Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 103, 105, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 125, 136, 141, 145, 146, 152, 153, 162 and 163.
Question No. 103--Mr. Michael Savage
How many national, provincial or local literacy organizations were funded by the federal government for the period between 2000 and 2006, and what was the amount of money given to these organizations in each of those years?Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the amounts of funding provided to national, provincial and local organizations in the years in question are as follows:
|1999-2000: $29,587,676 *
|2000-01: $34,723,480 *
|2001-02: $43,208,315 *
|2002-03: $47,063,357 *
|2003-04: $42,763,117 (divided among 365 organizations)
|2004-05: $32,271,910 (divided among 224 organizations)
|2005-06: $33,359,333 (divided among 239 organizations)
|2006-07: $16,880,161 (divided among 147 organizations)**
* The distribution of funds by number of organizations is not available for the earlier years.
** Please note that 2006-07 was the first adult learning, literacy and essential skills program, ALLESP, call for proposals and, as such, was launched later in the year than calls for proposals under the former national literacy program. Therefore, fewer projects began and less money was spent in the 2006-07 fiscal year. The funding amounts for some of these projects will, as a result, appear under the 2007-08 fiscal year spending.
The government honoured all signed agreements and commitments with respect to the local and regional priorities agreed upon between the ALLESP and the provinces and territories in 2006-07. It is important to note that no projects were cancelled.Question No. 105--Ms. Olivia Chow
With regard to the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) and the government's child care initiatives: (a) how many families living below the national low income cut-off are receiving the UCCB; (b) if the UCCB were delivered through the Child Tax benefit as opposed to as a taxable benefit, how many families would no longer live below the low income cut-off; (c) how many child care spaces would be provided if the taxes the government collected from families receiving UCCB were re-invested into creating child care spaces; (d) how many child care spaces have been created each year from 2002 to 2006 through the multilateral framework agreement, the bilateral agreements, and agreements-in-principle since the agreements were signed; (e) how many spaces will be created in 2007 and 2008 through these agreements; (f) why does the government continue to send child care funds to the provinces when many of these provinces have not submitted reports on how funds received have been spent, and how many child care spaces have been created as a result of federal investments; (g) how many child care spaces have been created through the Child Care Spaces Initiative in each province since the program's inception in 2006; (h) how many families are collecting the UCCB; (i) what has been the enrolment rate on a monthly basis since the program was announced; (j) what is the breakdown of income levels, in numerical and percentage terms, of UCCB recipients; (k) with regards to recipients' marital status, how many are single and how many are married or in common law relationships; (l) what is the regional breakdown of those enrolled to receive the UCCB; (m) how many women and how many men are the recipients of the UCCB in their household; (n) in what percent of families registered to receive the UCCB was the recipient the lower income earner in that household; (o) what government studies have been done on the use of the UCCB since its inception in 2006, listing any such studies, including title, author, date of publication and a brief synopsis of its conclusions; (p) what polling has been done on the use of the UCCB since its inception in 2006, listing any such polling, including title, author, date of publication and a brief synopsis of its conclusions; and (q) how many child care spaces have been created by the UCCB, by province?Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),
all families with children under the age of six, including those families living below the low income cut-off, are eligible to receive the universal child care benefit, UCCB. 2005 data from the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics indicates that 263,000 families with children under the age of six were living below the after tax low income cut-off.
In response to (b), the UCCB is intended to help offset the costs of whatever form of child care families choose.
In response to (c), the UCCB is not intended to support the creation or provision of child care services and that is why the government is transferring an additional $250 million per year to the provinces and territories to help support the creation of new child care spaces.
In response to (d), the most recent data available show that the number of regulated child care spaces in Canada increased from 370,000 in 1992 to over 811,000 in 2006.
In response to (e), since 2004, federal transfers for children’s programs have increased and provinces have made their own direct investments. It is expected that the number of spaces will continue to rise accordingly.
In response to (f), provinces and territories have primary responsibility for programs and services for families with young children, including child care, and are accountable to their citizens for their investments.
In response to (g), budget 2007 introduced two new measures to support the creation of child care spaces: an investment tax credit for businesses that create spaces for the children of their employees; and a $250 million per year transfer to provinces and territories to support the creation and expansion of child care spaces. It is expected that the number of spaces will rise as a result of these investments.
In response to (h), in October 2007, approximately 1,473,000 families received the UCCB for approximately 1,967,000 children under the age of six.
In response to (i), following is the number of recipient families on a monthly basis
July, 1,384,000; August, 1,394,000; September, 1,412,000; October, 1,430,000; November, 1,442,000; December, 1,445,000;
January, 1,452,000; February, 1,450,000; March, 1,460,000; April, 1,464,000; May, 1,467,000; June, 1,462,000; July, 1,469,000; August, 1,471,000; September, 1,472,000; and October, 1,473,434.
In response to (j), the universality of the UCCB means that the demographic composition of recipients mirrors the composition of the general population of families with children under six.
In response to (k), the UCCB provides direct financial support for all families with young children regardless of income level, family type, marital status, where they live or whether one or both parents work outside the home. A breakdown of family type for UCCB is not available although, according to census 2006 of the 1,486,065 families with children under six, 955,915 were married couple familes, 282,755 were common law families and 247,400 were lone parent families.
In response to (l), in October 2007, of 1,473,434 families receiving the UCCB, 21,265, or 1.4%, are from Newfoundland and Labrador; 6,150, or 0.4%, are from Prince Edward Island; 38,127, or 2.5%, are from Nova Scotia; 31,170 or 2.1%, are from New Brunswick; 335,336, or 22.8%, are from Quebec; 576,593, or 39.1%, are from Ontario; 57,617 or 3.9%, are from Manitoba; 49,449, or 3.4%, are from Saskatchewanl 174,148, or 11.8%, are from Alberta; 175,757, or 11.9%, are from British Columbia, 2,507, or 0.2%, are from Northwest Territories; 1,454, or 0.1%, are from Yukon; 2,831 or 0.2%, are from Nunavut; and 1,030 or 0.1%, are people living on "Canadian soil" abroad.
In response to (m), the target population for UCCB is the child, not the parent. Therefore, given the universality of the UCCB, it can be assumed that the demographic composition of the recipients mirrors the composition of the general population of families with children under six.
In response to (n), the UCCB is taxable in the hands of the lower income earner spouse.
In response to (o), the UCCB is a new initiative introduced in July 2006. The federal government has not undertaken any studies on the use of the UCCB since that time.
In response to (p), the federal government has not undertaken any public opinion polling on the use of the UCCB since its introduction in July 2006.
In response to (q), the UCCB is not directly intended to support the creation or provision of child care services although our investments have been used by the provinces to announce the creation of more than 32,000 new spaces.
Question No. 109--Mr. Wayne Marston
With respect to the creation and implementation of a national, searchable DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank: (a) what is the government’s position on a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank; (b) does the government have a timeline to implement a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank and, if so, when; (c) does the government plan to bring the issue before Parliament or any of its committees and, (i) if so, when, and to which committees, (ii) if not, why not; (d) what studies and evaluations about a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government; and (e) if studies have been undertaken, (i) what individuals, departments or organizations undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies and (iii) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies?Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada supports in principle the creation of a searchable DNA human remains index and a DNA missing persons data bank or index, MPI. The government response to the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security states, “the Government is committed to a successful outcome for the ongoing federal-provincial-territorial process, led by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Ministers Responsible for Justice. It is working to reach consensus on the solutions to the legal, jurisdictional and cost challenges that are at play with regard to the establishment of a DNA-based missing persons index (MPI).”
In response to (b),in addition to the comprehensive work being done through the FPT process, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice have asked the Standing Committee on Public Safety to undertake a review of the DNA data bank as mandated in legislation.
Pending the outcome of the FPT process and the work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, no timeline has been set for implementation of a DNA MPI.
