Interventions in the House of Commons
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Peter Milliken Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 559--
Hon. Hedy Fry:
With regard to the disappearance of nine million sockeye salmon in British Columbia this year: (a) has the government taken into account the warning by the West Coast Regional Department before cutting the funding for the stock assessments by 50 percent over the last few years; and (b) does the government have plans to immediately strike an independent blue-ribbon scientific panel with a short mandate and, if so, speedily commit to implementing the panel’s recommendations?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), there has been no change in the level of funding for salmon stock assessments since 2002. Funding for salmon research and monitoring has been stable at about $16.6 million annually and this fiscal year is actually slightly above average at $17 million.
DFO science is evaluating a wide range of potential contributing factors to the low returns, and will then consider what further scientific work should be undertaken with regard to forecasting, marine survival, and the health of the oceans.
In response to (b), the Government of Canada wishes to take all feasible steps to identify the reasons for the low returns and the long term prospects for Fraser River sockeye salmon stocks. On November 5, 2009, the Prime Minister announced a judicial inquiry to investigate and report on the reasons for the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River. The final report of the inquiry is due by May 1, 2011. Fisheries and Oceans Canada looks forward to this inquiry and we look forward to co-operating fully.
View Peter Milliken Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 474--
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh:
With regard to the mission in Afghanistan: (a) what contingencies have been developed in the event that the Canadian military mission is extended beyond 2011; (b) what ministerial resources have been devoted to this effort; (c) what major material purchases have been acquired to facilitate such contingency; and (d) what measures have been taken to prepare our human resources in the Armed Forces for the contingency of extension?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Chief of the Defence Staff has issued direction to redeploy Canadian Forces from Afghanistan in accordance with the parliamentary motion on Afghanistan of March 13, 2008.The Department of National Defence has not developed contingencies for the extension of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011.
In response to (b), the Department of National Defence has not devoted any ministerial resources to planning for an extension of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011 as the Chief of the Defence Staff has issued direction to redeploy Canadian Forces from Afghanistan in accordance with the parliamentary motion on Afghanistan of March 13, 2008.
In resonse to (c), the Department of National Defence has not acquired major materials to facilitate any contingency for an extension of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011 as the Chief of the Defence Staff has issued direction to redeploy Canadian Forces from Afghanistan in accordance with the parliamentary motion on Afghanistan of March 13, 2008.
In response to (d), the Canadian Forces continues to prepare and train high-readiness forces for use in domestic or international missions as directed by the Government of Canada. However, the Department of National Defence has not taken any specific measures to prepare human resources in the Canadian Forces for an extension of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011 as the Chief of the Defence Staff has issued direction to redeploy Canadian forces from Afghanistan in accordance with the parliamentary motion on Afghanistan of March 13, 2008.

Question No. 477--
Hon. John McCallum:
With respect to section 3.7 of the Treasury Board’s Policies and Guidelines for Ministers’ Offices, between October 19, 2007 and October 19, 2009 what is the total amount of funds dispersed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay for: (a) severance pay for departing exempt staff of the combined Cabinet including the Prime Minister’s Office, all Ministers’ offices and all Ministers of States’ offices; and (b) separation pay for departing exempt staff of the combined Cabinet including the Prime Minister’s Office, all Ministers’ offices and all Ministers of States’ offices?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, between October 19, 2007 and October 19, 2009 the total amounts of funds dispersed from the consolidated revenue fund to pay for severance and separation pay for departing exempt staff of the combined cabinet including the Prime Minister’s Office, all ministers’ offices and all ministers of states’ offices were (a) $2,013,300, and (b) $4,907,032 respectively.

Question No. 478--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With respect to the prosecution, under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, of alleged perpetrators of such crimes, does the government intend: (a) to improve the rate of war crimes prosecution in Canada; and (b) to double the budget of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program of the Department of Justice, in order to facilitate increased prosecutions thereunder?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the government is committed to prosecuting individuals involved in crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. The government is committed to ensuring that Canada will not be a safe haven for anyone involved in crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.
In response to (b), the government is considering future funding options for the program.

