Question No. 1213--Mr. François Lapointe
With regard to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, specifically for each of the following constituencies, Beauce, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lévis-Bellechasse, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madelaine, Beauport—Côte-deBeaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Manicouagan, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Jonquière—Alma: (a) for all submitted projects, (i) how many projects were submitted, (ii) what is the description of each project, (iii) what is the total financial contribution for these projects; (b) for all approved projects, (i) how many projects were approved, (ii) what is the description of each project, (iii) what is the total financial contribution for these projects; (c) among the projects that were approved, (i) what is the total number and description of projects benefitting from a non-repayable financial contribution, (ii) what is the total amount and the amounts broken down by non-repayable financial contribution; (d) among the projects that were approved, (i) what is the total number and description of projects benefitting from a repayable financial contribution or loan, (ii) what is the total amount and broken down by repayable financial contribution or loan; (e) among the projects that were submitted, (i) what is the total number and description of rejected projects, (ii) what is the total amount and the amount broken down by requested financial contribution for rejected projects; and (f) for each rejected project, what are the reasons for the refusal?
ResponseHon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, tThe Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec does not gather data by electoral district for most of its programs.
However, information on the projects financed by the aAgency since January 1st, 2006, can be found on its website at: http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/disclosure/grant-contribution-awards/index.html.
Question No. 1225--Mr. Brian Masse
With regard to the January 2014 final report to the government on the noise disturbance, commonly referred to as the Windsor-Essex Hum: (a) what measures has the government undertaken to address this problem; and (b) are there future plans to work towards mitigating this issue?
ResponseHon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is well aware of the seriousness of the complaints from residents in the city of Windsor as a result of the noise and has acted on these concerns.
In 2013, following consultation with the International Joint Commission, two experts in the field of acoustic and infrasound monitoring from the University of Western Ontario, UWO, and the University of Windsor, UW, were contracted by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada to undertake acoustic monitoring and other analysis to help determine the source of the disturbance.
The UWO study was completed in June 2013 but did not find signals which could be plausibly associated with the Hum. In contrast, the UW study, submitted in January 2014, found that a disturbance does exist that is consistent with characteristics of industrial operations on Zug Island, Michigan. The UW study recommended that further noise monitoring be undertaken in closer proximity to Zug Island. Although the results of the study were inconclusive, they demonstrate that in order to precisely determine the source of the Windsor Hum, further work must also take place on the U.S. side of the Detroit River.
Prior to the May 23, 2014, public release of the two studies, the Government of Canada provided a copy of the study to the Governor of the State of Michigan, the Mayor of River Rouge, in whose jurisdiction Zug Island exists, and other key stakeholders. In July 2014, Canada’s Consul General in Detroit met with officials from U.S. Steel and the Mayor of River Rouge to discuss the report’s results and options for a mutually agreeable resolution to this issue.
The Government of Canada continues to follow up on area resident concerns. Through several written exchanges and numerous phone calls, departmental officials continue to push for a constructive dialogue with representatives from U.S. Steel. Officials are also liaising with the author of the University of Windsor report and the City of River Rouge on appropriate next steps, including with our American partners, on further pinpointing the source and acoustic and other characteristics of the Hum.
Question No. 1227--Mr. Brian Masse
With regard to harmful algae blooms in the Great Lakes: (a) what government initiatives are in place to study and mitigate the impact of these; and (b) are there future plans to address this problem?
ResponseHon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada is working with its American and Ontario partners to address this issue. In September 2012, the governments of Canada and the United States renewed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In December 2014, the governments of Canada and Ontario renewed the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement committed both governments to take actions that would result in a reduction of algal blooms. The Canada-Ontario agreement outlines how the Government of Canada will work with the Government of Ontario to address the issue of excess nutrients and reduce harmful and nuisance algal blooms.
Environment Canada allocated $16 million to implement the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative to meet our commitment to reduce algal blooms. Through the initiative, focused on Lake Erie, we are working in concert with our partners to advance the science to understand and address the complex problem of recurrent toxic and nuisance algae in the Great Lakes; review the effectiveness of current nutrient management programs, policies and legislation; assess the economic impact of algal blooms; propose new loading targets for phosphorus; and provide recommendations to improve nutrient management in the Canadian portion of the Lake Erie watershed.
In addition to the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative, the Government Canada has allocated $8 million per year to support the restoration of water quality and impaired uses at 17 locations, or areas of concern, that have experienced high levels of environmental harm. Some of these locations experience excess growth of algae.
In budget 2012 the Government of Canada announced $29 million to support a new Lake Simcoe and southeastern Georgian Bay cleanup fund. The fund supports community-based projects to reduce phosphorous inputs from urban and rural sources that contribute to the algae issue.
With regard to (b), Environment Canada will be working closely with other federal and provincial partners to fulfill our commitments to address harmful algal blooms in both the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health.
