Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

Thursday, March 12, 2009 (No. 29)


Questions

    The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.
Q-12 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — With respect to the Building Canada Fund (BCF): (a) in order of economic priority projects approved to date, (i) where are they located, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is the partners' contribution, (v) what is the total estimated cost, (vi) what were the criteria used in ranking the importance of the project, (vii) what is the benefit to Canadians, (viii) what is the number of jobs created during the construction period and number of permanent jobs created after completion of the project, (ix) what are the results of any environmental assessments and impact studies of the project; (b) what are the environmental projects approved in order of priority to date, (i) where are they located, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is the partners’ contribution, (v) what is the total estimated cost, (vi) what are the criteria used in ranking the importance of the project, (vii) what is the benefit to Canadians, (viii) what is the number of jobs created during the construction period and permanent jobs created after completion of the project, (ix) what are the results of any environmental assessments and impact studies of the project; (c) from the Public Private Partnership Fund which is a component of the BFC, (i) what are the number of projects approved, (ii) what are the locations of the projects, (iii) what is the cost per project, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is the private partner contribution, (vi) what is the benefit of the project, (vii) what is the demonstrated need for the project, (viii) what is the number of jobs created during construction, (ix) what is the number of permanent jobs to be created after completion; (d) under the Gateways and Border Crossing Fund, another component of the BCF, (i) what are the approvals to date of funding expenditures under this program, (ii) what are the criteria for the approval and anticipated outcomes, (iii) what is the priority ranking of the expenditure approval, (iv) what are the results of any environmental assessment, (v) what is its policy, (vi) what is its governance, (vii) what were the technology and marketing assessments used in determining the funding approval; and (e) under the Provincial-Territorial Base Funding component in the BCF, (i) what are the amounts given to each province and territory since the creation of this funding, (ii) what is the amount of funding used for safety-related rehabilitation of infrastructure in each province and territory, (iii) what are the projects where the improvements were made, (iv) what are the expenditures involved and the projected outcome of each improvement, (v) what is the amount of funding that has been used on non-core national highway system infrastructure and where, (vi) what is the amount of each provinces’ and territories’ matching contribution compared to the federal contribution for a total project cost?
Q-2 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown) — With regard to federal spending, how much financial support, both capital and otherwise, was given to individual airports over the last three fiscal years (2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008) in each federal riding?
Q-3 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With respect to the government's hospitality spending: (a) how much did the government spend on the purchase of alcoholic drinks for hospitality purposes including wine, beer and hard liquor, during receptions and other similar events, such as lunches, dinners, meetings, and all such similar gatherings, hosted in the Parliamentary precinct, for the fiscal year 2007-2008; and (b) what departmental measures are in place to monitor expenditures on alcohol at public expense?
Q-42 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With regards to the use of Claymore munitions by the Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan: (a) does the CF have special doctrine for the use of the Claymore in Afghanistan; (b) does the CF chain of command give instructions with regard to the use of the Claymore and obligations under the Ottawa Protocol; (c) is the chain of command aware of uses of the Claymore that have not followed standard procedures in Afghanistan; (d) is the Minister of National Defence aware of any use of the Claymore that violated the Ottawa Protocol; and (e) is the Minister or chain of command aware of any use of the Claymore in which the intended target of the weapon was responsible for its detonation?
Q-52 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — With respect to Canada's mission in Afghanistan and the transfer of detainees by the Canadian Forces (CF): (a) what is the total number of detainees transferred by the CF to other entities since the beginning of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, (i) on an annual basis, (ii) over the total length of the mission; (b) of the number in (a), what is the breakdown by (i) citizenship, (ii) sex, (iii) age; (c) to which entities have the detainees been transferred; (d) to which locations have the detainees been transferred; (e) what is the total number of detainees currently held by the CF; (f) of the number in (e), what is the breakdown by (i) citizenship, (ii) sex, (iii) age; (g) what is the total number of reports and allegations of abuse of prisoners captured by the CF filed by (i) the CF, (ii) Corrections Canada, (iii) RCMP since February 1, 2008; and (h) what are the titles of each report on Afghan detainees produced by Canadian officials and their publication date?
Q-62 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — With respect to United Nations conventions and treaties to which Canada is a signatory: (a) what are the federal government’s criteria for assessing individual provincial and territorial endorsement for ratifying a treaty or convention; (b) as of November 1, 2008, which provinces and territories have, according to these criteria, endorsed ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention); (c) what steps will be undertaken by the government to secure endorsement by the remaining provinces and territories; (d) when is the next federal-provincial-territorial ministerial meeting on human rights scheduled and will Convention ratification be on the agenda of that meeting; (e) has the Convention been added to the list of international human rights treaties and conventions that are standing items on meeting agendas of the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights (CCOHR); (f) has progress on the ratification process for the Convention been discussed at CCOHR meetings and what is the status of that progress as of November 1, 2008 according to the minutes of those meetings; (g) is the target date for the completion of consultations with the provinces and territories on the ratification of the Convention within the required timeframe to permit Canada to participate fully in the first meeting of States party to the Convention, expected in November 2008, to chart the oversight committee’s future course and, if not, why not; (h) what is the federal government’s criteria for assessing individual provincial and territorial endorsement for signing the Optional Protocol of an international treaty; (i) as of November 1, 2008, which provinces and territories have, according to these criteria, endorsed Canada signing the Optional Protocol of the Convention; and (j) has progress on signing the Optional Protocol for the Convention been discussed at CCOHR meetings and what is the status of that progress as of November 1, 2008, according to the minutes of those meetings?
Q-72 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — With respect to the government’s cessation of funding for the First Nations and Inuit Tobacco Control Strategy announced on September 25, 2006: (a) as the evaluation of this strategy was not completed until March 2007, on what evidence of not providing “value for money” was the decision to cut funding based; (b) as the former Minister of Health, who has acknowledged the need to address the serious health implications of higher-than-average smoking rates in First Nations and Inuit populations, has given public reassurances – to the Standing Committee on Health on November 23, 2006 – that funding will be revived once a revised strategy has been developed, (i) what steps has the government taken since September 2006 to develop a revised strategy, (ii) what is the target date for the initiation of the revised strategy and its full funding; and (c) as the strategy’s evaluation document cited the absence of statistical data as an impediment in evaluation, will the collection of baseline and ongoing national tobacco use statistical data specific to First Nations and Inuit be included in the revised strategy and its funding?