Question No. 479--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With respect to the Iranian leadership’s comments concerning Israel and Jews, does the government: (a) recognize that Iran has committed the crime of incitement to genocide under international legal instruments; (b) intend to act to combat Iranian incitement to genocide; (c) intend to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council for discussion and action regarding its state-sanctioned incitement to genocide; and (d) intend to initiate before the International Court of Justice an interstate complaint against Iran?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) and (b), in September 2009, the Minister of Foreign Affairs led the Canadian delegation in walking out of the United Nations General Assembly as President Ahmadinejad was delivering his speech. This action was taken in order to protest his repugnant statements against Israel and his continual denial of the Holocaust, as well as Iran’s blatant disregard for the basic human rights of its citizens and foreign nationals, including Canadian Zahra Kazemi, whose death remains unexplained. We were followed by many like-minded members of the international community, including the United States and most European countries. Our actions demonstrated Canada’s leadership and commitment to taking a clear position on Iran’s unacceptable behaviour.
Canada has long been outspoken in the UN and elsewhere about the unacceptable undemocratic practices and deplorable human rights record of the Government of Iran. We are deeply concerned that the human rights situation in Iran has deteriorated significantly in 2009, especially following the June 12 presidential elections. As part of its ongoing efforts to focus the international community’s attention on the human rights situation in Iran, Canada, along with 41 co-sponsors, tabled a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran on October 29, 2009, at the third committee of the United Nations General Assembly, UNGA, for the seventh consecutive year. The resolution was adopted by the third committee of the UNGA on November 20, 2009. It expresses particular concern about the human rights violations committed by the Government of Iran following the June 12, 2009, presidential election. The resolution calls on the Government of Iran to fully respect its human rights obligations and implement previous resolutions and to cooperate with international human rights mechanisms by redressing its inadequate record of co-operation with international human rights mechanisms. It also encourages Iran to “continue exploring cooperation on human rights and justice reform with the United Nations, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”. The adoption of the Canada-led resolution is another clear signal of the international community’s concern for the human rights of people in Iran. It sends a message of hope to the victims of violations, and to the human rights defenders who seek to effect positive change in Iran.
The international community has a responsibility to address egregious violations of human rights. Canada, along with much of the international community, believes it is important that we continue to exert pressure on the Iranian regime to improve the current situation for the people of Iran.
In response to (c), if Canada were to refer Iran to the UNSC regarding its remarks calling for the eradication of the State of Israel, it is unlikely that the UNSC would take any action, thereby handing Iran an undesirable political victory. Instead, as outlined in the 2009 UN resolution on the human rights situation in Iran, Canada will continue to press the Iranian government to grant access to the special rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and on the situation of human rights defenders access to Iran; as well as the working group on arbitrary detention and the working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; in order to monitor human rights violations writ large.
In response to (d), it is unclear whether the International Court of Justice would be able to take jurisdiction in this case. An unsuccessful attempt at pursuing Iran in this forum would hand the regime an undesirable political victory. Moreover, Israel, as the state party most concerned with this matter, has not brought an action before the ICJ.

Question No. 485--
Ms. Siobhan Coady:
With regards to government advertising, how much money has the government spent on television and radio advertising since August 15, 2008, giving particulars of (i) how much has been spent by each department or agency of government, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 485 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 490--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between September 1 and 30, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 490 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 491--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between August 1 and 31 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 491 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 492--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between July 1 and 31, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 492 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 493--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between June 1 and 30, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 493 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009,Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 494--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between May 1 and 31, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 494 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 495--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between April 1 and 30, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 495 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 496--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between March 1 and 31, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 496 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 497--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between February 1 and 28, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 497 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 507--
Ms. Megan Leslie:
With regard to the recommendations contained in the report entitled “Spiralling out of Control, Lessons Learned from a Boy in Trouble--Report of the Nunn Commission of Inquiry”, released in December 2006 by the Minister of Justice, what is the current status of any action that the government has taken to meet these recommendations?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Nova Scotia shared with the Government of Canada the 2006 report of the Nunn commission entitled “Spiralling out of Control, Lessons Learned from a Boy in Trouble” in which recommendations were directed to the provincial government. Many of those recommendations stressed the need for improved services for at-risk youth, and urged improvements to the administration of justice for youth. A few called upon the provincial government to lobby the federal government for changes to the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, particularly in the area of the pretrial detention and release.
While the provision of programs for at-risk youth is largely a provincial responsibility, significant federal crime prevention resources directed at high-risk youth have gone to Nova Scotia. These programs include: building crime prevention knowledge in Atlantic Canada, $331,838 over three years to the Atlantic Coordinating Committee for Crime Prevention and Community Safety; Youth advocate program, $1.9 million over four years to the Halifax regional municipality; and Saint Mary’s University Pals program, $342,000 from 2007 to Saint Mary’s University.
