abroad as “enemy combatants” by foreign authorities: (a) what is the government's position with regard to their citizenship rights; (b) what is the government's position on their repatriation from foreign detention facilities to face trial in Canada; (c) what studies and evaluations about such citizens and their rights have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government; (d) what individuals, departments or organizations undertook these studies; (e) what is the cost of these studies; (f) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (g) which recommendations does the government agree with and which does it disagree with; (h) how many Canadians have been considered “enemy combatants”, either by the Canadian or foreign governments, since September 2001; and (i) which countries have described them as such?Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Canadian citizens who are captured and detained abroad as “enemy combatants” by foreign authorities:
a) Issues pertaining to Canadian citizenship are not affected by the circumstances described in the question.
The rights of individuals in respect of Canadian citizenship are determined by the Citizenship Act.
b) This question can only be answered on a case by case basis and presumes that the Canadian detained abroad is accused of crimes prosecutable in Canada. Whether or not the necessity or possibility exists for a given individual to “face trial in Canada” is subject to the circumstances of each case. Any decision to prosecute would be determined by, inter alia, the nature and availability of evidence; whether such evidence discloses a criminal offence in Canada; jurisdiction over such alleged offences; the likelihood of a successful prosecution. In the event of extra-territorial offences, the consent of the Attorney-General may be required before a prosecution can be initiated.
c) The government seeks and obtains legal advice on individual cases from experts in the Departments of Foreign Affairs, National Defence, Justice and Public Safety, as appropriate. No private studies have been commissioned.
d) See response to c).
e) Not applicable.
f) Advice to the government from its legal counsel is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
g) See response to f).
i) On September 17, 2004 a Combatant Status Review Tribunal convened by the United States of America at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, determined Omar Khadr to be an “enemy combatant”.
Question No. 40--Mr. Nathan Cullen
With respect to meeting the challenges of climate change: (a) what are the estimated costs to the Canadian economy of climate change; (b) what are the most current scientific modelling predictions used with respect to the impacts of climate change in Canada; (c) what regions of the country and which sectors of the economy are expected to be worse affected by climate change; (d) what are the anticipated job losses due to climate change; and (e) applying the same economic methodologies used for the environmental regulatory plan entitled “Turning the Corner”, what would be the health and economic costs of allowing the oil sands sector to increase volatile organic compounds emissions by 60 per cent by the year 2015?Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous studies examining the potential costs of climate change impacts on specific regions of Canada; however, there are no estimates of the total costs to the Canadian economy of the impacts of climate change.
Natural Resources Canada published sectoral and regional assessments of climate change impacts and adaptation in Canada, in 2004 “Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective”. This report describes potential physical and socio-economic impacts of climate change. Natural Resources Canada also notes that several other researchers have undertaken analyses at the national level of climate change impacts on certain sectors, e.g., agriculture, for both Canada and the U.S. As well, Natural Resources Canada signals the difficulty in computing the cost of climate change to the whole economy:
“At present, it is difficult to derive quantitative estimates of the potential costs of climate change impacts. Limitations are imposed by the lack of agreement on preferred approaches and assumptions, limited data availability, and a variety of uncertainties relating to such things as future changes in climate, social and economic conditions, and the responses that will be made to address those changes.” (Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective. Government of Canada. 2004. p. 25. http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/perspective/pdf/report_e.pdf)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, recently released its fourth assessment report on the science of climate change. This report contains a synthesis of results from global and regional climate models and these results are currently the most up-to-data available for all regions of the world. Canadian scientists and the Canadian global and regional climate models contributed significantly to this report, providing model output and scientific analysis and the Government of Canada readily accepts the finding of the IPCC reports.
The analysis of multiple models provides important information about model uncertainty which is not readily available from results of a single model, and therefore results from such a “multi-model” ensemble are of particular value when assessing projections of future climate change. The IPCC report provides the best, and most current, “high-level” assessment of model-based future climate projections. Output from the Canadian global and regional climate models is available from the following Environment Canada web site: www.cccma.ec.gc.ca. This kind of detailed model output is widely used by researchers across Canada studying the impacts of future climate change in Canada.