Q-82 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North) — With respect to the government’s actions to detect, prevent and treat Lyme disease in Canada: (a) by what standard is the accuracy of Lyme disease testing conducted at the National Microbiological Laboratories evaluated; (b) when was the most recent independent evaluation of the proficiency of this testing conducted, by whom and what were the results; (c) what are the current criteria for determining whether a geographical area is deemed to be endemic for Lyme-infected ticks; (d) what is the projected schedule of field study with regard to such endemic areas; (e) with respect to the recommendations of the National Conference on Lyme Disease hosted by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in March 2006, (i) have the committees to develop new guidelines on surveillance, clinical and laboratory criteria been formed and, if so, when have they met, (ii) what stakeholder groups have participated in the development of new guidelines, what form has that participation taken, and when did it occur; (f) what is the government's strategy to protect canadians from the increase in incidents of Lyme disease anticipated by PHAC; (g) what is PHAC's strategy to increase (i) physicians' and other health professionals' awareness of the symptoms of Lyme disease, (ii) the canadian public's awareness of the symptoms of Lyme disease; (h) what measures has the PHAC taken in conjunction with provincial health authorities to increase professional and public awareness; (i) what are PHAC's measurable targets for the future increase of awareness and diagnostic accuracy of Lyme disease; (j) does Health Canada recommend the screening of blood for Lyme disease or co-infections such as babesiosis, as done in the United States and, if not, why not; and (k) what research projects into lyme borelia and tick-borne co-infections, their epidemiology, their possible role in the occurence of other diseases, and their treatment are currently being funded by the government and have been government funded during the past five years?
Q-92 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to mitigating the impacts of the next pandemic influenza: (a) have provincial pandemic plans been tested during the last twelve months and, if so, which ones were tested, and what revisions were made based on lessons learned; and (b) what legislative and logistical steps has the government taken regarding social distancing measures?
Q-102 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regards to the risk of a pandemic influenza: (a) what steps has the government taken to protect the health of Canadians during the initial delay in the availability of a specific influenza vaccine for the pandemic strain; (b) what human health and economic costs have been identified for Canada for the delay period, and what steps has the government taken to reduce these costs; (c) what is the government stockpile of Tamiflu, and has the government achieved the stockpile target for antivirals and, if not, when will it be reached; and (d) what specific steps has the government taken to address the limited shelf life of Tamiflu, and the development of resistance to the drug?
Q-112 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regards to the stockpiling of Tamiflu for an influenza pandemic: (a) how does Canada rank among other G7 countries in terms of the number of antiviral treatments the government has stockpiled or intends to stockpile; (b) how do the steps of the government compare to the actions of other G7 countries in terms of using Tamiflu for prophylaxis and treatment; (c) what is the ethical framework for identifying priority groups during a pandemic, and what priority groups have been identified by the government for prophylaxis and treatment; and (d) what priority age groups in order of ranking for prophylaxis and treatment during an influenza pandemic have been identified?
Q-13 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With respect to the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP), when will the government have the necessary administrative mechanisms in place so that Canadians can benefit from the RDSP program?
Q-14 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With respect to gas and diesel prices: (a) is the government planning to implement the Energy Cost Benefit program, announced in October 2005; (b) what measures is the government implementing to build a greener economy, promote transparency in markets, promote alternative energy sources and improve fuel economy; (c) what steps will the government take to greater transparency in markets, fuel efficiency improvements and fuel alternatives; (d) is the government planning to index both the old age security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement payments to offset the increasing gas prices; and (e) what is the government’s specific plan with respect to research investments to develop renewable and alternative fuels, such as cellulose-based ethanol and hydrogen-based fuels, to reduce Canadians’ reliance on global fuel markets?
Q-15 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With respect to religious freedom around the world: (a) will the government recognize that religious persecution is an international crisis affecting many religious groups in the world; (b) will the government develop an automatic array of interventions that may be imposed by Canada against foreign governments, such as Iraq, that may support religious persecution or fail to prevent it; and (c) what steps is the government prepared to take to improve measures for refugees who have suffered religious persecution?
Q-162 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — With respect to the distribution of jobs in the government and all federal organizations in the National Capital Region: (a) how many jobs have there been on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region each year since March 31, 2004; and (b) how many jobs have there been on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region each year since March 31, 2004?
Q-172 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Proulx (Hull—Aylmer) — With respect to the square meters occupied by the federal government and all federal organizations in the National Capital Region: (a) how many square meters have been used on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region each year since March 31, 2004 and; (b) how many square meters have been used on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region each year since March 31, 2004?
Q-182 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regard to section 5.2 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the issuance of oil and gas licenses to Paramount Resources in the Cameron Hills region of the Northwest Territories: (a) what rationale has the Minister used to determine that a benefits agreement with local Aboriginal people is not required; (b) why has the government refused to discuss a benefits agreement with the local Aboriginal people; and (c) why has the government insisted that such discussions be carried out through the Deh Cho Land Claims negotiations?
Q-192 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) — With respect to the statement by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development in the House of Commons on November 21, 2008, what is the evidence, statistical or otherwise, based on a number of standards to measure poverty in Canada, that the cuts to the goods and services tax and the introduction of the universal child care benefit are in fact reducing poverty?
Q-202 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to decommissioned military bases: (a) how many homes are vacant at the Kapyong Barracks; (b) how many homes are presently vacant across the country at decommissioned military bases; (c) what is the cost to maintain the vacant homes at the Kapyong Barracks; (d) what is the cost to maintain all vacant homes across the country at decommissioned military bases; (e) what decommissioned bases across the country have been transferred to Canada Lands; (f) which decommissioned military bases are waiting to be transferred to Canada Lands; (g) what regulations are in place for decommissioned military bases with vacant housing that determines the use and occupancy of these houses; (h) when was the last time the regulations were changed with regard to the use of the houses on decommissioned military bases; and (i) is there any flexibility in the application of these regulations or the use of them?
Q-212 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement: (a) what steps have been taken by the government to ensure that survivors of the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School in Saskatchewan receive compensation that is set out in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement; (b) does the government have records of survivors from the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School and, if so, how many does the department have record of; and (c) what are the unresolved issues of which the Prime Minister spoke about in the House of Commons on June 12, 2008 that are preventing the government from compensating the survivors of the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School in Saskatchewan?
Q-222 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Neville (Winnipeg South Centre) — With regard to the National Parole Board and the Department of Public Safety: (a) what mechanisms are put in place to ensure a fair and culturally responsive approach to the parole board's administration; (b) are there specific considerations taken into account when Aboriginals appear before the parole board; (c) what mechanisms are put in place to ensure that there is suitable Aboriginal representation on the parole board; and (d) currently, what percentage of parole board members are Aboriginal?
Q-232 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Bagnell (Yukon) — Given that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom have recognized the security implications of climate change and have acted accordingly: (a) has the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers been briefed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Department of National Defense or Communications Security Establishment Canada on the security implications of climate change on Canada; (b) have security and government officials from the United Kingdom and the United States shared their information on this matter with the Canadian government; (c) as this is a matter of public record in the United Kingdom and the United States why has it not been disclosed in Canada; and (d) what has been the government response to the potential security issue that you have been alerted to by the British, U.S. or Canadian officials?