The Government of Canada took issues raised by the Nunn commission and others about issues with pretrial detention and release in the youth justice systems very seriously. A consultation paper on pretrial detention and release, which included issues raised in the Nunn commission report, was shared in the spring of 2007 and feedback was received.
On November 19, 2007, Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act was introduced. Among other provisions, it proposed amendments to the pretrial detention sections of the federal youth justice legislation. This bill was supported by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
Over the past year, the government conducted a comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to hear what Canadians have to say on youth justice. The review brought forward valuable input for the government to consider as we work to improve our youth criminal justice system.
Although Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act died with the dissolution of Parliament in September 2008, the Government remains committed to introducing amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that will strengthen the youth criminal justice system, including pretrial detention and release provisions.

Question No. 508--
Mr. Michael Savage:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between February 1 and 28, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 508 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 509--
Mr. Michael Savage:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between March 1 and 31, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 509 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 511--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between October 1 and 31, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 511 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 512--
Hon. Geoff Regan:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between November 1 and 30, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 512 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 515--
Mr. Francis Valeriote:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario): (a) what is the date that FedDev Ontario was created through order in council; (b) what is the total amount of money to be allocated from the Agency’s 2009-2010 funds for the Agency’s 2009-2010 operating expenses, and how much has been spent to date; (c) what happens to funds allocated either to programs or operating expenses that were not spent by the Agency during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010; (d) on what dates did the Agency, and each of FedDev Ontario’s regional offices in Ottawa, Toronto, Kitchener, Peterborough and Stratford begin incurring operating expenses; (e) what is the number of staff hired to date and expected to be hired in 2009-2010 for each of FedDev Ontario’s offices in Ottawa, Toronto, Kitchener, Peterborough and Stratford; (f) what dollar amount of the Agency’s operating expenses in fiscal year 2009-2010 will be spent on staff salaries for those staff employed at each of the Ottawa, Toronto, Peterborough, Kitchener, and Stratford offices; (g) what is the number of staff hired in 2009-2010 for FedDev Ontario’s call center in Toronto; (h) what total dollar amount of the Agency’s operating expenses will be paid to staff in salary for FedDev Ontario’s call center in Toronto; (i) what is the total operating expense for FedDev Ontario’s call centre in Toronto; (j) what is the median annual income of an Agency employee; (k) what is the annual income of the Agency’s president; and (l) what is the annual income of the Agency’s vice president-infrastructure.
Response
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, FedDev Ontario, in response to (a), FedDev Ontario was created through order in council on August 13, 2009.
In response to (b), regarding the total amount of money to be allocated from the agency’s 2009-10 funds for the agency’s 2009-10 operating expenses, and how much has been spent to date, 2009-10 is a transition year from Industry Canada to the agency. As such, the agency continues to work closely with Industry Canada through established memoranda of understanding for the provision of certain services. Costing for these services has not yet been charged to the agency. A full accounting of agency expenditures will be available in the 2009-10 public accounts.
In response to (c), regarding what happens to funds allocated either to programs or operating expenses that were not spent by the agency during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, the agency is delivering programs that are beneficial to southern Ontario while respecting fiscal prudence and proper accountability. Funds allocated to the agency are intended to be spent by March 31, 2009.
In response to (d), the agency, and each of FedDev Ontario’s regional offices in Ottawa, Toronto, Kitchener, Peterborough and Stratford began incurred operating expenses on August 13, 2009.
In response to (e), regarding the number of staff hired to date and expected to be hired in 2009-10 for each of FedDev Ontario’s offices in Ottawa, Toronto, Kitchener, Peterborough and Stratford, the staff complement as of October 21, 2009, including students and personnel from temporary help services, was 103. The agency will continue to staff in order to meet its needs over the course of the fiscal year. A substantial number of new employees being hired will be located in Kitchener.
In response to (f), what dollar amount of the agency’s operating expenses in fiscal year 2009-10 will be spent on staff salaries for those staff employed at each of the Ottawa, Toronto, Peterborough, Kitchener, and Stratford offices, actual expenditures for 2009-10 will be available in the 2009-10 public accounts.
In response to (g), what is the number of staff hired in 2009-10 for FedDev Ontario’s call centre in Toronto, FedDev Ontario has entered into an agreement for services with the Canada Ontario Business Service Centre to provide the service of a call centre for FedDev Ontario. As a result, FedDev Ontario has not hired any staff for this function.