In response to (c), the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice have asked the Standing Committee on Public Safety to undertake a review of the DNA data bank as mandated in legislation. The committee may choose to include DNA MPI in its review and recommendations.
With regard to subparagraph (i), the Standing Committee on Public Safety sets its own agenda.
In response to (d), three subgroups reporting to an FPT MPI working group have considered issues related to the definition of a missing person, the costs of operating an MPI, and interlinked legal, jurisdictional and privacy questions. The three subgroups have produced reports for consideration by the working group. In addition, a workshop was organized to design a model for the MPI that would be acceptable to all parties; to examine costing for such a model; and to provide a map of the working process that would operationalize the system to implement the proposed model. A final report was prepared by the consultants for consideration by the working group.
In response to (e), subparagraph (i), the three subgroups that have undertaken studies had representation from provincial and territorial jurisdictions and the federal government. The workshop involved a select group of individuals representing policy, legal, scientific, managerial, program and enforcement disciplines from the following organizations: Public Safety Canada; Royal Canadian Mounted Police RCMP; RCMP Forensic Science and Identification; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Lab; British Columbia Public Safety and Regulatory/Coroners Service; Toronto Centre of Forensic Sciences; New Brunswick Regional Crown Prosecutors Office; Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale du Québec; and Bureau des Enquêtes criminelles, Sûreté du Québec. The only international representation in the workshop was the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation ,FBI, Lab. The consultant hired to lead the workshop was Baintree Group.
In response to subparagraph (ii), the Baintree Group contract was for $25,000.
In response to subparagraph (iii), the findings of the reports prepared by the FPT DNA MPI subgroups dealt with complex legal, jurisdictional and cost issues for the consideration of the working group with respect to the issues related to the implementation of a MPI. The report prepared by Baintree as a result of the workshop concluded that it would be possible and desirable to build a national missing persons index for Canada that would assist coroners, law enforcement and possibly others to identify missing persons for both humanitarian and criminal law enforcement reasons.
The subgroup reports also concluded that the MPI could be created with a dedicated processing centre that could be integrated with existing processing centres and that the analysis and investigative leads generated could be integrated into the existing infrastructure in Canada, non-disruptively, and would bring added value to the current provincial and regional missing persons programs. Finally, the subgroup reports concluded that a broader missing persons program for Canada should be examined for the feasibility of integrating missing persons services that currently exist in provincial and territorial programs across Canada with the information derived from the processing of DNA profiles from a MPI.
Question No. 110--Hon. Andy Scott
With regard to the core service review at the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the government's decision last winter to expand fully paid customs services to the Halifax International Airport and the Yarmouth Ferry Terminal: (a) how did the government arrive at the decision to select those two facilities; (b) what other airports and facilities across the country were recommended for these additional resources by CBSA; and (c) why did the government not grant expanded, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week customs service to those venues?Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to
(a), the Canada Border Services Agency conducted an internal review to determine if there were sites which qualified for immediate conversion to be provided with core services. As a result, three sites were identified for conversion, Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport, Yarmouth Ferry Terminal and Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport.
In reviewing sites for conversion, the criteria included the current levels of service and the demand for additional services.
The sites that were recommended for conversion to core services were recommended on the basis thatthey supported equity of service to industry;they did not create a precedent; and they were based on a proven track record.
Other sites were looked at but not recommended for immediate conversion.
In response to (b), other than those mentioned in (a), there are no other sites that qualified for immediate conversion.
The CBSA has conducted a core service review to establish a service delivery approach that is fair, transparent and flexible. Developing an effective and efficient CBSA core services delivery framework will maintain national security and support economic prosperity. Decisions to provide CBSA services are always carefully considered and take into account security service to the public and the government's fiscal responsibilities.
In response to (c), the government granted expanded, 24 hours a day, seven days a week customs service to Macdonald-Cartier International Airport and to the Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport. CBSA provides core hours of service at the Yarmouth Ferry Terminal from 08:00 to 17:00, seven days a week during the peak ferry season. Extended hours of service up to 21:00 were provided to the Yarmouth Ferry Terminal during the ferry season following the results of the conversion to core exercise. CBSA did not grant 24 hours a day, seven days a week service to the Yarmouth Ferry Terminal as it was not required by the ferry operators schedule.Question No. 112--Mr. Ken Boshcoff
With regard to the ongoing investigation by Mexican authorities into the murders of Dominic and Nancy Ianeiro in February 2006: (a) has the government of Canada formally asked the government of Mexico if Dr. Cheryl Everall and Ms. Kimberley Kim remain persons of interest to either federal or State of Quintana Roo authorities conducting the investigation; (b) if Dr. Cheryl Everall and Ms. Kimberley Kim remain persons of interest to either federal or State of Quintana Roo authorities, has the government of Mexico provided the government of Canada with information as to what the interest is in these two Canadian citizens; and (c) if there is no further interest, has the Canadian government formally requested that Mexican authorities provide written confirmation that these two women are no longer considered people of interest?Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in repsonse to
(a), with respect to Dr. Cheryl Everall and Ms. Kimberley Kim and whether they remain persons of interest in the Mexican investigation into the murders of Dominic and Annunziata Ianiero, the department confirms that this issue has been formally raised with the Mexican government. The previous minister of foreign affairs raised the issue in a telephone conversation with Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa on May 8, 2007. He noted that Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim had been named persons of interest by Mexican authorities when, to the best of the Government of Canada’s knowledge, there was no evidence to support this claim. He also expressed concern that Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim were living under the shadow of potentially unfounded suspicions. He asked Secretary Espinosa to speak with the appropriate Mexican authorities and advise the Government of Canada if there existed any reason why Mexican authorities could not issue a statement indicating that these women were no longer suspects in Ianieros’ murder. The previous minister sent a letter to Secretary Espinosa on May 9, 2007 to summarize their discussions and to reiterate his concerns.
In response to (b),on May 16, 2007, Secretary Espinosa responded to that letter. She stated that the Quintana Roo State Attorney General informed her that as the Ianiero murder investigation remained open, he could not eliminate any persons of interest, including Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim, from the investigation. Secretary Espinosa also noted that Mexico had made requests for information under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between Canada and Mexico. As these requests are confidential and related to an ongoing police investigation, we cannot comment on their contents.
In resonse to (c), senior officials from Ottawa and our embassy in Mexico raised the situation of Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim with the Secretariat des Relaciones Exteriores Estivill and the Mexican Deputy Head of Embassy in Ottawa during a meeting on November 27, 2007.
In response to (d), as noted, Mexican authorities have not yet indicated that Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim are no longer persons of interest. Canada continues to press for a swift, transparent and thorough investigation at every opportunity.
Question No. 114--Mr. Mario Silva
With respect to the 17 million dollar cuts to literacy programs announced in September 2006: (a) which programs or efficiencies were affected and what is the evaluation of said programs; and (b) which programs not mandated by statute have been cancelled since January 2006 and what are the reasons for their cancellation?Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC)
the government’s effective spending measures with literacy affected the adult learning, literacy and essential skills program, ALLESP.
In implementing these measures, the Government of Canada honoured all signed agreements and commitments with respect to the local and regional priorities agreed upon between the ALLESP and the provinces and territories in 2006-07. In addition, all project proposals submitted through the ALLESP calls for proposals, CFP, that concluded on or before September 15, 2006 were reviewed and considered for funding, including those received for local and regional activities through the provincial-territorial stream. All applicants were informed in writing of the outcome of their applications.