Q-242 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With regard to the forestry industry in British Columbia (BC): (a) what specific steps has the government taken to reduce the dependency of the BC industry on the United States construction business and to facilitate and expand the sale of BC lumber to Asia; (b) for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 what is the specific breakdown of the $400 million promised in the 2006 budget to deal with the mountain pine beetle and to stimulate new economic opportunities for lumbering-dependent communities and job retraining for forest industry workers in (i) terms of exact funds to communities for economic re-adjustsments together with the names of the communities, (ii) what are the projects and funds spent on pine beetle research and alleviation, (iii) what are the specific projects and funds spent on job retraining initiatives; (c) what money was transferred to the BC government for fire prevention initiatives for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, and to pine beetle ravaged communities which are at prime risk for summer forest fires; and (d) what specific initiatives and funds has the government allocated over 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 to the at “risk for fire” aboriginal communities in BC's interior?
Q-252 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With respect to grants and federal funding allocated or transferred by the Department of Canadian Heritage to arts and culture festivals in the province of British Columbia: (a) what was the total spending given to the province, broken down by festivals for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008; (b) what is the projected allocation of grants and federal funding for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; and (c) specifically to the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, what amount was given or is projected to fund, broken down by program, all cultural Olympiad programs, all bilingual initiatives and the francophone village and cultural events, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010?
Q-262 — January 26, 2009 — Ms. Fry (Vancouver Centre) — With respect to the British Columbia salmon fisheries industry: (a) what concrete steps has the government undertaken to the development and implementation of an ocean's management strategy given that the 10 year Ocean Management Plan sunsets this year and what particular steps have been taken with regard to conservation, including a precautionary approach to management of the salmon fisheries; (b) what steps have been taken to allocate the First Nations of British Columbia a 50% share of all fisheries, and to increase treaty settlement funds to enable purchase or buy-back licenses and allow for relocation; (c) considering the devastation the mountain pine beetle has caused to the salmon industry through erosion of watersheds, what actions has the government taken to mitigate the damage to salmon spawning beds; and (d) how much money has the government given to revitalize the salmon industry, in particular the sport fishing industry in British Columbia, which contribute a large part to the salmon industry?
Q-272 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With respect to tax treatments offered to the fishermen from Atlantic Canada and Quebec: (a) were the fishermen who accepted the Atlantic Fisheries Groundfish Retirement Package and who permanently gave up their fishing licences in the years 1999 and 2000 advised in writing by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to report, at the time of filing their income tax, that the retirement lump-sum payment was to be counted as revenue from a capital gain and, if so, (i) why, (ii) why did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans issue this advice, (iii) how many fishermen did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans give that advice to; (b) why did Revenue Canada or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency agree to give certain other fishermen a different tax treatment than the one outlined above, for the same retirement years; (c) how many fishermen received that different tax treatment; (d) why did the Minister of National Revenue and the Federal Minister of Fisheries advise these former fishermen (or their survivors in the case of deceased former fishermen) to appeal to the Regional Director of Taxation in St. John’s for a review; (e) has the Regional Director of Taxation informed the affected individuals that he will not accept their appeals and, if so, why; and (f) did Revenue Canada or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency reach an out-of-court settlement in 2007 with a certain number of fishermen who had appealed their tax treatment and, if so, (i) why, (ii) why were the fishermen involved in that out-of-court settlement required to sign a secrecy or non-disclosure document, (iii) how many fishermen were involved in that out-of-court settlement?
Q-282 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to the Building Canada Fund (BCF): (a) what projects have been awarded funding; (b) for each of these projects, what was (i) the dollar share of project costs funded by the government, (ii) the percentage share of project costs funded by the government, (iii) the content and specifications of the project, (iv) the location of the project; (c) what are the government's plans to accelerate infrastructure spending under the BCF; (d) how much funding has been or will be allocated for each province and territory; and (e) what is the cost-sharing formula for cost-shared projects with other orders of government?
Q-292 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regard to 5 Wing Goose Bay, for each of the fiscal years 2004-2005 through 2008-2009 inclusive: (a) what was the total amount spent, or for the current year budgeted to be spent, by the Department of National Defence (DND) or the Canadian Armed Forces in respect of 5 Wing Goose Bay, indicating for each fiscal year the operational budget, capital budget, payroll, and other expenses; (b) what specific measures, if any, have been taken towards the establishment of a rapid reaction battalion and unmanned aerial vehicle squadron at 5 Wing Goose Bay; (c) what is the operational requirement for 5 Wing Goose Bay referred to by the former Minister of National Defence and when was it instituted; and (d) what specific marketing initiatives has DND undertaken with regards to attracting clients to 5 Wing Goose Bay, stating (i) who has undertaken this marketing for or on behalf of DND, (ii) what are the budgeted or actual expenditures for these marketing initiatives?
Q-302 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the installation of cell phone communications towers and the electro-magnetic fields and radio-frequency radiation they emit: (a) when was a federal permit awarded to install a cell phone tower at Saint-Joachim church located at 2 Saint-Anne, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, H9S 4P5; (b) who is the service provider who applied for and was awarded the permit; (c) what justification was given by the service provider for requiring a cell phone tower permit for that particular location; (d) what are the technical specifications of the cell phone tower for which a permit was awarded; (e) what limits or conditions, if any, were attached to the permit; (f) do technical specifications and other permit conditions vary according to the nature of the surrounding environment, specifically as regards to whether schools, hospitals, or residential units are located in the vicinity; (g) what requirements were placed on the City of Pointe-Claire in regards to consulting local residents before a federal permit was awarded for the Saint-Joachim cell phone tower, and were these general requirements applicable to all municipalities in Canada or were all or some conditions specific to this particular tower; (h) how many other permits have been awarded in the past for installation of cell phone towers in Pointe-Claire, where are these located, and who are the providers who operate the towers; (i) what evidence has the government used to establish that cell phone towers are not a threat to human health generally and to the health of vulnerable populations like children specifically; (j) in establishing allowable risks associated with cell phone towers does the government apply a maximum acceptable threshold of risk that incorporates the precautionary principle as laid out in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) and, if not, what other standards, if any, of precaution are reflected in the applied risk threshold; and (k) is the government aware of literature or studies, including the most recent, that suggest there is risk, especially for children, associated with the close proximity of schools, hospitals, or residential units to cell phone towers and, if so, on what basis has the government dismissed these findings?