In response to (h), what total dollar amount of the agency’s operating expenses will be paid to staff in salary for FedDev Ontario’s call centre in Toronto, FedDev Ontario does not have any staff for the call centre.
In response to (i), what is the total operating expense for FedDev Ontario’s call centre in Toronto, as expenses continue to be incurred, this information will be available after the end of the current fiscal year.
In response to (j), what is the median annual income of an agency employee, as the agency is still staffing toward its full complement, this information will be available after the end of the current fiscal year.
In response to (k), what is the annual income of the agency’s president, the exact earnings of individuals is considered to be their personal information and therefore protected from disclosure by virtue of the Privacy Act. The annual income for this position is between $206,700 and $243,200.
In response to (l), what is the annual income of the agency’s vice-president, infrastructure, the exact earnings of individuals is considered to be their personal information and therefore protected from disclosure by virtue of the Privacy Act. The annual income for the agency vice-president, infrastructure is between $145,600 and $171,300.

Question No. 518--
Mr. Francis Valeriote:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario): (a) what is the government’s long term strategy for the development and distribution of funds from the Agency’s Southern Ontario Development Program; (b) which Southern Ontario business associations, not for profit organizations, post-secondary institutions and municipalities were consulted in advance of the Agency’s launch in August 2009 to ensure its objectives, plans, and priorities were in line with Southern Ontario’s economic needs, and on what dates; (c) what is the Minister’s long term consultation strategy for the aforementioned Southern Ontario stakeholders; and (d) will the Agency employ any specific strategy or program to address those industries and regions of southern Ontario most impacted by the recession?
Response
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Southern Ontario Development Agency, FedDev Ontario, in response to (a), what is the government’s long-term strategy for the development and distribution of funds from the agency’s southern Ontario development program, the current program parameters for southern Ontario development program were developed as a result of consultations with community leaders and economic development stakeholders throughout the southern Ontario region. The agency will continue to consult key stakeholders with the goal of hearing first-hand about the specific concerns of their communities, and to seek suggestions on the best approaches to foster enhanced productivity, innovation, commercialization, and diversification. In parallel, FedDev will continue to undertake economic and data analyses on the economic landscape of southern Ontario.
In response to (b), which southern Ontario business associations, not-for-profit organizations, post-secondary institutions and municipalities were consulted in advance of the agency’s launch in August 2009 to ensure its objectives, plans, and priorities were in line with southern Ontario’s economic needs, and on what dates, in advance of the agency’s launch on August 13, 2009, a number of consultations were carried out. Between March 12 and May 14, 2009, Industry Canada consulted with: National Research Council/Industrial Research Assistance Program, NRC/IRAP; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, NSERC; Queen's Technology Transfer, PARTEQ; University of Toronto;Business Development Bank of Canada, BDC; University of Ottawa;MaRS; Communitech Inc.; Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, CME, Ontario members; Ontario Bio-Auto Council;Regional Economic Development Officers for: Burlington; Canadian Consulate General, Detroit; City of Brampton; City of Brantford; City of Hamilton; City of Mississauga; City of Oshawa; City of Stratford; City of Woodstock; Cornwall Economic Development Corporation; Greater Peterborough Economic Development Corp.; Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance; Kingston Economic Development Council; London Economic Development Corporation; Niagara Economic Development Corporation; Northumberland County Economic Development & Tourism Nottawasaga Futures; Quinte Economic Development Council; Region of Durham; Regional Municipality of York; Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership; St. Thomas Economic Development Corporation; Windsor-Essex Development Commission.
In response to (c), what is the minister’s long-term consultation strategy for the afore-mentioned southern Ontario stakeholders, the minister meets regularly with local officials and stakeholders to ensure FedDev Ontario is responsive to the needs of southern Ontario.
In response to (d), will the agency employ any specific strategy or program to address those industries and regions of southern Ontario most impacted by the recession, the agency will continue to consult key stakeholders and undertake the necessary economic and data analyses on the economic landscape of southern Ontario to ensure that FedDev Ontario programming continues to address the specific needs of southern Ontario’s hardest hit regions and industries.