No literacy programs have been cancelled. ALLESP was created in April 2006, and brought together the Office of Learning Technologies, OLT, the national literacy program, NLP, and the learning initiatives program, LIP, under a single set of terms and conditions. The program is delivered by the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills, OLES. The ALLESP, and the effects of the expenditure review on this program, have not yet been evaluated. An implementation evaluation of the program is, however, scheduled for the 2008-09 fiscal year. Question No. 115--Mr. Mario Silva
With respect to emergency and contingency funds: (a) which funds were set up by the government in the previous fiscal year; (b) what was the size of each fund; (c) what amount of each fund was spent; and (d) what were the rules and purposes for accessing these funds?Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board has not established any new discrete funds to offset emergencies in the past year.At the same time, Treasury Board does maintain its vote 5 to supplement other appropriations in order to provide the government with the flexibility to meet unforeseen expenditures until parliamentary approval can be obtained. Parliamentarians are asked to approve vote 5 funding annually, as part of the main estimates. In 2007-08, Parliament has established this vote in the amount of $750 million.
Treasury Board evaluates departmental access to the government contingencies vote 5 using the following four criteria:
1. All advances from the government contingencies vote should be considered temporary advances to be covered by items included in subsequent supplementary estimates and reimbursed when the associated appropriation act is passed;
2. An organization’s existing appropriation must be insufficient to cover existing requirements and the new initiative until the next supply period. To that end, an organization must support any request with a valid cash flow analysis;
3. A valid and compelling reason exists, particularly as it relates to the payment of grants, as to why the payment needs to be made before the next supply period. If not, the payment should be deferred and access to Treasury Board vote 5 denied; and,
4. For grants, the transfer payment policy must be consulted and followed to ensure that a valid, legally incorporated recipient exists and that the organization clearly demonstrates that it needs to make a payment before the next supply period.
Among vote 5’s uses so far this fiscal year is:
$14.1 million to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for payments to farmers affected by flooding;
$7.9 million to Fisheries and Oceans Canada for compensation related to the east coast commercial fishers program; and,
$39 million to Transport Canada to provide funding for the ecoauto rebate program which encourages Canadians to buy fuel efficient vehicles.
Question No. 117--Hon. Roy Cullen
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency’s attempt to introduce a new cost recovery regime to address the current system: (a) what is the current status of this initiative, including details of any activity in relation to this in the last 20 months; and (b) what are the details of any direction on this file from the Minister of Public Safety, his staff or senior departmental officials in the last 20 months?Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to
(a), the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, does not have a separate departmental cost recovery policy. The agency currently follows the Treasury Board policy and the User Fees Act, 2004.
With respect to core services review,
the Canada Border Services Agency faces increasing demand to provide additional services beyond its current A-Base funding capacity.
The objectives of the core services review are to establish a service delivery state that is fair and transparent, and allows for adjustments to core services in response to changing demands and conditions.
The concept of “core services” was introduced in 1987 when the services in place at the time were grandfathered as core services, i.e., the hours of operation, the location and specific services provided were automatically accepted as core services and have been publicly funded. Since then, requests for services from stakeholders have generally been subject to cost recovery if the CBSA was not able to provide the service through A-Base funding. If the CBSA does not have the capacity to provide the service, e.g., lack of border services officers, the request may be declined.
During the 20 month period from March 2005 to November 2006, the core services review team researched and consulted with other Canadian government departments, e.g., Parks Canada, Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Natural Resources Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and foreign administrations, e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, on their approach and application of cost recovery and user fees policies in the delivery of government services. In the case of foreign administrations, the core services review team focused on the application of cost recovery and user fees as they apply to border services.
Consultation sessions with both internal, e.g., CBSA's executive management and regional directors, and external stakeholders in the air mode were held in February and April 2007. A wide range of air industry stakeholders, including airport authorities, aviation associations, and pilots associations were consulted on proposed policy and funding options for CBSA services. Stakeholders’ perceptions are that the CBSA's current service delivery and cost recovery practices are inconsistent and create a barrier to regional economic development. Stakeholders disagree with broad-based user fees and expressed their view that border services are a public good that should be publicly funded.
In July 2005, the CBSA conducted a comprehensive data collection exercise for service sites in the air and marine modes. The core services review team recently completed the data analysis for the air mode providing the agency with valuable information such as passenger volumes and average processing cost per passenger for airports with passenger clearance services. The marine mode review is currently underway.
The agency provides regular briefings and status updates to various industry stakeholders,e.g., the Air Transport Association of Canada and Transport Canada's aviation standing committee, on key developments and on the progress of the core services review.
In response to (b), during the 20 month period, the Minister of Public Safety has directed the agency to develop options to address existing service level issues. A Government of Canada announcement on this issue is anticipated in 2008, following consideration of options. In the meantime, CBSA’s current service delivery framework remains in effect.
Developing an effective and efficient CBSA core services delivery framework will maintain national security and support economic prosperity.
Decisions to provide CBSA services are always considered and take into account security service to the public and the government's fiscal responsibilities.Question No. 118--Hon. Roy Cullen
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency’s Fairness Initiative: (a) what is the current status of this initiative, including details of any activity in relation to this project in the last 20 months; and (b) what are the details of any direction on this file from the Minister of Public Safety, his staff or senior departmental officials in the last 20 months?Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in July 2005 the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, announced the launch of consultations on a new fairness initiative that included a series of proposed commitments on how people should expect to be treated at the border. The CBSA also announced that it would be working on an improved complaint and compliment mechanism.
Between July 2005 and June 2007, the CBSA received comments on CBSA’s commitment to fairness through a web address on CBSA’s Internet site specifically designated to receive comments on the fairness initiative.
During the last 20 months, the CBSA has pursued a number of activities to further develop this initiative to bring it to the point where it is ready for implementation. These activities have included the following:
review of the service pledges of other modern border administrations to adopt the best practices of those organizations which have resulted in the expansion of the original initiative to include the responsibilities of the client, as well as identifying a detailed proposal for an enhanced mechanism to manage complaints;
development of draft preliminary procedures for a singlewindow complaint process;
creation of a client feedback form and a prototype for a national complaint reporting system, which would allow for a more nationally consistent mechanism to analyze, respond, track and report on complaints received by the CBSA.
Given that the initiative evolved into the three distinct components of service commitments, client responsibilities, and a complaint mechanism, the “fairness” banner did not appropriately capture the full essence of the broadened initiative, and the expanded initiative became “CBSA’s client rights and responsibilities”.
During this period, a consultative document entitled “A Guide to CBSA’s Client Rights and Responsibilities” was developed. In addition, in anticipation of the implementation of this initiative, a full communications plan and supporting communication products publicizing the initiative and the enhanced complaints process were developed.
Throughout this period, feedback on the expanded initiative was sought internally, as well as from the Canada Border Services Advisory Committee, CBSAC, whose membership is drawn from a cross-section of academia, businesses and associations that would be affected by broad border management decisions. In all cases, the proposed commitments, client responsibilities, and the anticipated complaint mechanism received significant support.
While CBSA senior officials have acknowledged the importance of this initiative, and significant progress has been made on this file, no final decision can be made with respect to implementation of this initiative until a source of ongoing funding is identified to support this initiative. Once final decisions have been made with respect to A Base and Core Service recommendations, CBSA will be in a better position to determine if there is a source of funds for this initiative.
In response to (b), no direction has been required from the minister or his staff on this initiative in the last 20 months.
Question No. 120--Mr. Todd Russell
With regards to the Lower Churchill hydro-electric project: (a) has the government received any request or submission in respect of a loan guarantee for the construction of this project or its associated transmission lines; and (b) has the government made any budgetary provision for such a loan guarantee and, if so, (i) what is the value of that loan guarantee, (ii) who has requested it, (iii) which departmental budget is this loan guarantee booked against?Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to
(a), the federal government has not received a formal request for a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project or its associated transmission lines.
In response to (b), the federal government has not made any budgetary provisions for such a loan guarantee.Question No. 125--Ms. Alexa McDonough
With respect to Canada's international development commitments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): (a) what funding has been allocated to assist the land distribution commission in North Kivu; (b) what assistance has the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) provided to state agencies in their capacity to collect tax revenue; (c) what contributions has CIDA made to projects preventing and eradicating smuggling from the DRC; (d) which international agencies and non-governmental organizations are involved with CIDA's project number A032983-001 (Project Against Sexual Violence (DRC)), and which provinces are the principal beneficiaries of the project; (e) what measures have been taken in order to provide women with civilian justice; and (f) what socio-economic reintegration policies does the project support?Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),
CIDA has not allocated any funding to land distribution commissions in the North Kivu.