Q-312 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to the two rerouted March 2008 Cubana Airlines flights flying from Havana and Varadero, Cuba to Montréal and the December 2008 Air Canada flight flying from Vancouver to Toronto that were stranded on the tarmacs of the Ottawa and Vancouver International Airports, respectively: (a) has the government investigated any or all of these incidents and, if so, what conclusions have been drawn regarding the cause of the passengers being held on a plane without enough food and water; (b) what steps or procedures were followed by the airport authority to finally deplane the passengers; (c) could any of these steps or procedures have been taken earlier and, if not, what constraints prevented these steps or procedures from being taken earlier; (d) are there currently any policies, laws, or regulations that set out a time limit for how long a plane with passengers can be held on the tarmac and, if not, has the government developed any recommendations for such policies, laws, or regulations; (e) is the government aware of any existing procedures, established voluntarily by airport authorities, to be followed in situations where a plane with passengers is left on the tarmac for a considerable period of time; (f) is there an accountability mechanism whereby tarmac delays above a reasonable threshold must be reported to the government; (g) to what extent, if any, was the RCMP involved in resolving any or all of these incidents; (h) if the RCMP was involved, what specific steps did they take to resolve any or all of these incidents; and (i) are there potential civil or criminal liabilities arising from these events?
Q-322 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — Since February 2006, has the government engaged in any discussions, initiatives, proposals, or directives concerning changes to the existing military supply chain process for the Canadian Forces?
Q-332 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to the HMCS Chicoutimi crew personnel who were on board during the October 2004 HMCS Chicoutimi fire: (a) what post-trauma services were offered to the personnel and following which timeline the services were offered; (b) what is the total number of hours of sick-leave taken post accident by month up to and including today's date; (c) how many individuals have applied for disability pensions or long-term disability directly related to this accident; and (d) how many were approved for disability pensions or long-term disability directly related to this accident to date?
Q-342 — January 26, 2009 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) — With regard to the anthrax vaccine administered to Canadian Forces (CF) serving in the Gulf War: (a) did the government complete independent testing on the safety of the vaccine; (b) did the government complete a study on the health of CF personnel who receive the vaccine; and (c) has the government continued to monitor or undertaken any follow up studies on the health of CF personnel who received the vaccine?
Q-35 — January 27, 2009 — Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) — With respect to the City of Hamilton's legal action against the government over the environmental assessment of the Red Hill Creek Expressway: (a) what is the amount of money spent by the government on this action to date; (b) what is the current status of the legal action; and (c) which documents filed with the court from either party can be accessed by the public and made available?
Q-362 — January 27, 2009 — Ms. Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead) — With respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments that were closed in Quebec in 2004: (a) five years later, what are the government’s plans for these nine detachments, specifically with respect to their possible reopening and to an increase in border staff; and (b) if an analysis of the positive and negative impacts of closing these detachments was done, what were the findings?
Q-372 — January 27, 2009 — Mr. Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley) — With regard to the federal emergency preparedness funding to the provinces and territories over the last five years for firefighting equipment: (a) how much funding has the government contributed to those specific projects which involved the purchase of firefighting equipment through the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP); (b) what is the specific breakdown of the government's emergency preparedness contributions, by province and territory; and (c) other than the JEPP program, what other funding has been made available to the provinces, territories and municipalities to specifically support the purchase of firefighting equipment?
Q-38 — January 28, 2009 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regards to the $33 billion Building Canada plan announced in Budget 2007: (a) what are the total federal funds committed for expenditure, as well as the amount effectively spent, to Canadian municipalities, through the Building Canada plan, per year, since its inception; (b) who are the recipients of these funds, what is the breakdown for every province and territory, as well as the criteria used for allocating these funds; and (c) what are the changes to the allocation criteria in Budget 2009?
Q-392 — January 29, 2009 — Mr. Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis) — With regard to water bottled and sold in Canada: (a) how does the government ensure the quality and safety of this food product; (b) does the government regularly send federal inspectors into all water-bottling plants to test bottling processes and product samples and, if so, how many times per year do inspectors visit a given bottling plant and how many inspectors are currently available for plant inspections; (c) how many inspectors were available in February 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively; (d) is a water bottling company required to report to the government the contamination of its product detected by internal testing procedures; (e) is the company required to inform the public and conduct a product recall; (f) how are quality standards for bottled water set in Canada; (g) are standards simply imported from other countries, such as the United States, or are standards developed in Canada for the Canadian market; and (h) what is the relationship between federal bottled-water quality standards and municipal drinking-water standards in Canada?
Q-402 — January 29, 2009 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With respect to caffeinated energy drinks: (a) what does the term energy drink mean, and what Canadian regulatory agencies recognize the term; (b) what are the brands sold in Canada, what is the caffeine, guarana, and taurine content and concentration, if applicable, for each, and what regulations the brands passed; (c) what is the content and warning labels for each of the brands, and how do they compare with international standards, such as the European Union and the United States; (d) what are the pre-mixed caffeine-alcohol drinks, the caffeine and alcohol content and concentration, and the regulations passed; (e) what is the scientific evidence for the positive benefit claims; (f) what pre-existing health conditions might make adolescents more susceptible or more at risk to caffeinated energy drinks; (g) what are the acute and long-term effects resulting from chronic and excessive consumption of energy drinks; (h) what are the acute and chronic long-term effects of consumption of caffeine in combination with other substances, such as alcohol, B vitamins, herbal derivatives, nicotinamide, pyridoxine, riboflavin, and taurine; (i) what is the safe daily amount of caffeine, and caffeine and taurine, for adolescents, aged 12-18 years; (j) were there any deaths that have been, in part, linked to consumption of energy drinks in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States and, is so, in each case, what was the drink, the content and the concentration of caffeine and the number of drinks consumed; (k) what are the top-selling brands as well as pre-mixed caffeine-alcohol drinks, and what is the total retail market value for each in Canada; (l) what studies have been undertaken regarding adolescent use, adverse effects, and mixing with alcohol; (m) what are the impacts of caffeine-alcohol interactions, and what might this mean for abuse, drunk-driving, or injury; (n) has caffeine overdose been increasing among caffeine abstainers as well as habitual users in Canada; (o) what, if any, cases of caffeine abuse from caffeinated energy drinks have been reported to Canadian poison centres, and how do these data compare to the European Union and the United States; (p) what measures have been taken to warn the public regarding the adverse health effects, including caffeine intoxification, caffeine dependence and withdrawal; (q) what measures have been taken to warn children and adolescents, who do not use caffeine regularly, regarding possible adverse health effects; (r) what restrictions have been placed on aggressive marketing to youth and inexperienced users, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance; and (s) what measures have been taken to inform medical practitioners regarding the potential health consequences of consumption of energy drinks?