Question No. 519--
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between January 1 and 31, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 519 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 520--
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between December 1 and 31, 2006 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 520 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 522--
Hon. Shawn Murphy:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between July 1 and 31, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 522 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 523--
Hon. Shawn Murphy:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between June 1 and 30, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 523 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 524--
Hon. Shawn Murphy:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between May 1 and 31, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 524 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 525--
Hon. Shawn Murphy:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between April 1 and 30, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 525 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 528--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With respect to the United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Copenhagen, occurring between December 7 and 18, 2009: (a) what government officials, including parliamentarians, will be attending the conference; (b) who has been invited to join the Canadian delegation; (c) who will be participating in the Canadian delegation; (d) what is the total cost to the government for participation in the conference, including but not limited to delegate fees, accommodation, travel, hospitality and per diems of the Minister, departmental staff, personal and political assistants and all other staff paid by the government; (e) how has the government met Canada’s commitments under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol; and (f) has the government drafted a plan for addressing climate change and, if so, where can it be found?
Response
Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Prime Minister will attend the conference in Copenhagen.
The Minister of the Environment will be the head of delegation for the ministerial segment of the meeting, scheduled for December 16 to 18, 2009. From December 7 to 16, 2009, Canada’s chief negotiator for climate change, Mr. Michael Martin, will lead Canada’s delegation, supported by a team of federal, provincial and territorial officials. Critics of the environment from each federal party will be invited to attend the conference as well.
In response to (b), provincial and territorial premiers, or designated representatives, have been invited to join the Canadian delegation. The delegation will also include a number of advisors representing a range of Canadian stakeholders.
In response to (c), federal officials and representatives from the provinces and territories will be part of the Canadian delegation, as well as a number of external advisers.
In response to (d), final decisions have yet to be made with respect to the exact number of federal officials that will need to participate on the Canadian delegation in Copenhagen. A final list of delegates will need to be approved by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, based on experience at previous UNFCCC conference of the parties and estimated expected expenses, we are projecting a potential total cost of approximately $1.7 million Canadian for the government participation at Copenhagen. This total includes the cost of accommodation, travel, per diems and delegation meeting rooms. There are no delegate fees associated with the meeting.
In response to (e), Canada signed the Kyoto protocol on April 29, 1998 and ratified it on December 17, 2002. The Kyoto protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005.
Canada’s commitments in the UNFCCC and its Kyoto protocol are clear. Canada remains a party to the Kyoto protocol and is actively engaged in negotiations for the post-2012 period.
Canada’s assigned reduction amount for the 2008 to 2012 commitment period is 2,791 million tonnes CO2 eq. Similar to a number of other annex 1 parties with Kyoto protocol commitments, Canada’s emissions in the 2008 to 2012 period are projected to exceed its assigned amount. The Kyoto protocol provides annex 1 parties with the right to acquire or transfer emission units. Canada meets all the eligibility criteria and became eligible to participate in all the flexibility mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol on June 16, 2008.
The compliance of annex 1 parties with their Kyoto commitments will be determined following the completion of an expert review of its 2012 emissions inventory, to be submitted by April 15 in 2014.
Going forward, Canada believes we should build on the experience gained through the implementation of the Kyoto protocol in developing a new agreement under the convention to strengthen the environmental effectiveness of the existing global climate change regime through binding commitments and actions by all major emitters.
In response to (f), in March 2008, the government published the Turning the Corner plan. Earlier this year, the government indicated that it was refining this approach to reflect the new realities of the global economic downturn and the opportunities represented by a new administration in the United States. The government publishes information on the implementation of its climate change programs annually through the climate change plans for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. These documents can be found on Environment Canada's Web site, and are also available in hard copy by contacting the department.

Question No. 530--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between December 1 and 31, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 530 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 531--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between January 1 and 31, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 531 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 532--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between February 1 and 29, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 532 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 537--
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between March 1 and 31, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 537 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 543--
Mr. Mario Silva:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between July 1 and 31, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 543 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 544--
Mr. Mario Silva:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between June 1 and 30, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 544 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 545--
Mr. Mario Silva:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between May 1 and 31, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 545 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 546--
Mr. Mario Silva:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between April 1 and 30, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 546 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 554--
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between April 1 and 30, 2009 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 554 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 555--
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between March 1 and 31, 2009 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 555 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 556--
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between February 1 and 28, 2009 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 556 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 557--
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between January 1 and 31, 2009 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 557 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 563--
Hon. John McCallum:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between October 1 and 26, 2009 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 563 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 577--
Mr. Brian Murphy:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between May 1 and 31, 2009 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of the government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 577 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 578--
Mr. Brian Murphy:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between December 1 and 31, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of the government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 578 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.