In response to (b), CIDA has not provided any assistance to state agencies in their capacity to collect tax revenue.
In response to (c), CIDA has not made any contributions to any projects aiming to prevent or eradicate smuggling from the DRC.
In response to (d), CIDA's project A-032983-001, project against sexual violence, is a grant to a multilateral initiative led by three United Nations agencies: UNFPA, UNICEF and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Other UN system agencies affiliated with this project include the UNDP, UNHCR, UNIFEM, the WHO and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Activities, OCHA. International non-governmental organizations involved with the project include Caritas International, Médecins sans frontières France, Médecins sans frontières Holland and Heal Africa.
The provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu are the two beneficiaries of the project.
In response to (e), CIDA supports a project led by the UN office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The project plans to provide 30% of victims and their families with improved access to civilian justice. Any judicial remedies themselves are not actually delivered by the project as that is the responsibility of the state. The project aims to: sensitize and train officials within the justice system on the issue of sexual violence; engage traditional customary leaders on how to use the law to protect victims; organize outreach campaigns on human rights and; provide legal aid to victims. This major component of the project is led by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and is currently commencing its activities.
In response to (f), family, social and community reintegration is a major component of the project. The intended result is that 30% of victims return to their family and/or community of origin. This involves the creation of welcome and orientation structures, facilitation mechanisms and confidentiality safeguards. Victim reintegration profiles are developed to determine assistance packages. Socio-economic studies are conducted to identify reintegration opportunities. Examples of socio-economic reintegration to date include small-scale farming and livestock herding, culinary arts, dressmaking and weaving, soap making and small-scale retail trade. Many victims also receive parallel literacy and general education courses.Question No. 136--Hon. Judy Sgro
With respect to the northern section of the Spadina subway line to York University and to the Vaughan Corporate Centre: (a) what is the exact dollar amount that the government will commit to this project; (b) when will the funding begin to flow into this project; (c) will the funding flow on time for the expected project start date; (d) has the government signed off on the funding-dependent federal environmental assessment; and (e) has the government completed the funding-dependent due diligence review and the negotiation of the contribution agreement?Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the federal government proposes to fund up to one-third of the eligible costs associated with the Toronto-York subway extension project, up to a maximum funding level of $697 million.
In response to (b), $75 million from the public transit capital trust has been disbursed to the province and is immediately available for use. The remaining amount will be funded through the building Canada fund. This program works on an invoice basis; as costs are incurred, the proponent will be reimbursed on eligible costs pursuant to the terms of the contribution agreement. Accordingly, this funding will flow to the recipient once eligible expenses have been incurred and have been submitted to the federal government.
In response to (c), Infrastructure Canada officials are working diligently with officials from the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission in order to ensure that due diligence is completed, and the necessary agreements are signed as quickly as possible. At this time, federal officials are waiting on several pieces of information from the city that are material to conclude due diligence. Once due diligence is completed, formal approval by Treasury Board of the project can follow, as can the signature of a contribution agreement on the project.
In response to (d), on November 7, 2007, a draft screening report, submitted by the proponent, was received by members of the federal environmental assessment, EA, review team. Once the draft document has been reviewed and comments from federal reviewers are adequately addressed, the EA documentation will be finalized and federal EA decision(s) will be made. Assuming that no substantial issues arise during the review period and current timelines are met, federal officials anticipate that EA decision(s) will be made prior to the end of this fiscal year.
In response to (e), please refer to the response to (c).
Question No. 141--Hon. Larry Bagnell
With regard to budgetary freeze and cuts affecting the Canadian Wildlife Service, what plans has the Ministry of Environment developed and implemented to enforce the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Wildlife Act to: (a) monitor the health of migratory birds, waterfowl and songbirds; (b) identify plant and wildlife species at risk; (c) run recovery programs; (d) protect 144 national wildlife reserves across Canada; (e) enforce environmental and pollution laws affecting birds, wildlife and their habitats; and (f) reassure Canadians that recent budgetary freeze and cuts will not jeopardize scientific projects that may have human health ramifications?Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the important role that conservation plays in protecting species at risk and ensuring healthy ecosystems, and is committed to conserving Canada’s landscape and wildlife. These goals are supported by new investments of $375 million in current and multi-year funding for conservation programs, the largest investment in conservation in Environment Canada’s history.
Environment Canada will continue to carry out programs and initiatives to protect and conserve wildlife and the habitat where they live. This fiscal year, the overall budget for Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service is $84.5 million, an increase of 13% from last year. This is the largest budget that the Canadian Wildlife Service has ever had, and includes salary for staff, operating funding and money for partners.
In September, temporarily, budget commitment approvals were moved up a higher level while a review of spending for the remainder of the fiscal year was undertaken. Budget allocations were adjusted and work is well under way in all priority areas. Good financial management and stewardship of resources continues to be followed.
In response to (a), Environment Canada remains committed to the migratory bird program. The majority of expenditures occurred in the spring and summer due to the field season nature of the program. Work on assessing data collected and developing regulations and conservation plans is ongoing. Bird surveys in high priority areas are also continuing. The department will continue to support key work to conserve wetland habitat and migratory birds through the North American waterfowl management plan.
The department is undertaking a review of its various monitoring activities to ensure they are efficient and necessary. A limited number of monitoring coordination activities have been put on hold while this review is underway. Environment Canada will continue to carry out programs and initiatives to protect and conserve wildlife and the habitat where they live.
In response to (b), Environment Canada continues to deliver on its commitment for species at risk. This includes support for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada, the independent scientific body responsible under the Species at Risk Act for assessing the status of species which may be at risk in Canada. The committee is continuing to meet in order to conduct status reports and species assessments, to help inform the Minister of the Environment’s listing recommendations under the Species at Risk Act.
The department continues to support advisory committees which provide important advice on issues related to species at risk, including the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk and the Species at Risk Advisory Committee. The Council is composed of representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and is mandated under the Species at Risk Act to advise the minister on the administration of the act. The Species at Risk Advisory Committee is composed of representatives from non-government organizations, industry, and other stakeholders, and provides advice to the department on the conservation of species at risk.
In response to (c), Environment Canada is continuing to work with provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal organizations and other stakeholders to develop recovery strategies for species listed under the Species at Risk Act. Recovery strategies are advice to government which set population goals, objectives and broad approaches to respond to the known threats to the survival of the species, identify critical habitat to the extent possible, and set time lines for the preparation of action plans. As of October 15, 2007, the federal government had finalized 42 recovery strategies addressing 69 species, one action plan and two management plans. An additional 25 draft recovery strategies addressing 28 species have been posted for public comment. Critical habitat had been identified for 15 species and proposed for four others.
Environment Canada is also allocating over $16 million to external partners to take action through its funding programs, including the habitat stewardship program, the interdepartmental recovery fund, the aboriginal funds for species at risk and the endangered species recovery fund, to support recovery for species at risk.
In response to (d), support for the ongoing management of Canada’s network of protected areas continues. Environment Canada has recently realigned priorities in order to ensure the protection of its 143 national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries.
In addition to this ongoing investment, budget 2007 includes significant new investments in Environment Canada's protected areas, including $10 million over two years for the establishment of national wildlife areas in the Northwest Territories, and $3.25 million over five years for marine protected areas under the health of the oceans initiative.
In response to (e), last February, the 2007 budget provided $67 million over five years to increase enforcement officers by 50%. This signals the government’s desire to break with the past and pursue an approach to environmental protection and conservation more grounded in regulation and enforcement. Environment Canada is currently working to hire these new officers and have them in place in 2008.