Q-412 — January 29, 2009 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to the costs of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games: (a) what are the direct costs, past and planned, in grants and transfers to the Province of British Columbia (BC) or the governments of any municipalities therein from the federal government; (b) will the federal government be making any financial contribution to the 2010 Olympic Games by way of loans to the BC government or the governments of any municipalities therein and, if so, have these loans already been issued and what are the current and projected total amount of any loans issued by the federal government in this matter; (c) given the existing cost overrun from the 2003 bid forecast, will or has the federal government been providing financial assistance in any way either through direct grants, transfers or loans to the provincial government of BC or the governments of any municipalities therein to cover any additional cost overruns; (d) will the BC government be solely responsible for any additional cost overruns; (e) what are the direct costs in grants and transfers to all non-governmental entities, organizations, committees and agencies associated with the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games from the federal government; (f) what are the indirect costs to the federal government for the 2010 Olympic Games including (i) direct payment and transfers to the BC provincial government or the governments of any municipalities therein in terms of transportation, logistics and salary costs associated with private and RCMP security for the Games, (ii) military security costs for transportation and logistical costs associated with all military security provided for the 2010 Olympic Games; (g) what are other infrastructure costs being born by the federal government including construction, renovation, expansion or improvements of buildings, highways, public transportation or transportation for athletes associated with the 2010 Games; and (h) what is the best government estimate at this time for the total cost of the 2010 Games to the federal government taking into consideration all aforementioned direct and indirect expenses?
Q-431-2 — January 29, 2009 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to the Toronto Port Authority, will the government order the release of the hospitality and travel expenses incurred in London last winter by its former CEO and, if so, what were those expenses?
Q-442 — January 30, 2009 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — With regards to federal funding for the Mackenzie Valley Natural Gas Project announced by the Minister of the Environment on January 19, 2009, in detail: (a) what is the amount of funding the government is offering the project proponents; (b) what is the rationale for providing this funding; (c) what will the funding be used for; and (d) what short, medium and long term benefits will accrue to Northern Canadians?
Q-452 — February 2, 2009 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With respect to Canada's mission in Afghanistan and the use of cluster munitions by Canadian Forces: (a) does Canada use cluster munitions in its military operations; (b) do any of Canada's allies use cluster munitions in areas where the Canadian military is operating; (c) have cluster munitions been used by Canada or its allies in Afghanistan and, if so, when, and does this practice continue; (d) what assurances exist to ensure that cluster munitions are not used by Canada or its allies in Afghanistan; (e) are there any agreements between Canada and its allies explicitly prohibiting the use of cluster munitions in joint operations; (f) are there any agreements between Canada and its allies explicitly prohibiting the use of cluster munitions in Afghanistan; (g) are there any agreements between Canada and its allies prohibiting the use of certain military tactics or weapons; (h) have cluster munitions ever been deployed by Canada or its allies in past joint military operations; (i) has Canada ever negotiated guidelines for the prohibition of certain weapons in joint operations; (j) what is the government's definition of what constitutes an acceptable success rate for self-destruction mechanisms and precision guidance systems for cluster munitions; (k) how was this acceptable rate of success arrived at; (l) has the Canadian Forces destroyed all existing stockpiles of cluster munitions in its arsenal and, if not, why not; and (m) does Canada intend to procure munitions in the future?
Q-462 — February 2, 2009 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With respect to the case JOHN GUENETTE and JOANNA GUALTIERI v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, FRANK TOWNSON, et al. and also the case JOANNA GUALTIERI v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, FRANK TOWNSON, et al.: (a) what are the total expenditures of the government with regard to these cases including, but not limited to, all legal fees, monitoring the progress and impact on public opinion of the case, in preparing communications strategies, and in preparing briefing packages for officials and ministers, on an annual basis, broken down by expenditure item; and (b) with respect to the figures in (a), how much was spent annually, on a departmental or agency basis?
Q-472 — February 2, 2009 — Mr. Dewar (Ottawa Centre) — With respect to Canada's military imports and exports: (a) did Canada import any products from the United Kingdom between October and December 2007 containing depleted uranium and, if so, what were these products and what were their end uses; and (b) has Canada imported any products containing depleted uranium from 2007 to 2008 from other countries and, if so, what products and from which countries?
Q-482 — February 3, 2009 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regards to spending and allocation by all government departments and agencies for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games an all activities relating to it: (a) what is the exact amount of money that has and will be spent or allocated for the purposes of security for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games, including specifically, but not limited to, money allocated for the RCMP, local police forces, the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit, private security firms and block transfers to the Province of British Columbia for similar purposes; (b) what was the exact amount of money spent by the RCMP on its contract with Cruise Connections Charter Management of North Carolina, dated June 20, 2008; (c) what is the full and exact amount of travel expenses claimed, including specifically, but not limited to, airfare and accommodation, broken down by individual and each specific claim, of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, to date; (d) how many total RCMP and private security personnel will be detached to provide security services for the Games; (e) how many total Canadian Forces (CF) personnel will be employed to provide security services for the Games; (f) how many of these CF personnel are reservists; (g) how many of these CF personnel are regular forces personnel; and (h) what are the total anticipated salary costs of all CF personnel who are currently or will be tasked with providing security or logistical services for the 2010 Games?
Q-492 — February 3, 2009 — Ms. Gagnon (Québec) — With regard to the issue of water contaminated by trichlorethylene in the Municipality of Shannon, Quebec: (a) how widespread, according to a National Defence report, is the contamination of the water in the Québec City region; (b) how much is the government planning to invest to complete the work on the aqueduct; and (c) what other measures does the government plan to take to come to the aid of the people of Shannon?
Q-502 — February 4, 2009 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With regard to Canadian private television broadcasters: (a) what is the current estimated financial value of the benefits that Canadian private broadcasters derive from the laws and regulations of the government, including, but not limited to, simultaneous substitution, tax write-off exclusions for Canadian companies advertisements on U.S. broadcasters, and protection from foreign competition; (b) what is the estimated financial value of these benefits for each private broadcaster; (c) what are the cumulative and individual statistics of their Canadian programming that are more recent than fall 2006 from the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement’s (BBM) television diary or more recent than 2006 from the BBM’s meter survey; (d) what are the most recent cumulative and individual statistics on the percentage of Canadian programming shown during primetime; (e) what are the most recent cumulative and individual statistics on the breakdown of the type of Canadian programming that is being shown during and outside of primetime; and (f) what is the government’s plan for promoting Canadian programming in the future and what specific initiatives are being planned to guarantee a healthy future for Canadian programming on private broadcasters?