Question No. 579--
Mr. Brian Murphy:
With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between November 1 and 30, 2008 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of the government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 579 is similar to 34 other questions.
The information requested in these questions was previously requested in Question No. 395, tabled on September 14, 2009, Debates, Volume 144, No. 080, page 4940. Breaking up that larger question into smaller questions does not alter the government’s response to the original question.
The data required to adequately respond to these questions is contained on more than 27,000 pages of raw data. To answer these questions as posed would require a second level of sorting and a manual search through a combination of electronic and paper archives to attribute each purchase to a particular campaign. In addition, the data is available in the original language only and it is not possible to produce and translate this information in the time period required.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-fra.html.
AfghanistanAhmadinejad, MahmoudAnti-SemitismAttorney General of CanadaBrison, ScottCabinet ministers' staffCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanCannon, LawrenceCivil and human rightsCoady, SiobhanConservative Caucus
...Show all topics
View Denise Savoie Profile
NDP (BC)
View Denise Savoie Profile
2009-12-04 12:20

Question No. 480--
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
With respect to international legal violations of the rights of privacy, association and bodily integrity of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people, will the government: (a) condemn deprivation of such rights on the basis of sexual orientation as breaches of international law; (b) assist the United States Secretary of State’s initiative, announced on September 11, 2009, to seek out partners at the United Nations to document human rights abuses against LGBT communities worldwide; (c) challenge states that are found to deny fundamental rights and freedoms on the basis of sexual orientation; (d) develop and implement a program, modeled on the United Kingdom Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s LGBT Toolkit, whereby Canada’s foreign missions would urge decriminalization of homosexuality in countries where it is penalized by death or imprisonment; and (e) address, through the ongoing Justice Undertakings for Social Transformation Program of the Department of Justice, the criminalization of homosexuals, and the impunity of their assailants, in Jamaica?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canadian foreign policy. Canada stands up for human rights and takes principled positions on important issues to ensure that freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, values that define this country, are enjoyed around the world.
With respect to sexual orientation, Canada was one of the signatories to the December 2008 Statement on Human Rights Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity at the United Nations General Assembly. This landmark statement condemns the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms directed against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It expresses deep concern for stigma and discrimination that undermines the integrity and dignity of those subjected to these abuses, and as a consequence makes them vulnerable to more serious human rights violations. The statement calls upon all states and relevant human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect the human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Canada continues to bring the issue of human rights violations based on sexual orientation to the attention of the international community by raising these issues where relevant during the Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review of states. For example, in the reviews of both Zambia and Senegal, Canadian statements recommended the amendment of their respective penal codes to de-criminalize same sex activity between adults.
At the 2009 Commonwealth Summit in Trinidad and Tobago, the Prime Minister pulled aside Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and indicated Canada's deep concern and strong opposition to the draft Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill and that we deplore these kinds of measures. Furthermore, the Prime Minister indicated that the draft bill was inconsistent with any reasonable understanding of human rights.
Canada opposes human rights violations based on sexual orientation and will continue to work with our partners at the United Nations, including the United States, to uphold human rights for all individuals. In May 2009, Canada’s ambassador in Paris attended the World Congress on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity where issues and strategies were discussed to confront and eliminate human rights violations directed against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
With respect to the Department of Justice led initiative in Jamaica, the justice undertakings for social transformation, JUST, program is a four-year justice sector reform initiative funded by CIDA. The Department of Justice of Canada will implement the project as the executing agency.
JUST focuses on institutional capacity building in the Jamaican justice sector by supporting Government of Jamaica entities with justice sector mandates, e.g., Ministry of Justice, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Law Reform Commission, and by supporting civil society organizations that contribute to overall stability by empowering marginalized groups in their interactions with justice sector institutions.
As a capacity-building initiative, JUST is not specifically meant to address matters such as the criminalization of homosexuality in Jamaica. However, one of the pivotal activities of the program is a close analysis of Jamaican legislation to identify provisions that, in their formulation or application, may create undue difficulties for vulnerable groups. Following this review of the legislation, the program will bring attention to provisions that appear problematic and suggest possible measures to deal with them. As part of this exercise and other program activities, JUST should therefore find a way of addressing, to the extent that it can, the issues raised.