In response to (f), the mandate of Environment Canada wildlife programs is to conserve and protect wildlife species and habitat. In that regard, there are very few instances that necessitate conducting scientific projects that may have human health ramifications. In the case of avian influenza, Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service continues to treat this as high priority.
Question No. 145--Mr. Bill Casey
With regard to the investigations into the use of a taser device on Robert Dziekanski by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP: (a) which individuals from these organizations are responsible for the investigations; (b) what time frames have been given for the investigations to be completed and when can the public and parliamentarians expect to be advised on the results of these investigations; and (c) will the RCMP reduce or place a moratorium on the use of taser devices nation-wide until after the above-noted investigations are concluded?Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, in response to (a),
the Integrated Homicide Investigative Team,IHIT, in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia is responsible for the investigation. This unit is led by a superintendent of the RCMP and consists of 76 investigators of which seven are from non-RCMP departments.
In response to (b), the IHIT investigation is nearing completion with a time frame of approximately mid-March 2008 for the submission of a report to Crown counsel for a legal opinion on the circumstances. This is dependent on the receipt of key material from agencies external to the RCMP, which also includes the completion of the requested travel by investigators to Poland to obtain further information.
In response to (c), following the receipt of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP ,CPC, interim report, the RCMP advised on December 14, 2007 that the RCMP policy regarding the use of a conducted energy weapon, CEW, would be amended to more clearly define use of force terminology and limit the use of CEWs to situations where a subject is displaying combative behaviors or is being actively resistant.
With respect to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, CPC, in response to (a),
the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, CPC, initiated a complaint into the in-custody death of Robert Dziekanski on November 8, 2007. Under section 45.37 of the RCMP Act, a complaint initiated by the chair shall be investigated by the RCMP; it is the sole responsibility of the RCMP Commissioner to conduct this investigation.
In response to (b), when the RCMP has completed its investigation, the CPC will be in a position to prepare a report on the disposition of the complaint by the RCMP.
In response to (c), the chair of the CPC also provided the Minister of Public Safety with a report and recommendations entitled “RCMP Use of the Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW): Interim Report” on December 12, 2007. The final report will be completed by early summer 2008. In this report, the CPC did not recommend that a moratorium be placed on the use of the CEW. Rather, the commission recommended that the RCMP immediately restrict the use of the conducted energy device by classifying it as an “impact weapon” in the use of force model and allow its use only in those situations where an individual is behaving in a manner classified as being “combative” or posing a risk of “death or grievous bodily harm” to the officer, themselves or the general public.
Question No. 146--Mr. Bill Casey
With regard to ongoing internal investigations of the government, following the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar: (a) how many internal investigations continue or have been concluded in regard to information leaked by individual members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to American authorities; (b) who is conducting these investigations; (c) if the investigations are still underway, when are the investigations expected to be completed; and (d) when will the results be made known to parliamentarians and the public?Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, there are no internal investigations under way into ''leaked information" to American authorities by the RCMP. There has been no finding by Justice O’Connor, that information was inappropriately "leaked" to American authorities. On the contrary, Justice O'Connor endorsed RCMP information sharing with the American authorities.Question No. 152--Hon. Shawn Murphy
With regard to the EcoAuto program under Environment Canada: (a) how many applications have been filed since October 1, 2007; (b) how many applications have been approved; (c) how many applications have been denied; (d) how long is the average length to receive notification of the approval or denial of an application; (e) what models of automobiles have been applied for; (f) what models of cars have been approved for the EcoAuto rebate; (g) what regions have applied for the rebate; and (h) what is the percentage of the rebate deemed eligible for each purchase?Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the ecoauto rebate program encourages Canadians to buy or lease fuel efficient vehicles. The program is delivered in partnership, with Transport Canada as the program lead, and Service Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, as the delivery arm of the program, handling public calls and processing applications.
In response to (a), as of January 16, 2008, 42,270 applications had been received. Canadians who have bought, or leased, for 12 months or more, an eligible vehicle as of March 20, 2007, may apply for a rebate through the ecoauto rebate program.
In response to (b), as of January 16, 2008, 13,190 applications hae been approved and over $15.6 million in rebates had been issued.
In response to (c), as of January 16, 2008, 684 applications had been deemed ineligible.
In response to (d), the program was announced in March 2007 and the government’s commitment to start issuing rebate cheques in fall 2007 has been met. The application form has been available since October 1, 2007.
Since the launch of the program, a large volume of applications have been received. All efforts are being made to process the applications as quickly as possible and measures have been implemented to minimize the requirement for follow-up with applicants about missing or incomplete information.
Measures have also been put in place to ensure due diligence to adequately input, track, review and validate the applications prior to approval.
Information regarding the status of applications can be obtained by calling 1-866-506-6804.
In response to (e), applications have been received for models of cars on the list of eligible vehicles as well as others that were not eligible.
In response to (f), the list of vehicles that are eligible under ecoauto can be found at www.ecoaction.gc.ca/ecoAUTO and only those vehicles would be approved for a rebate.
In response to (g), all Canadian provinces and territories have applications submitted to the ecoauto rebate program.
In response to (h), the ecoauto rebate program is providing a cash incentive to Canadians to help the environment by buying or leasing more fuel efficient vehicles. The rebate is based on fuel consumption ratings.
There are different rebate criteria for passenger cars and light trucks since consumers have different needs and shop for different categories of vehicles. The intention of this measure is to encourage consumers to purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles while still fulfilling their individual needs.
Current vehicle models qualifying for the rebate include some hybrid electric vehicles and highly energy efficient vehicles. The list of eligible vehicles includes:
new passenger cars with a combined city/highway fuel consumption of 6.5 litres per 100 kilometres or less;
new minivans, sport utility vehicles and other light trucks with a combined city/highway fuel consumption of 8.3 litres per 100 kilometres or less; and
new flex-fuel vehicles, i.e., vehicles equipped by manufacturers to operate on gasoline or a blend of 85% ethanol/15% gasoline, with a combined city/highway E85 fuel consumption rating of 13.0 litres per 100 kilometres or less.Question No. 153--Ms. Alexa McDonough
With respect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: (a) what is the current status of federal and provincial negotiations in regard to Canada's ratification of the document; (b) what stage of the ratification process has the Convention reached; (c) has the government consulted with the provinces on their position in regard to ratifying the treaty; (d) what position have the provinces taken; (e) what, if any, amendments must be made to provincial legislation in order to accommodate the ratification of the Convention; (f) are such amendments being made; (g) are federal-provincial negotiations ongoing; (h) what negotiations have taken place; (i) who is conducting these discussions, mediations or negotiations; (j) what is the timeline to complete these negotiations; (k) which government departments are involved in these negotiations; (l) has the government consulted with non-governmental organizations during the ratification process; (m) what advice has the government received from agents of civil society; (n) is the government studying the unsigned optional protocol; and (o) what is the timeline for these considerations?Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, hereinafter referred to as the convention, is a significant advancement in international law concerning the rights of persons with disabilities. In being among the first countries to sign the convention, the Government of Canada demonstrated its leadership with respect to disability issues and the importance Canada attaches to the rights of persons with disabilities.
In response to (a), (b), (c) and (g), many of the areas covered by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. During the negotiation of the convention at the United Nations, the Government of Canada consulted extensively with the provinces and territories and was pleased with the level of support the convention received. The process of human rights treaty ratification in Canada typically requires detailed consultation, rather than "negotiation", with provinces and territories. The Government of Canada is currently working very closely and diligently with the provinces and territories to examine the legal and policy implications of ratifying the convention.
In response to (d), (e) and (f), the provinces and territories are currently examining the legal and policy implications of the convention. Questions regarding the positions of provinces and territories are best answered by them.
In response to (i) and (k), processes for consultations with provincial and territorial governments vary. With respect to the signature and ratification of new international human rights treaties, where these treaties contain provisions that fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, the Government of Canada consults with provincial and territorial governments through the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights, CCOHR, to verify compliance and support before signature or ratification. More information about the committee can be found on the Canadian Heritage website, http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/comite_committee_e.cfm.