Q-512 — February 4, 2009 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to on-reserve educational facilities for First Nations in Canada: (a) what requests for capital building expenditure funding, for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities have been made from April 1, 2005 to present; (b) which of these requests have been granted by the government and why; (c) which of these requests were denied and why; (d) what funds have been committed by the government for capital building expenditure for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities on-reserve, in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, broken down by region; (e) how much of the funding allocated in part (d) has been spent as of December 31, 2008, broken down by region; (f) how much of the funding allocated in part (d) was diverted for other projects, either within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) or to other government departments, broken down by region; (g) what projects are currently under way; (h) what projects are slated to begin work in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; (i) what are the values of each of these projects; (j) what portion of the total cost of these projects is being funded by INAC through capital building infrastructure; (k) how many projects included additional money from First Nations to complete the construction or equipping of an educational facility; (l) what projects are slated to begin work beyond the 2009-2010 fiscal year; (m) how many communities with projects identified by INAC as priority capital projects have received letters of approval issued to them; (n) since 2005, what amounts from the "Community Infrastructure" line item have been reallocated either within INAC or to other government departments; (o) how has this reallocation of funds affected on-reserve educational facilities; (p) how was this money otherwise spent by the government; (q) which projects, specifically, are the government referring to on page 147 of the 2009 budget document as 10 new school projects and 3 renovation projects; (r) if these 13 projects are not yet determined, what projects are currently being considered for funding; (s) what is the status of the Attawapiskat elementary school construction; (t) how many schools are considered a higher priority by INAC than Attawapiskat; (u) does the government consider the construction of a school in Attawapiskat to be “ready to go” in the same way that the phrase is used on page 21 of the 2009 budget document; and (v) what is required from First Nations communities by INAC and the Treasury Board Secretariat to have their school construction projects considered “ready to go.”?
Q-522 — February 9, 2009 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regards to public-private partnerships (P3s or PFIs): (a) what is the government’s overall policy on their use; (b) how many government contracts since January 2006 have involved P3s, and for each project, what are the names of these projects, who are the partners, how much money did the federal government contribute, how much money did other levels of government contribute and how much money did each private partner contribute; (c) what problems in general have the government identified with the use of P3s; (d) what precautions have the government taken to ensure that P3s represent value for money for taxpayers; (e) what measures has the government taken to ensure that the terms and conditions of P3s are honoured by private sector participants; (f) were there any lessons learned exercises or evaluations conducted with respect to any particular P3 project and, if so, what were the results of these evaluations; (g) has the government conducted studies on the use of P3s in other countries and, if so, what were the results of these studies; (h) has the government invested in P3 projects in British Columbia; and (i) does the government have a minimum contribution or minimum percentage required from the private sector?
Q-532 — February 9, 2009 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — With regard to the Asia-Pacific Gateway project in British Columbia: (a) how much money has the government contributed to this project since its inception, broken down by financial quarter and department; (b) has the government conducted any studies into the impact or effectiveness of the project, including but not limited to environmental issues, congestion and traffic circulation, neighbourhood effects and housing prices and, if so, what are these studies; (c) what is the government’s overall position on the Gateway project; (d) has the government identified any concerns with regard to the project and, if so, what are these concerns; and (e) which groups has the government consulted with regard to the project?
Q-542 — February 10, 2009 — Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) — With regard to government-owned buildings: (a) how many buildings does the government own by region and territory; (b) what are the annual utility costs including electricity, water, heating and cooling costs for these building by province or territory; (c) what are the overall energy costs for government-owned buildings by province or territory, including all energy uses; (d) what government initiatives exist for improving energy efficiency in government buildings; (e) how many government-owned buildings have been retrofitted in order to improve their energy efficiency in the last 25 years; (f) how many buildings have achieved Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design recognition for new construction and for existing buildings; (g) what studies and evaluations with respect to improving energy efficiency in government-owned buildings have been requested or commissioned by any department before January 27, 2009; (h) how much has the government spent on these studies, by study; and (i) what analysis has been done by the government or on its behalf regarding potential cost savings on energy costs if energy efficiency retrofits were conducted on some or all government-owned buildings?
Q-552 — February 10, 2009 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With respect to Health Canada’s Women’s Health Contribution Program and the Centres of Excellence for Children’s Well Being: (a) is the Minister of Health going to submit a new submission to Treasury Board that would extend the mandate for funding that is expected to expire on March 31, 2009; and (b) will the government show a renewed commitment to these centres by granting permanent funding?
Q-562 — February 10, 2009 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With respect to health human resources: (a) how will the government address the issues of doctor shortages, wait times, access and hospital closures; (b) is there a strategy to address the brain drain of doctors, nurses and researchers to the United States; and (c) what are the prospects of a health human resources fund to encourage partnerships between health faculties in the universities and colleges and the academic health science centres that would immediately create more training spaces?
Q-572 — February 10, 2009 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With respect to the Public Health Goals agreed to at the September 2004 First Ministers' Meeting and developed in 2005, has the government continued to work with provincial and territorial governments to develop the targets and indicators as part of the Public Health Goals process?
Q-582 — February 19, 2009 — Ms. Bennett (St. Paul's) — With respect to the Participation Activity and Limitation Survey (PALS), as part of the Canadian Census: is the government planning on withdrawing support for the PALS being part of the upcoming census?
Q-592 — February 19, 2009 — Mr. Bevington (Western Arctic) — Did the government intervene in any way in the complaint against Dr. John O'Connor of Fort Chipewyan in Alberta, laid before the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons and, if so, (i) in which way, (ii) for what reasons, and (iii) which departments were involved?
Q-602 — February 19, 2009 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With respect to the purchase and provision of single-use water bottles and water coolers by the government over the last five years: (a) (i) what are the total government expenditures for bottled water on an annual basis, as well as over a five year period, (ii) on an annual basis, what amount is spent by each department; (b) (i) with respect to the above figures, how much was spent annually, on a departmental or agency basis, in the National Capital Region, (ii) what was the breakdown by province for such services; and (c) by province, what is the number of Government of Canada employees, and the number of drinking water fountains that service these employees?
Q-612 — February 19, 2009 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — With respect to the Toronto Port Authority, will the government order the release of the hospitality and travel expenses incurred in the last two years (2007, 2008) by its former CEO and, if so, what were those expenses?
Q-622 — February 24, 2009 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — With respect to funds for infrastructure spending in Budget 2009: (a) what funds are new funds and what funds are carried over from Budget 2008 and previous years; (b) when will infrastructure funds be available to municipalities and provinces, (i) what will the application process be, (ii) how will the process differ from regularly budgeted funds, (iii) what steps is the government taking to ensure the application process is not redundant, (iv) what steps is the government taking to ensure the protection of environmental assessments, (v) what steps is the government taking to ensure the process is equitable across municipalities, (vi) what departments will be responsible for the funds, (vii) when do funds revert back to federal projects; (c) are there population restrictions for some or all parts of the program, and are there other restrictions that apply; (d) what new funds will require public-private partnerships; and (e) what funding will require cost-sharing with the provinces and municipalities, and are any infrastructure funds available without the requirement of cost-sharing?