Question No. 527--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With respect to the sockeye salmon crisis affecting the Fraser River in British Columbia: (a) what is the government’s plan to address the decline of 9 million sockeye salmon in the Fraser River; (b) how much money is the government spending on this plan; (c) what entities have received government money, when and for what purposes; (d) what information does the government have regarding potential causes of the decline; (e) which stakeholders did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans meet with in Vancouver during the month of October 2009; and (f) what were the recommendations, work plan, and proposed dates of action that came about as a result of October 2009 meetings in Vancouver between stakeholders and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), on November 5, 2009, the Prime Minister announced a judicial inquiry to investigate and report on the reasons for the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River. The final report of the inquiry is due by May 1, 2011.
In response to (b), the final report of the inquiry will help inform government on the development of a long-term plan for Fraser sockeye. It is premature to anticipate what that plan would entitle and associated costs.
In response to (c), Parliament has already provided appropriations for commissions of inquiry in the vote of the Privy Council Office. The commissioner will prepare a proposed budget for consideration by Treasury Board.
In response to (d), there has been no determination of the cause of the decline in Fraser River sockeye. The terms of reference for the judicial inquiry call for an investigation and an independent finding of fact regarding the causes of decline of Fraser River sockeye salmon including marine environmental conditions, aquaculture, predators, diseases, water temperature and other factors that may affect the ability of sockeye salmon to reach traditional spawning grounds or reach the ocean.
DFO science is evaluating a wide range of potential contributing factors to the low returns, and will then consider what further scientific work should be undertaken with regard to forecasting, marine survival, and the health of the oceans. It seems evident that an unprecedented combination of events has affected the survival of many of the sockeye runs that went to sea in 2007. The work of the inquiry will be very helpful in this regard, and we look forward to cooperating fully in its review.
In response to (e), the minister held a roundtable meeting with stakeholders on September 11, 2009 concerning Fraser River sockeye. Representatives from the following organizations participated: Pacific Salmon Foundation; Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council; Fraser Basin Council; Commercial Salmon Advisory Board; Area B Seine, Fraser River Panel; Canadian Fishing Company, CANFISCO; B.C. Seafood Association; Sport Fishing Advisory Board; B.C. Wildlife Federaration; Driftfishers Association; Watershed Watch; Salmon Enhancement and Habitat Advisory Board; David Suzuki Foundation; British Columbia First Nations--Fisheries Council; Sto:lo First Nation; Lillooet First Nation; Pacific Salmon Commission; and B.C. Ministry of Environment.
In response to (f), the minister hosted a roundtable meeting with stakeholders to seek input on an effective way forward on September 11, 2009, not in October. Many views and ideas were presented. All agreed that the approach would need to be comprehensive. A workplan was not created at the roundtable, recognizing that a government response was in development.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 433--
Hon. Dan McTeague:
With regard to the government’s handling of the Omar Khadr and Abousfian Abdelrazik cases, for each case: (b) what is the breakdown of all outside consultants hired for any purpose, including public relations, and the value of the associated contracts?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the response to part (b) is revised as follows: The government contracted one outside consultant to work on the Abousfian Abdelrazik file. A total fee of $1,890.00 was paid for this service.
View Peter Milliken Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 453--
Mr. Claude Gravelle:
Is the federal riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka within the jurisdicition of the Southern Ontario Development Agency or the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor)?
Response
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the entire riding of Parry Sound--Muskoka is within FedNor's jurisdiction.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 426--
Mr. Jim Maloway:
How much will the proposed Harmonized Sales Tax for the province of Manitoba cost the average taxpayer in Manitoba for each of the following expenditures: (a) funerals; (b) travel; and (c) purchase of new home?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba has not adopted the federal harmonized sales tax. A decision to adopt the federal harmonized sales tax in the province of Manitoba rests with the provincial government of Manitoba. This would include decisions surrounding key design elements.
View Robert Bouchard Profile
BQ (QC)
View Robert Bouchard Profile
2009-10-19 12:29 [p.5845]
Mr. Speaker, that was truly mind-boggling. We should speak clearly here. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma just spoke about the assistance provided by the EDC. Does he know what assistance the EDC provides?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn: It provides loan guarantees.
Mr. Robert Bouchard: Say, for example, I am a company and a client wants to buy my products. I go to the EDC, which will give me a loan for that specific order I have to fill. And I pay for it. That is not what people wanted for the forest industry at the summit in Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean. What they wanted were loan guarantees like the ones given to the automobile industry.