Relatively little research has been completed to quantify the potential economic impact of climate change in Canada either at a regional or sectoral scale. The few macro-economic analyses of Canadian impacts that have been conducted almost exclusively deal with agriculture, where estimated economic impacts range from large annual costs to substantive benefits. All regions in Canada and all sectors of the Canadian economy will be affected to some degree, either directly or indirectly and positively or negatively, by the impacts of climate change.
In general the greatest impacts are expected in regions and sectors where operations and activities are already highly sensitive to variation in climatic conditions, are already experiencing impacts or are operating near critical thresholds. Impacts will be larger where the capacity to adapt or diversify is limited. Significant impacts are expected in the Canadian North, in economic sectors dependant on natural resources, and in public, utility and financial sectors responsible for social and physical infrastructure.
Environment Canada has not estimated the anticipated job losses due to climate change.
Given the complexity of the air quality valuation model, Environment Canada’s analysis presented in “Turning the Corner” focused on the package of initiatives outlined in the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions. It should be noted that without the regulations outlined in “Turning the Corner”, the emissions from the oil sands sector would have doubled volatile compounds of emissions. Capping volatile compounds of emissions, means that emissions will be some 20% below the 2015 business-as-usual level. Capping the growth of volatile compounds of emissions will provide health benefits for all Canadians, as indicated on page 25 of the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions. This includes a mean average reduction in premature deaths in the year 2015 by 1,200, and annual benefits estimated to be $6.4 billion.
Question No. 61--Mr. Yvon Godin
With regard to the document entitled “In the Hot Seat: an Evening Primer for Committee Chairs”, did the Government House Leader’s Office and the Privy Council Office (PCO) devote any resources to the creation of the manual and, if so: (a) what was the monetary value of the resources devoted by PCO and the Government House Leader’s Office; (b) when did this activity occur; and (c) who were the government employees involved in this work?Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, this document is nothing more than a training manual designed to help members develop procedural expertise and to ensure that committees operate responsibly.
The government believes that all political parties have a responsibility to ensure that the members of their respective caucuses are sufficiently knowledgeable about parliamentary procedures and practices to perform their duties in an appropriate, efficient and respectful manner. The training manual has been prepared in order to achieve that objective.
The Privy Council Office was not involved in the preparation of the training manual and did not devote any resources to the creation of the training manual.Question No. 68--Ms. Libby Davies
With respect to Harry W. Arthurs' report on the Canada Labour Code entitled “Fairness at Work: Federal Labour Standards for the 21st Century”: (a) what is the government response to the report; (b) what groups, individuals, businesses, organizations and institutes have been consulted about the recommendations in the final report and (i) what are the responses and recommendations from those consultations, (ii) what future plans for the consultations have been made; (c) what recommendations from the report does the government agree with; and (d) has funding been allocated to implement any recommendations in the report and, if so, for which recommendations?Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:
a) It is standard practice in developing labour policy to seek the consensus of business and labour groups through consultations. While some consultations have occurred, the process is not complete. Stakeholders have asked for refinement, precision and clarification of proposals before committing themselves.
b) Since the release of the report in October 2006, both the Minister of Labour and departmental officials have heard the views of a broad range of individuals and groups.
Departmental officials have met individually with the following employer organizations: Federally Regulated Employers — Transportation and Communications (FETCO), the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Canadian Bankers’ Association, Conseil du patronat du Québec, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Canadian Search, Employment and Staffing Services, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Officials also met numerous union and community-based organizations, namely, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, Teamsters Canada, Canadian Auto Workers, Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Grain Services Union, and the Workers Action Centre/Parkdale Legal Aid Clinic. Departmental officials also organized a roundtable in Winnipeg in December 2006, with participants from the Canadian Professional Drivers Association, Workers Organizing Resources Centre, Progress Rail, Sabourin Transport, Canwest Global, and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
In January 2007, the Minister of Labour made a four-city tour. In Montréal, he met the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Fédération canadienne des entreprises indépendantes, and Au bas de I’échelle. In Toronto and Vancouver, the minister participated in breakfast meetings which attracted some 25 to 50 employer representatives each. As well, in Toronto, the minister met the Canadian Bankers’ Association and Teamsters Canada. In Vancouver, the minister also met the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. In Calgary, he met the Canadian Industrial Relations Association, the Institute for Advanced Policy Research, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, and Westjet.
b) i) Because of the report’s length and complexity, 192 recommendations, many stakeholders did not focus on details, preferring instead to make comments of a general nature.