Q-632 — February 24, 2009 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With respect to the official provider of uniforms and clothing for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games: (a) what was the selection process; (b) which companies submitted bids to provide these products to Canadian athletes and the Canadian public; (c) how was the decision made to select the Hudson’s Bay Corporation as the provider of official uniforms and clothing; (d) what consideration was provided for the selection of a Canadian owned company to provide the clothing; (e) what consideration was provided to companies who would manufacture the products fully in Canada; (f) what rationale can be provided for the selection of a foreign owned company who will produce the products outside of Canada; and (g) in the future, will there be an attempt from the government to further support the Canadian industry in the selection process for future Canadian Olympic clothing by selecting a Canadian company who will manufacture their product in Canada?
Q-642 — February 25, 2009 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — With regard to the $212 million dedicated to the Champlain Bridge, in the Montreal region, in Budget 2009: (a) does the government have a long term plan to spend the money, (i) if so, what is the full breakdown per year for the dispersal of funding and to what projects on the bridge they are being spent with a timeline for completion, (ii) if no, does the government intend to consult with local municipalities being directly affected by the deteriorating condition and safety concerns of the bridge while developing a comprehensive rehabilitation plan; (b) is the money slated to extend the life expectancy of the bridge and, if so, by how long; (c) will the money be spent on structural rehabilitation repairs such as the reconstruction of major support devises or for cosmetic repairs such as paint and resurfacing; (d) how does the government plan to rehabilitate the bridge while allowing normal traffic volume to proceed in both directions, especially during peak hours; and (e) is any component of a light rail system being developed under this funding?
Q-652 — February 25, 2009 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to the third party management (TPM) of First Nations by Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC), with specific reference to only those managed by the Northern Ontario office over the last ten years: (a) how many First Nations reserves have been operating under TPM, for how long, which reserves have been so designated and for each of the reserves listed, who acts as their third party manager; (b) according to each band council, on what date did each agreement come into force, what was the amount of debt they held at the time, what debt repayment plan was put into effect for each and what is the current amount of outstanding debt held by each band council; (c) what requirements must be met by a band council to get out of TPM, who determines those requirements, how many bands have met those requirements and when; (d) how many audits has INAC, or its designated proxies, undertaken with respect to TPMs and their direction of First Nations bands, (i) on what date were such audits prepared, (ii) by whom, (iii) with respect to the management of which bands, (iv) what were the key findings of each audit, (v) what recommendations were implemented, (vi) has any audit resulted in the termination or non-renewal of the contract between the TPM and INAC, if so, which ones and why, (vii) has any audit warranted a police investigation, if so, which ones and what was the outcome; (e) according to each community operating under TPM, (i) what management or other fees were charged, on a monthly and annual basis, (ii) for what were the fees charged, (iii) have any TPMs received extra commissions, bonuses or any other financial reward for their work and, if so, on what date were such monies awarded, for what, and to which TPMs, (iv) what percentage of each band’s operating budget do such costs represent, on a monthly and annual basis; (f) how many contracts (separate of TPMs agreements) have been awarded by INAC, or a TPM acting on a First Nation’s behalf, to LTL Construction, Shuniah Financial Services or Mekena Project Management Group, what was the amount of each contract, the date awarded and the intended service; (g) what legal or professional requirements does a company have to meet to become a TPM; (h) what tendering process is followed in the awarding of TPM contracts, do INAC staff have any discretionary powers in awarding a TPM and, if so, who has that power and under what circumstances; (i) with specific reference to the Gull Bay First Nation, how many third party managers have presided over their financial affairs during the above-mentioned period, what are the terms and conditions of each contract, what management fees, bonuses or commissions were paid to these parties and who were the principal officers of each TPM; and (j) for what reasons is Shuniah Financial Services no longer acting as Gull Bay’s TPM?
Q-662 — February 25, 2009 — Mr. Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes) — With respect to Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, for the 2008-2009 fiscal year: (a) how much money has been spent do date; (b) how much money will be spent by the end of the fiscal year; (c) for what specific line item was this money spent; (d) what portion of this money, in detail, was spent on hospitality, transportation, travel or liaising with stakeholders?
Q-672 — February 26, 2009 — Mr. Russell (Labrador) — With regards to residential schools: (a) what are the (i) names, (ii) locations, (iii) former church, charitable, or other operators, (iv) years of operation of all residential or other schools which were excluded from the Indian Residential Schools Agreement; (b) how many former residents or other students of each school are estimated to be living; and (c) what specific steps has the government taken, and with which provinces, towards pursuing bilateral agreements to address the issues raised by, or in relation to, the attendance of Aboriginal people at schools not covered by the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement?
Q-682 — February 26, 2009 — Mr. Oliphant (Don Valley West) — With respect to government television commercials which promote Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA): (a) why are financial advisors not included in the list of possible ways to open an TFSAs; (b) how much did it cost to produce these commercials and to air them; (c) how often are the commercials aired; and (d) will future commercials include a reference to financial advisors?
Q-692 — March 2, 2009 — Mrs. Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie) — Regarding requests for financial assistance made to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 financial years, by regional office, how many requests were approved and how many were rejected when submitted for the authorization of (i) the Regional Director, (ii) the General Director for Regional Coordination, (iii) the Vice-President for Operations, (iv) the President, (v) the Minister?
Q-702 — March 3, 2009 — Ms. Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges) — With regard to large information technology projects, and specifically the four pillars of the Shared Services Initiative: (a) has the government prepared a detailed plan accompanied by schedules to explain how it will proceed with the implementation of these major projects, (i) if so, what are the details of this plan, (ii) if not, what are the reasons for the non-existence of such a document; (b) for each of the pillars, (i) which departments are potential clients, (ii) what is the project’s estimated value (estimated minimum to estimated maximum), (iii) what is the description of each project, (iv) what are the key success factors, (v) what are the advantages and estimated costs, (vi) what is the department’s organizational capacity, (vii) what is the planned project launch date for the invitations to tender, (viii) will the contract be awarded to one supplier or several, (ix) for these long-term contracts, what means does the government have to change suppliers once the project is under way; and (c) with regards to the process for implementing major projects, (i) what are the details of the business plan that was used to justify the projects, (ii) was an independent review done on the business plan and, if so, which individuals or organizations were part of it, (iii) what are the details of the impact studies on the small and medium-sized businesses (SME) in the Ottawa-Gatineau region or elsewhere, (iv) what strategy was used to mitigate the impact on SMEs, (v) is there an impact study for these projects on the information technology industry and, if so, what are the details?
Q-712 — March 3, 2009 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — With respect to the Mountain Pine Beetle disaster: (a) how much money has been designated by the government to address this issue; (b) when, where and which government official announced these allocation of funds; (c) to date, how much has been spent; (d) in which provinces and municipalities have these funds been spent; (e) how have these funds been spent; (f) which companies or front-line government agencies have received payment for related services; (g) what is the timeline for the spending of any remaining funds; and (h) how will these remaining funds be allocated?