In response to (j) and (o), the question of ratifying the convention is under active consideration and involves consultation with many diverse players. It is not possible at this time to set out a timeframe.
In response to (k), the following federal government departments and agencies have been engaged in discussions regarding the legal and policy implications of ratifying the convention: Justice, Heritage, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Health, Department of National Defence, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Statistics Canada, Treasury Board, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Finance, Privy Council Office, Status of Women, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Correctional Service of Canada, Service Canada, Industry Canada, Transport Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Veterans Affairs Canada, Public Safety Canada, Canada Public Service Agency, Canadian International Development Agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canada Border Services Agency, and Library and Archives Canada.
In response to (l) and (m), during the negotiation of the convention at the United Nations and prior to Canada signing the convention, NGOs were consulted and helped shape Canadian negotiating positions, including as members of Canada's delegation to the negotiations. Public views on the issue of ratification are being tracked. Further consultations are anticipated going forward.
In response to (n), the Government of Canada is focusing its attention on the convention itself at this juncture.Question No. 162--Mr. Ken Boshcoff
With respect to Environment Canada project K2A65-06-0039 which was awarded to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in January and February 2007: (a) what is the annual amount of funding provided by Environment Canada to the IISD; (b) what is the designated use for the funds outlined in sub-question (a); (c) what is the contract value of project K2A65-06-0039; (d) what policies are in place to ensure fairness and accountability in the Request for Proposal (RFP) process when an RFP submission is received from an organization that is also funded by Environment Canada; (e) which departments were directly involved in the decision to fund the IISD; (f) were any ministerial staff directly involved in the decision to fund the IISD and, if so, which ones; (g) which departments were directly involved in the decision to award project K2A65-06-0039 to the IISD; and (h) were any ministerial staff directly involved in the decision to award project K2A65-06-0039 to the IISD and, if so, which ones?Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, In response to (a), the Government of Canada created the International Institute for Sustainable Development in 1990 with the intention that it would eventually secure the majority of its funding independently. Environment Canada was the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s primary source of funding for its first decade of operation contributing $15.6 million over 10 years to its core operating costs, until 2000. Since then, contributions to the International Institute for Sustainable Development have varied depending on how its work related to Environment Canada’s priorities.
Environment Canada is currently in the third year of the current contribution agreement with the International Institute for Sustainable Development. While the original agreement provided $1 million per year, this was reduced to $750,000 in 2007-08 to cope with the overall reductions in the department’s grants and contributions budget.
The Government of Canada contribution amounts to 16% of the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s overall funding; Environment Canada’s contribution represents 43% of the federal funding. The International Institute for Sustainable Development currently, i.e., 2007, receives additional funds from governments of other countries, 48%; philanthropic foundations and the private sector, 18%; United Nations agencies, 7%; and international organizations, 5%.
In response to (b), half the funds transferred to the International Institute for Sustainable Development fund a directed research program, examining sustainable development issues which assist in advancing the department’s priorities. The remaining half is channeled toward the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s base funding and is used to assist with core operating costs. The Canadian International Development Agency also provides core funding to the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
In response to (c), the contract value of project K2A65-06-0039 is $132,946.00.
In response to (d), in order to assure fairness and accountability, the subject contract was competed, evaluated and subsequently awarded in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treasury Board contracting policy.
In response to (e), Environment Canada made the decision to enter into a funding agreement with the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Departments consulted in advance of the decision were the Canadian International Development Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
In response to (f), negotiation of the current Environment Canada-International Institute for Sustainable Development contribution agreement was conducted by departmental officials without involvement of ministerial staff. In July 2005, the contribution agreement was signed by the Minister of the Environment, on the recommendation of the Deputy Minister of Environment Canada.
In response to (g), Environment Canada was the only department involved in the decision to award project K2A65-06-0039.
In response to (h), no ministerial staff was involved in the award of the subject contract.
Question No. 163--Mr. Lloyd St. Amand
With regard to a water treatment facilities: (a) is the government working on providing funding for a water treatment facility for residents of Six Nations of the Grand River Territory and, if so, how much will be provided; and (b) when will the government provide funding for a water treatment facility in Ohsweken and what is the concrete timeline for the implementation and distribution of this funding?Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, as I, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, reiterated on January 17, 2008, when launching the latest progress report on the plan of action for drinking water in first nations communities, the Government of Canada remains committed to ensuring that all first nations communities have access to safe potable water. In July 2006, Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation made a preliminary project submission to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for a new water treatment plant. In September 2006, the first nation agreed to engage in a value engineering study to review all servicing costs prior to finalizing a revised preliminary project submission.
A meeting to review the results of the value engineering team’s recommendations was to be held on
January 21, 2008. Due to a change in political leadership at Six Nations, the meeting has been postponed, and will be rescheduled after February 6, 2008. The timing and costs of this project will be established based on the results of this process.
Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 9, 66, 88, 106, 108, 113, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 138, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157 and 164 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 9--Ms. Catherine Bell
With regard to export of bulk water and intra-basin diversions from Canada: (a) what is the current policy of the government; (b) has there been any change to this policy since January 23, 2006 and, if so, what changes have been made; (c) how many applications for the export of bulk water have been received by the government, listing of the requestors and the municipality within which they are located, and what is the current status of these requests; (d) in terms of bulk water exports and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) negotiations, (i) in what context has bulk water been discussed, (ii) what is the substance of our trading partners demands, (iii) have any agreements, either in preliminary or final form, been reached in this regard with corporations or foreign governments; (e) what did the Minister's briefing book to the SPP meetings say about bulk water; (f) are there other trade discussions currently on going that involve bulk water exports or intra-basin diversions and, if so, (i) what is the substance of these discussions, (ii) what is being asked of the government, (iii) what is the current state of the negotiations; (g) what legal advice has the government received regarding the export of bulk water from Canada; and (h) what scientific advice has the government received in regard to the export of bulk water and intra-basin diversions from Canada?
(Return tabled)Question No. 66--Ms. Catherine Bell
With respect to the $6.4 million reduction in grants to voluntary sector organizations for adult literacy in the 2007-2008 Main Estimates, broken down between non-profit and for-profit groups: (a) which voluntary sector organizations have received funding from Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC) from September 2006 to May 2007 and from which province or territory those organizations or entities are located; (b) what was the dollar amount for each grant that each organization received from September 2006 to September 2007; (c) on which dates the grants were awarded to the voluntary sector organizations that received funding from HRSDC from September 2006 to September 2007; (d) what are the expiration dates for the grants that were awarded to voluntary sector organizations that received funding from HRSDC from September 2006 to September 2007; (e) in what way were evaluation criteria modified mid-way through the application process, and whose decision was it to make this change; (f) which organizations received reduced funding, including to reduction to zero, for the 2007-2008 fiscal year compared with the 2006-2007 fiscal year; (g) is the government aware of how those organizations have addressed this shortfall in their budget, providing details, if so; (h) how does the government explain the reduction of funding for voluntary sector organizations (as stated on p. 14-9 of the 2007-2008 Estimates), but then the increase in funding for voluntary sector organizations (as stated on p. 14-11 of the 2007-2008 Estimates); and (i) what is the detailed breakdown as to the difference between the two line items in (h)?
(Return tabled)Question No. 88--Mr. Don Bell
What was the justification for the policy that the Minister of Finance announced on October 31, 2006 with regard to income trusts?