There was a high degree of consensus in support of a new compliance strategy. All stakeholders favoured more education and information and they recognized the need to get tough with repeat offenders. In July 2007, the minister spoke at the annual conference of the Association of Labour Relations Agencies, where he announced that the labour program had begun to hire and train more inspectors to strengthen compliance through handling workplace complaints so that issues are dealt with in a timely manner and to ensure that Canadians can count on stronger enforcement, safer working conditions, and better labour relations. The minister reiterated that the labour program is investing in education, sharing best practices, providing dispute-resolution expertise, and conducting audits and inspections targeted to high risk workplaces and industries.
The report may be divided into three major areas: “flexicurity”, sector-specific legislation and minimum wage. Regarding flexicurity, we heard that unions favour those aspects of the report that supported security, but they did not like measures which promoted flexibility. Employers took the opposite view, supporting flexibility and resisting proposals for more security. Both employers and unions found ideas surrounding sector councils and sector-specific legislation quite attractive, but they identified a variety of challenges to making this approach more practical. Finally, there are huge differences between employers and unions regarding the minimum wage. Unions support a minimum wage that is based on a poverty measure, such as the low-income cutoff, and which is adjusted annually in line with increases in the cost of living. Employers support the status quo where the federal minimum wage reflects the current minimum wage established by each province and territory.
b) ii) Before committing themselves, stakeholders have asked for the refinement, precision and clarification of proposals. The government is doing this, but because many of the recommendations are detailed and complex, the process is time consuming. The government will continue to work closely with stakeholders.
c) It is standard practice in developing labour policy to seek the consensus of business and labour groups through consultations. The stakeholders have already expressed a high degree of consensus in support of a strengthened compliance policy featuring additional education and awareness activities and more robust enforcement. The government has started to implement part of this through reorganization placing a greater focus on compliance and by hiring additional inspectors. More work is required for consensus to emerge in other areas.
d) We are strengthening compliance and hiring additional inspectors within existing resources. Otherwise, it is not feasible to consider funding without knowing the result of the consultation process.
Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 7, 8, 25, 39, 51, 54, 70 and 91 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 7--Mrs. Irene Mathyssen
With regard to the manufacturing job crisis in southwestern Ontario: (a) does the government have any plans to intervene to save plants in danger of closing, what are these plans and when will they be implemented; (b) does the government have a strategy for attracting new producers to the region; (c) which manufacturing sectors does the government plan to focus on supporting and growing; (d) will the government implement sector based strategies for dealing with the manufacturing crisis; (e) does the government plan to provide subsidies to manufacturers who are having difficulties turning a profit; (f) does the government plan to provide cash grants (i) to manufacturers already in the region, (ii) as incentives to attract new investment, and, if so, what will be the amount of these grants and what will be the criteria for receiving a government grant; (g) does the government plan to provide grants of crown land (i) to already established manufacturers looking to expand, (ii) as an incentive to attract new investment to the region, and, if so, what will be the criteria for receiving such a grant; (h) does the government plan to introduce any tax incentives that will benefit manufacturers; (i) does the government have any plans to extend the modifications made to the capital cost allowance for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing or to make these modifications permanent; (j) will there be any tax incentives offered that will benefit manufacturing operations that have become unprofitable; (k) does the government plan to offer tax credits to (i) manufacturers already established in the region, (ii) as incentives to attract new investment, and, if so, what will be the nature of these tax credits and which manufacturers will qualify; (l) does the government plan to adjust the tax rate paid by manufacturers in struggling sectors; (m) will the government provide tax incentives to manufacturing employers who provide training and skills upgrades for their employees; (n) does the government plan to expand existing incentives for