Q-722 — March 3, 2009 — Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Vancouver Quadra, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?
Q-73 — March 3, 2009 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to Western Economic Diversification Canada, what are, in detail, all the projects funded or currently funded which are targeted for Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, from February 2006 up to now?
Q-74 — March 3, 2009 — Mr. Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta) — With regard to Western Economic Diversification Canada client relations: (a) does the department work from a project based or client based approach for project management related to grants and contributions; and (b) what risk management framework and client relationship management system does the department use, more specifically what are the processes implemented to better serve its clients?
Q-75 — March 4, 2009 — Ms. Sgro (York West) — With respect to investing in research and innovation, specifically regarding York University in Toronto, Ontario: (a) what is the government's plan to ensure that Canadian research and development remain an example to the rest of the world; (b) what is the government prepared to do to ensure that the best and brightest remain in Canada; (c) what research grants will the government be making available this year, both at York University and across Canada; (d) what new programs will the government undertake to assist students; (e) what will the government's response be to the issue of rising tuition; (f) what specific steps will the government take to invest in research and development, to improve the lives of Canadians, and to partner to help Canadian industries grow in these difficult economic times; and (g) what future investments is the government planning in colleges and universities?
Q-762 — March 5, 2009 — Mr. McCallum (Markham—Unionville) — Regarding the Government of Germany’s use of an informant to ascertain the names of foreign investors holding accounts with the Liechtenstein LGT Group: (a) did the Government of Canada pay any sum of money to the Government of Germany, or any other government, to obtain the identity of the Canadian citizens or residents whose name appeared on that list and, if so, how much; (b) without breaching the privacy rights of any individual, how many Canadian names appeared on that list; (c) is the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) granting those individuals who are listed the opportunity to pursue a voluntary disclosure; (d) if the answer to (c) is yes, will, or have, individuals who approached the CRA only after media reports surfaced about the breach of privacy at the LGT Group be considered eligible for a voluntary disclosure; (e) if the answer to (d) is yes, is it the policy of the CRA to allow tax payers to avail themselves of the voluntary disclosure program once they could reasonable be aware that the CRA may be pursuing an audit; (f) how many of the listed individuals have approached the CRA with a voluntary disclosure; (g) how many individuals has the CRA begun to audit from the list of LGT Group clients; and (h) how many individuals has the CRA begun to prosecute from the list of LGT Group clients?
Q-772 — March 6, 2009 — Mr. Angus (Timmins—James Bay) — With respect to community facilities on First Nations: (a) does Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) conduct health and safety inspections of every educational facility on a regular basis and, if so, how often are regular health and safety inspections supposed to take place on educational facilities within INAC’s jurisdiction; (b) what causes health and safety inspections to be conducted on these facilities outside of the regular basis; (c) what health and safety inspections have taken place on the educational facilities in Attawapiskat First Nation since January 2000; (d) what health and safety inspections have taken place on the portables that currently comprise Attawapiskat’s elementary school facilities since they were originally built; (e) how did INAC officials come to the conclusion drawn in the Comprehensive Integrated Document Management document No. 198761 of November 21, 2007 that there were health and safety concerns with the portables in Attawapiskat, which were “in need of extensive repairs”; (f) how many First Nations students across Canada currently attend school in facilities that INAC believes contain health and safety concerns; (g) as of March 4, 2009, what new school construction projects are the top 40 priorities for INAC across Canada and, for each of these 40 schools, how long has INAC known that health and safety concerns existed in the current facilities; (h) between January 2006 and March 2009, how many schools sitting in federal electoral districts represented by Members from the New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois or Liberal Party of Canada were not built, or had construction delayed; (i) how did INAC’s commitment to upgrading and replacing First Nations’ water facilities impact the capital budget for educational facilities; (j) was additional money allocated to INAC’s overall budget to upgrade and replace First Nations’ water facilities and, if so, how much additional funding did INAC receive to upgrade and replace First Nations’ inadequate water facilities, if not, was money simply moved from other INAC budget lines to fund these projects; (k) between January 2006 and March 2009, how much money was spent on upgrading and replacing water facilities on First Nations in Canada; (l) between January 2006 and March 2009, how much money was spent on upgrading and replacing water facilities on First Nations sitting in federal electoral districts represented by Members from the New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois or Liberal Party of Canada on the day that the Treasury Board Secretariat signed off on the funding; and (m) between January 2006 and March 2009, how much money was spent on upgrading and replacing water facilities on First Nations sitting in federal electoral districts represented by Members of the Conservative Party of Canada on the day that the Treasury Board Secretariat signed off on the funding?
Q-782 — March 6, 2009 — Mr. Andrews (Avalon) — With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) who drafted or authored the press release issued on March 3, 2009 under the title “Statement by Fabian Manning, Senator”; (b) who approved or authorized the release of that press release by or on behalf of DFO; (c) what was the cost of distributing it via Marketwire; (d) was the press release transmitted or distributed by any other commercial means or services and, if so, (i) which means or services, (ii) at what costs; (e) who paid or will pay the costs for using Marketwire or any other means or service; and (f) was the said press release published to either the national or any regional DFO web sites and, if so, (i) which web sites, (ii) at what time was it published, (iii) was it later removed from the web sites, (iv) if removed, why was it removed and when was it removed?
Q-79 — March 9, 2009 — Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) — What is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 1998-1999 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Vancouver Kingsway, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?
Q-802 — March 9, 2009 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regards to requests received by the government to consult with First Nations on projects, programs, policies or plans that impact either inherent Aboriginal rights or treaty rights: (a) since 2005, how many requests has the government received; (b) what was the date of each request; (c) what was the government's response to each of those requests; and (d) what was the date of each response?
Q-812 — March 9, 2009 — Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan) — With regards to on-reserve school projects, for each year between 1999 and 2009: (a) what projects have finished construction and were ready for occupation; (b) in what federal riding were each school built; and (c) for any of these schools, was there a press release sent out by the government to announce its construction or its opening and, if so, what were the dates of those press releases?
Q-822 — March 10, 2009 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With respect to the new infrastructure funding announced in the budget, will any of this new funding be administered through FedNor and, if so, what is the application process of obtaining infrastructure funding through FedNor?
Q-832 — March 10, 2009 — Mr. Gravelle (Nickel Belt) — With respect to the creation of a Southern Ontario Economic Development Agency: (a) will any staff currently employed by FedNor be laid off or transferred as a result of this new agency; and (b) will this agency be a fully-funded regional economic development agency similar to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency?

1 Requires Oral Answer
2 Response requested within 45 days