(Return tabled)Question No. 106--Ms. Olivia Chow
With regard to Canada’s immigration system: (a) how many Canadians have family members who have been deported since 2000, listed by each year, to 2006, and projected into 2007; (b) how many individuals have been deported from Canada since the year 2000, listed by each year, to 2006, and projected into 2007; (c) how many of these individuals had been in Canada for five or more years; (d) what is the cost of deporting these individuals per year, since 2000, listed by departments, including the court cost; (e) how many of these individuals had filed appeals to Federal Court; (f) how many of these individuals were ordered removed with their children, provide a list of the ages of all those under the age of 18 and how many of each age group were ordered removed; (g) how many of these individuals had Canadian born children, and how many of these Canadian children have been removed out of Canada and what are their ages; (h) how many of these individuals left Canadian-born children in Canada when removed; (i) how many of these individuals have immediate family (as defined by Citizenship and Immigration under the Family Class) in Canada, and how many individuals have non-family class relatives in Canada; (j) how many of these individuals were married to a Canadian citizen while in Canada; (k) how many of these individuals were ordered removed to countries for which the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has issued any travel warnings; (l) how many of these individuals have returned to Canada since their ordered removal, provide a list of countries for which these individuals returned to Canada from after their removal; (m) how many of these individuals returned to Canada since their ordered removal with children under the age of 18, and how many of these children were born in Canada; and (n) what immigration categories did these individuals apply under when they arrived in Canada originally and when they return?
(Return tabled)Question No. 108--Ms. Olivia Chow
With respect to crime prevention programs: (a) what studies and evaluations have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government with respect to budget cuts to social programs and the rise in violent crime since 1995; (b) which studies are related specifically to the rise in violent youth crime; (c) what individuals, department, or organization undertook these studies; (d) what is the cost of these studies; (e) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (f) how many projects have been funded through the Crime Prevention Action Fund since 2000; (g) how many of these projects were pilot projects, and how long did each last for; (h) how long were the projects funded for; (i) how many and which projects have been funded in the city of Toronto since 2000; (j) how much has been invested in the Youth Gang Prevention Fund every year since 2000; (k) which programs have been funded through the Youth Gang Prevention Fund in the city of Toronto since 2000 and how much was granted in each case; (l) how many of these projects were pilot projects and how long did each last; (m) what is the annual funding for the National Centre for Crime Prevention; (n) how much was cut or re-allocated from the refocusing of some funding from the National Centre for Crime Prevention in the 2006 budget; (o) where did the 2006 budget cuts come from and which projects or organizations were cut; (p) what was the purpose, goal, and outcome of the refocusing of funding to the National Centre for Crime Prevention; (q) how many programs were funded by the National Centre for Crime Prevention in every year since 2000; (r) how many programs were funded through the national drug strategy in every year since 2000; (s) how many of the programs have been evaluated in the past four years; (t) how many young people received services as a result of this funding; (u) how many of these evaluations were positive; (v) of all the programs that are evaluated as having positive outcomes, how many programs have since lost their funding; (w) how many young people lost their opportunities for services as a result; and (x) how many neighbourhoods were affected as a result and what impact did these lost programs have on the crime rate in these neighbourhoods?
(Return tabled)Question No. 113--Mr. Mario Silva
With respect to programs and funding: (a) which accounts, budgets and envelopes used less than 50 per cent of their allotted funds last year and how much was actually spent; (b) when evaluating a program that did not spend either most or its entire budget in the past year, how are the levels of funding determined for subsequent years; and (c) what incentives are there for programs to not spend leftover funds on superfluous expenditures in order to re-secure the same higher funding levels the next year?
(Return tabled)Question No. 119--Ms. Peggy Nash
With regard to federal spending in the federal riding of Parkdale—High Park, what has been the total federal spending in each of the last five years by the following departments, described by individual line item and program: (a) Canadian Heritage; (b) Human Resources and Social Development Canada; (c) Veteran's Affairs; (d) Infrastructure Canada; (e) Transport Canada; (f) National Defence; (g) Industry Canada; and (h) Environment Canada?
(Return tabled)Question No. 121--Mr. Todd Russell
With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, what was the funding amount allocated, granted, or contributed to each harbour in the federal electoral district of Labrador, in each of the years 2003 through 2007 inclusive?
(Return tabled)Question No. 122--Mr. Todd Russell
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada's Community Engagement Partnership Fund: (a) what is the funding amount, recipient organization name, date and location of each grant or contribution made under that fund since January 1, 2006; and (b), who made the public announcement of that grant or contribution?
(Return tabled)Question No. 123--Mr. Todd Russell
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada’s Cenotaph/Monument Restoration Program: (a) what is the funding amount, recipient organization name, date and location of each grant or contribution made under that Program since January 1, 2006; and (b) who made the public announcement of that grant or contribution?
(Return tabled)Question No. 124--Mr. Michael Ignatieff
With respect to the “internal reallocation of resources” of $36,778,000 from Vote 1 to Vote 5 by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development in the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2007-2008, as tabled in the House of Commons on October 30, 2007: (a) what programs or services will be cut or reduced as a result of the proposed reduction of $36,778,000 under Vote 1; and (b) to what programs or services will this sum be reallocated under Vote 5?
(Return tabled)Question No. 126--Ms. Alexa McDonough
With regard to the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons: (a) what is the government's position on this issue; (b) why did the government abstain from the UN First Committee resolution vote on effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium; (c) how many DU-tipped stockpiled weapons exist within the Canadian armed forces; (d) have DU weapons been utilized in any combat missions involving Canadian forces in Afghanistan; (e) have DU weapons been used in any Canadian military operations in Kandahar; (f) what measures has the government taken to ensure other International Security Assistance Force or Operation Enduring Freedom partners do not use DU weapons; and (g) what research, if any, has the government sponsored or funded analyzing the potential risks or health hazards associated with the use of DU weapons, and what have been the findings, conclusions or recommendations produced by this research?
(Return tabled)Question No. 128--Hon. Marlene Jennings
With regard to crime prevention initiatives: (a) how do the departments of Justice and Public Safety currently define “crime prevention initiatives”; (b) what are the specific eligibility requirements, admissibility conditions or criteria and evaluation criteria established for each program; (c) what was the process by which eligibility requirements were changed; (d) what was the total spending between January 1, 2006 and September 13, 2007, by the departments of Justice and Public Safety, on crime prevention initiatives, including previously existing programs and initiatives, new programs and initiatives, but excluding those programs which have been announced but not yet implemented; (e) what was (i) the number of applications for funding in each program, (ii) the number of applications deemed eligible, (iii) the number of applications approved for funding; (f) what was the percentage of amount requested, represented by the actual funding approval; (g) what was the median length of project life; (h) what was the number of applications approved for (i) 1-year funding, (ii) 2-year funding, (iii) 3-year funding, (iv) 4-year funding, (v) 5-year funding, (vi) 6-year funding, (vii) 7-year funding, (viii) 8-year funding, (ix) 9-year funding, (x) 10-year funding; and (i) what is the current projected annual cost of crime prevention programs and initiatives for the years 2007 and 2008?
(Return tabled)Question No. 130--Hon. Marlene Jennings
With regards to the recent statement in the House by the Minister of Public Safety that the government will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law: (a) how many Canadians are in prisons abroad and in which specific countries and penitentiaries; (b) how many Canadians are currently subject to this reversal of government policy; (c) what does the government consider to constitute ''democracies'' that would meet this new condition for not appealing for the commutation of death sentences in democratic states; and (d) were these new directives communicated to officials in Canadian consulates abroad?
(Return tabled)Question No. 131--Hon. Roy Cullen
With regard to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: (a) what is the current status of this initiative, including details of any activity in relation to this project in the last 20 months; (b) what are the details of any direction on this file in the last 20 months; and (c) what legislative or regulatory changes or initiatives are being planned in relation to this ongoing initiative?
(Return tabled)Question No. 132--Hon. Charles Hubbard
Within the Atlantic Canada provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, during the period from July 2, 2007 to September 21, 2007, inclusive: (a) what was the number of employment insurance claims submitted, by office location; and (b) what was the number of claims administered and finalized for payment, by office location, (i) within 4 days or less including the 4th day, (ii) within 5-8 days including the 8th day, (iii) within 9-13 days including the 13th day, (iv) within 14-18 days including the 18th day, (v) within 18-23 days including the 23rd day, (vi) within 24-28 days including the 28th day, (vii) requiring more than 28 working days from the date of submission by the applicant?