manufacturing corporations to conduct research and development; (o) will the government implement financing programs to improve access to capital for struggling manufacturers; (p) does the government plan to provide support for research into and implementation of energy efficient and environmentally sustainable manufacturing activities; (q) what obligations will the government place on all manufacturers to ensure that they maintain their presence in Canada and enhance employment opportunities in Canada; (r) how does the government plan to deal with the affect of the appreciating Canadian dollar on the profits of Canadian manufacturers; (s) does the government have a strategy to address the trade deficit in certain manufactured goods and to ensure a favourable trade balance; (t) does the government have a plan to encourage Canadians to buy Canadian products; (u) does the government plan to protect domestic producers from foreign competition by (i) introducing tariffs and quotas, (ii) ensuring Canada's trading partners comply with minimum labour and environmental standards; (v) will the government conduct a review of Canadian anti-dumping countervail and safe-guard measures to ensure they are adequately protecting Canadian producers; (w) what are the government's plans concerning free trade negotiations with South Korea and will the government refrain from entering into any agreement until non-tariff trade barriers providing an advantage to Korean manufacturers over Canadian manufacturers are removed; (x) what affect will Canada's free trade agreement with the members of the European Free Trade Association, announced on June 7, 2007, have on Canadian manufacturers and will any safeguards be in place to protect Canadian industry from European competition; and (y) will the government conduct a comprehensive study on the economic impact of NAFTA and other free trade agreements and implement strategies to deal with any negative impacts?
(Return tabled)Question No. 8--Mrs. Irene Mathyssen
With regard to Status of Women Canada's Women's Program, for each of the fiscal years 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, in the ridings of London—Fanshawe, London West, London North Centre, Durham, Sarnia—Lambton, Fleetwood—Port Kells, Kildonan—St. Paul, Simcoe North and Simcoe—Grey: (a) how many organizations have applied for funding and what is the name of each organization and amount of funding requested, broken down by fiscal year and riding in which the organizations are located; (b) how many organizations have been granted funding, what is the name of each organization and amount of funding, and the date it was granted, broken down by fiscal year and ridings in which the organizations are located; and (c) how many organizations were rejected for funding and what is the name of each organization, amount of funding requested, date and fiscal year requested, reason for rejection and the name of the riding in which the organization is located?
(Return tabled)Question No. 25--Mr. Wayne Marston
With respect to funds at the discretion of Ministers of the Crown: (a) what programs or funds exist within their ministerial purview that do not require standard grants and contributions practices to be followed; (b) under what authority could a Minister distribute funds without using the grants and contribution process; (c) with respect to such discretionary funds, how much does each Minister in the current cabinet have at their disposal, how much has each minister spent on a monthly basis, and on what; (d) who were the recipients of such funds, by department or Minister; (e) with respect to the period from January 2001 to December 2006, (i) how much did each Minister had at their disposal, (ii) how much did each Minister spent on annual basis, and on what, (iii) who were the recipients of such funds, by department or minister, (iv) what was the date of each disbursement; (f) from which budget do such funds come from; (g) other than the Minister, who has the power to determine how such funds are disbursed; (h) how do such disbursement relate to Treasury Board guidelines; and (i) what kind of oversight exists on how such funds are disbursed?
(Return tabled)Question No. 39--Mr. Nathan Cullen
With respect to the procurement of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) by the government over the last five years: (a) how many SUVs were purchased or leased on an annual basis; (b) what was the total government expenditure for the purchase or lease of such vehicles, on an annual basis; (c) what amount was spent by each department or agency; (d) how much was spent annually by each department or agency in the National Capital Region; (e) what was the breakdown by province; (f) which companies received government contracts with respect to the purchase or leasing of SUVs and what was the annual combined total of all contracts awarded to each company; and (g) what was the amount spent, on an annual basis, on the overall procurement of vehicles by the government and of this amount, how much was spent, on an annual basis in dollars and percentage, on SUVs?