The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement sets out key activities. They include the following: develop, within three years, by 2016, binational substance objectives for phosphorus concentrations, loading targets and loading allocations for Lake Erie; and develop, within five years, by 2018, binational phosphorus reduction strategies and domestic action plans to meet the objectives for phosphorus concentrations and loading targets in Lake Erie. They also include the following: assess, develop and implement programs to reduce phosphorus loadings from urban, rural, industrial and agricultural sources. This will include proven best management practices, along with new approaches and technologies. They also include the following: identify priority watersheds that contribute significantly to lake-wide or local algae development, and develop and implement management plans to achieve phosphorus load reduction targets and controls; and undertake and share research, monitoring and modelling necessary to establish, report on and assess the management of phosphorus and other nutrients, and improve the understanding of relevant issues associated with nutrients and excessive algal blooms.
Commitments in the 2014-19 Canada-Ontario agreement will support achievement of the following results: improved understanding of sources, transport and fate of nutrients in the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; improved understanding of nutrient levels and environmental conditions that trigger nuisance and harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; establishment of phosphorus concentration and loading targets for priority tributaries, nearshore and offshore waters of Lake Erie by 2016; action plans to work towards meeting phosphorus concentration and loading targets for the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; reduction in excess nutrient loadings from stormwater and wastewater collection and treatment facilities in urban and rural communities; improved understanding and development of practices and technologies for nutrient use efficiency; and increased adoption of cost-effective practices and technologies to improve nutrient use efficiency and reduce the risk of loss of excess nutrients from agricultural production
Question No. 1233--Mr. Ryan Cleary
With regard to Transport Canada and the Crown corporation, Marine Atlantic: (a) what is this year’s total operating budget; (b) what is the federal subsidy for the 2015-2016 fiscal year; and (c) how much of the federal subsidy that has been set aside for Marine Atlantic over the past five years has not been spent?
ResponseHon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), this year’s 2015-16 total operating budget is $237.4 million.
With regard to (b), the federal subsidy for the 2015-16 fiscal year is $374.3 million.
With regard to (c), less than 2% of the federal subsidy that has been set aside for Marine Atlantic over the past five years has not been spent, approximately $17 million.
Question No. 1234--Mr. Ryan Cleary
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the recreational cod and food fishery off Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what is the estimated amount of cod caught in the recreational fisheries in each of the past five years; (b) what is the proportion of the codfish caught in recreational fisheries compared to commercial catches in each of the past five years; and (c) what is the estimated number of participants in the recreational cod fishery in each of the past five years?
ResponseHon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (c), the Newfoundland and Labrador recreational groundfish fishery’s current management allows for two fishing periods during the year, a 23-day summer season, and a 9-day fall season. During these fishing periods, recreational fishers are permitted to catch up to 5 groundfish per day, including cod. However, the maximum boat limit when three or more people are fishing is 15 groundfish. There is no requirement for licence or tags, and the fishery is open to both resident and non-resident recreational fishers. Fishing is only permitted using angling gear and handlines with a maximum of three hooks. Retention of Atlantic halibut, northern and spotted wolffish, and any species of shark is prohibited.
There is no reporting system for landings for the recreational groundfish fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and exact estimates are uncertain; however, the department monitors the fishery to ensure compliance with conservation measures. An analysis of Fisheries and Oceans science cod tags returned over the past seven years suggests that recreational landings may be substantial.
With regard to (b), there is no data related to landings in the recreational fishery, therefore this question is not applicable.
Question No. 1235--Mr. Ryan Cleary
With regard to the Department of National Revenue and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS): what is the number of constituents in the federal riding of St. John’s South—Mount Pearl who have qualified for the GIS in each of the last ten years?
ResponseHon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, is not a program administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. The CRA does not have the necessary data to identify who qualifies for the GIS nor can it identify who receives it. As the CRA does not track this information, it is unable to respond to this question.
Question No. 1258--Ms. Joyce Murray
With regard to National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) what are the policies concerning visits to Canadian Armed Forces Bases, other Canadian Armed Forces establishments, or Royal Canadian Navy ships, by Canadian federal Parliamentarians, members of provincial or territorial legislatures, municipal or other elected officials in Canada, or elected officials from outside Canada; (b) in what directive, manual, order, regulation, or other document are the current versions of the relevant policies set forth or promulgated; (c) what are the reference numbers and effective dates of the most recent iteration of the documents, referred to in (b), in which the policies are set forth or promulgated; (d) in what directive, manual, order, regulation, or other document were superseded versions of the relevant policies set forth or promulgated at any time since April 1, 2006; and (e) what are the reference numbers and effective dates of the superseded iterations of the documents referred to in (d), in which the policies were formerly set forth or promulgated?
ResponseMr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are in the process of finalizing revised direction on visits by dignitaries, parliamentarians and federal parliamentary committees and associations to their establishments. The objective of this revised direction is to provide an interim update to existing policy until a new defence administrative order and directive is issued, and delegates the approval of visits to all organizations that report directly to the Deputy Minister and/or the Chief of the Defence Staff.
This policy is expected to supersede elements of the Canadian Forces administrative order 61-16, promulgated on July 24, 1987, on visits by members of the royal family and Canadian dignitaries to Canadian Forces elements and installations, and a 2010 direction from the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff requiring the Minister of National Defence to approve visits of dignitaries and parliamentarians to National
Defence and Canadian Armed Forces establishments.