(Return tabled)Question No. 133--Mr. Dennis Bevington
With regards to the Canada Shipping Act: (a) what are the names and nationalities of all military and coast guard vessels which registered with the Eastern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone since January 1, 2000; and (b) what are the names and nationalities of all military and coast guard vessels which registered with the Western Canada Vessel Traffic Service Zone since January 1, 2000?
(Return tabled)Question No. 138--Mr. Gilles Duceppe
With respect to Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan since the 2001-2002 fiscal year, what are the direct costs related: (a) to the deployment of the Canadian Forces; (b) to the deployment of correctional services; and (c) to other costs?
(Return tabled)Question No. 147--Mr. Ken Boshcoff
With regard to spending by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs: (a) what is the amount per student that is allocated under the Band Operated Funding Formula (BOFF) for education for the 2007-2008 fiscal year; (b) what is the historical BOFF amount per student each year for the past 10 years; (c) what is the projected BOFF allocation per student for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years; (d) how much additional funding is allocated per student for the 2007-2008 fiscal year towards important supports such as libraries, data management systems, technology integration, language and culture programs and vocational training; and (e) what was the projected BOFF per student allocation for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years under the Kelowna Accord 2005 agreement that included $1.8 million for education?
(Return tabled)Question No. 148--Mr. Bill Casey
With regard to the findings within the May 2007 report of the Auditor General of Canada, entitled “Chapter 3, Human Resources Management—Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada”: (a) what specific actions and programs has the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade undertaken to respond to the Auditor General’s findings in regards to barriers to spousal employment being a disincentive for employees working abroad; (b) what is the percentage of resignations at the department currently attributed to spousal employment issues; (c) has the department been, or is it planning to re-address the spousal employment issues listed in the Auditor General’s report through the National Joint Council; (d) in regards to the department surveying other countries spousal support programs and activities, what has the department thus far learned; (e) in regards to sub-question (d), what programs and activities does the department plan to adopt or emulate; and (f) why does the government not provide as high a degree of spousal support program as is found in other countries?
(Return tabled)Question No. 149--Hon. John McCallum
With regard to the tax on income trusts announced on 31 October 2006, using the same model that was used to calculate the government’s estimates of tax leakage described by the Minister of Finance during his appearance at the Standing Committee on Finance on January 30, 2007, what would the government’s estimates of tax leakage have been if the corporate tax rate had been 15% rather than 21% as they were in 2007?
(Return tabled)Question No. 150--Mr. Pierre Paquette
With respect to transfers of medical files on military personnel and former military personnel: (a) where at this time are the medical files on the personnel treated at the military’s Deer Lodge Hospital from 1973 to 1976 inclusively, which were transferred by the Hospital to the Department of National Defence and to the Department of Veterans Affairs; and (b) what steps must be taken so that military personnel and former military personnel can prove their pension entitlement when their medical files have been lost in the course of a transfer?
(Return tabled)Question No. 151--Hon. Shawn Murphy
With respect to the Clean Air and Climate Change Trust Fund: (a) what was the amount each province and territory received from this trust fund in 2006-2007; (b) what conditions were attached to the transfer of funds to the provinces and territories; (c) what programs where funded by the Clean Air and Climate Change Trust Fund since January 1, 2006; and (d) what is the amount of emissions reduced from the programs funded by the Clean Air and Climate Change Fund by province and territory?
(Return tabled)Question No. 154--Hon. Robert Thibault
With regard to the Small Craft Harbours Program of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, what are the total reported landings for 2006-2007 in the federal electoral districts of West Nova, Central Nova, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley and South Shore—St. Margaret's?
(Return tabled)Question No. 155--Hon. Joe McGuire
With regards to fisheries allocations to foreign countries, within Canada’s 200-mile economic limit on the Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Atlantic Ocean, Labrador Sea, Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, outside Canada’s 200 mile limit on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and on the Flemish Cap, what are or were: (a) the species allowed for capture; (b) the total allowable catch; and (c) the actual catch under each allocation, giving for each (i) the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization division or divisions, (ii) the country receiving the allocation, (iii) the date on which the allocation was made, and (iv) the trade or any other consideration which Canada was offered or received in return for that allocation?
(Return tabled)Question No. 156--Hon. Maria Minna
With regard to pay equity and the initiatives proposed by the government that include education, specialized mediation assistance, and compliance monitoring: (a) what educational materials on pay equity have been produced; (b) which federal departments, agencies, and crown corporations were such educational materials sent to; (c) what site visits have taken place to further inform the employers, chief compensation executive, compensation analysts, and employee representatives of their statutory obligations; (d) has pay equity training for conciliation or mediation officers taken place and, if so, how many officers underwent training, when did it take place and how long was it; (e) have monitoring visits been conducted throughout the implementation process to reinforce and encourage voluntary compliance and collect information and, if so, how many have occurred and where did they occur; (f) has the Labour Program consulted with key stakeholders to gather their views on the effective implementation of these equal pay measures and, if so, what are the names of the stakeholders consulted and when were they consulted; (g) has the Canadian Human Rights Commission been invited to participate in these consultations; and (h) has the Canadian Human Rights Commission participated in these consultations?
(Return tabled)Question No. 157--Hon. Maria Minna
With regard to sexual harassment in the federal public service including all departments, federal agencies, and crown corporations: (a) what number of sexual harassment cases were reported by women; (b) what number of sexual harassment cases were reported by men; (c) in what percentage of the cases was the accused reprimanded; (d) what steps have been made to raise awareness about sexual harassment in the public service; (e) what department had the highest percentage of sexual harassment cases reported based on the total number of employees; (f) what department had the lowest percentage of sexual harassment cases reported based on the total number of employees; (g) what are the difference in sexual harassment prevention policies between (e) and (f); (h) has the number of sexual harassment cases in the public service increased or decreased in the last ten years; and (i) what was the percentage increase or decrease of ‘(h)’?
(Return tabled)Question No. 164--Mr. Peter Julian
With regard to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) working groups: (a) what are the regulatory changes, regulatory harmonization, procedural changes, and new programming initiatives proposed by each SPP working group; (b) what are the proposal and the proposals that have led, or are leading to regulatory changes, regulatory harmonization, procedural changes, and new programming initiatives, in every area covered by each working group; (c) what are the names of any and all sub-working groups along with a description of their tasks and issues to cover; (d) what is the lead country, the agency and the department responsible for each sub-working group; (e) who are the lead officials and the members for each sub-working group; (f) how many person-hours each division with responsibility for a part of the SPP has dedicated to SPP-related tasks, by year for 2005, 2006 and 2007; (g) what share, by division, do SPP-related tasks account by year for 2005, 2006 and 2007; (h) in which working group and sub-working group are copyright-related issues covered; (i) what role have the ongoing SPP negotiations in this area played in the formulation of the government’s copyright-reform legislation; (j) at which SPP meetings was Canadian copyright reform discussed, and who were the participants; (k) how much coordination is there among SPP working groups and their sub-working groups; (l) what is the nature of this coordination, for which the government has indicated it has hired several individuals in the Public Safety and Industry Departments; (m) what are the duties and responsibilities of these individuals; (n) at what level are tradeoffs among the various working groups discussed; (o) how does the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) interact with the sub-working groups; (p) how often do NACC members interact with officials working on SPP-related projects; (q) who are the lead NACC contacts for each working group and sub-working group; (r) what are the names of the senior private sector representatives at the NACC; (s) what are the recommendations provided to the government by the NACC since its inception; (t) which stakeholders have worked and are currently working with the working groups; and (u) what were their specific recommendations?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Some hon. members: Agreed.