(Return tabled)Question No. 51--Ms. Jean Crowder
With regard to the Third Party Management system for First Nations: (a) for the last five years, how many First Nations reserves have been operating under third party management and for how long; (b) for each of the reserves listed, who acts as their third party manager; and (c) for each of the reserves listed, how much was paid annually to the third party manager, and what percentage of band funding did that represent?
(Return tabled)Question No. 54--Mr. Richard Nadeau
With respect to the total number of government agency and Crown corporation jobs in the capital region from 1998 to 2007, how many were with the following government agencies, Crown corporations or other government organizations, broken down by the number of jobs either on the Outaouais side or the Ottawa side of the capital region: Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada; Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Canada; Northern Pipeline Agency Canada; Laurentian Pilotage Authority Canada; Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada; Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency; National Literacy Secretariat; Competition Bureau; Office of the Correctional Investigator; Transportation Safety Board of Canada; Public Service Integrity Office; Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner; Office of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals CPP/OAS; Office of the Prime Minister; Cadets Canada; Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety; Canadian Police College; Security Intelligence Review Committee; Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; Office of the Ethics Commissioner; Pension Appeals Board; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada; National Battlefields Commission; Status of Women Canada; Employment Insurance Board of Referees; Canadian Judicial Council; National Joint Council; Cape Breton Growth Fund Corporation; Tax Court of Canada; Federal Court of Appeal; Federal Court; Supreme Court of Canada; Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists; Elections Canada; Federal Labour Standards Review; ExportSource.ca; Canadian Race Relations Foundation; Canadian Coast Guard; Governor General of Canada; Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics; Infrastructure Canada; Royal Canadian Mint; Marine Atlantic; Currency Museum; Public Sector Pension Investment Board; Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation; Canadian Intellectual Property Office; Government of Canada Regulation Web Site; Federal Healthcare Partnership; Technology Partnerships Canada; Policy Research Initiative; Receiver General for Canada; Defence Research and Development Canada; Species at Risk Act Public Registry; Leadership Network; Canada Business Network; Networks of Centres of Excellence; Environmental Protection Review Canada; National Search and Rescue Secretariat; Service Canada; Criminal Intelligence Service Canada; Public Prosecution Service of Canada; Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation; Federal Bridge Corporation Limited; Canada Lands Company Limited; Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility; Veteran Review and Appeal Board?
(Return tabled)Question No. 70--Ms. Libby Davies
With respect to federal funding for Quebec's 400th anniversary celebrations: (a) what is the total amount of funding directed to this initiative and from which departmental budgets does this funding come from; (b) in regard to funds originating from the Department of Canadian Heritage, how much came specifically from the Main Estimates budget line that contains the “Celebrate Canada!” program funding; (c) which programs, events or activities are the recipients of these funds; (d) what is the distribution according to electoral riding; (e) what criteria is used to determine how funds are allocated; (f) what amount was spent outside the province of Quebec; (g) of funds allocated, how much were at the sole discretion of ministers of the Crown; and (h) which ministers distributed funds in such a fashion, by what amounts and to whom?
(Return tabled)Question No. 91--Mr. Bill Siksay
With respect to the “Celebrate Canada!” program administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage, in the past five fiscal years, including 2007-2008: (a) what was the total allocation of funds in each year; (b) what was the allocation of funds in each riding per year, broken down per grant; (c) what was the breakdown of funding to ridings represented by Conservative Members in each year; (d) what was the amount of funding to ridings represented by Liberal Party Members in each year; (e) what was the breakdown of funding to ridings represented by New Democratic Party Members in each year; (f) what was the breakdown of funding to ridings represented by Bloc Québécois Members in each year; (g) what was the breakdown of funding to ridings in each of the ten provinces and three territories in each year; (h) what was the funding application process for each year; and (i) what changes were made to the criteria and when?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Some hon. members: Agreed.