It was very clear. It was the first point made at the summit in Saguenay— Lac Saint-Jean. The two ministers from Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean were responsible for accomplishing it, but they failed. They did not do it.
What he was talking about in regard to the EDC are services for which companies pay. They are not real loan guarantees. They are for orders and deliveries that are made. There is a difference.
View Bob Rae Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bob Rae Profile
2009-10-19 17:13 [p.5888]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, for allowing me to share his time. He did express the thought that there was some irony in the fact that as the member for Toronto Centre I wanted to say a few words in this debate. However, the reality is that the forestry industry is perhaps the one industry that unites this country. There is not a province that does not have a significant forestry industry. Certainly that is true in my own case, in Ontario.
As a former first minister of the province and leader of the opposition there for many years, I had the opportunity to visit--
Hon. John Baird: He was a very successful leader of the opposition.
Hon. Bob Rae: --every single pulp and paper mill in the country. I say to my colleague across the way who is heckling me that the most significant restructuring of the forestry industry took place in the early 1990s. That was something I was very much personally involved in from time immemorial. I think probably one of the only pieces of legislation that the government of which he was a member did not repeal, and for which I was responsible, was the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. I think that act established a very successful regime in terms of managing the forest that has received a great deal of attention around the world.
However, the reason I wanted to participate in the debate is twofold. First, I want to say that of course we are, in this party, going to be supporting the motion.
However, I did want to say to my colleagues in the Bloc that no one should believe for an instant that the forestry industry is an industry that is confined to or exists only in the province of Quebec. In fact, it is the one industry that all Canadians understand. There are over 300 communities across the country that depend directly on the forestry industry for their livelihood, and those are only the direct jobs and communities directly involved. And then there are literally hundreds of thousands of other jobs across the country that have depended on, and that will continue to depend on, the forestry industry. It is not a matter of pitting Quebec against Ontario, or British Columbia against the rest of the country. We can look at any of northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, British Columbia where it is certainly the biggest resource industry, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, Quebec, or the Atlantic provinces. My colleague from Newfoundland who has just spoken has expressed very clearly the relationship that the forestry industry has with so many communities across the country. Because it is an industry that unites the county, or should unite the country, I think we need to engage once more in a discussion about the appropriate role of government, both federally and provincially, in dealing with this structural change that is under way in the industry, which has had such a devastating impact on so many communities, and what we can do to restore the industry to a position of health and indeed to a position of leadership in the world, where it will be able to define the jobs of tomorrow as it has very much defined the jobs of Canada's past.
I just want to say two things in this debate.
First, contrary to what I hear my Bloc Québécois colleagues saying, the forestry industry is not a uniquely Quebec industry. It is present in Ontario, British Columbia, the west, the east, the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces and also Quebec, of course. As Canadians, we share this industry. It is not an industry that sets Quebec apart from the other provinces; on the contrary, it unites the country. Conditions are very similar everywhere. In fact, more than 300 cities, towns and municipalities across the country depend almost exclusively on the forestry industry. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada, even in downtown Toronto, depend on this industry. It is as important to the country's future as it was in the past.
The second thing I want to say is that it is a fundamental myth that the forestry industry is an industry of the past, because that is not true.
One myth is that it is a uniquely Quebec industry, or British Columbia industry, or whatever province, but that is not the case. The fact is the forest industry is a Canadian industry. It has helped to define our country. It has helped to make the towns and communities of this country. This is an industry that has been at the heart of Canadian economic growth and Canadian economic success for a century and a half.
Second, it is a myth that this is an industry of the past. It is not an industry of the past. It is only an industry of the past if we fail to encourage and allow industry to make the kinds of investments in the future that every industry, to be successful, has to make. In fact, I say to my colleagues across the way that I do not see this motion particularly as an attack on the government, or an attack on one partisan approach or another. It is, rather, an effort on the part of the whole House to say that this is an industry that requires innovation, change, and investment to be able to succeed.
We have had our partisan differences. I have had occasion for over a decade to serve as counsel to the Free Trade Lumber Council and I have spent a lot of time travelling across the country talking with every head of every company and every head of every union trying to look at how we could get a coalition together that would successfully withstand the American objections to the notion of free and fair access to the American market for competitive Canadian products.
The American resistance to our exports is from the industry, some of the producers of America, and not from the people of America, or from the consumers of America. It is based on the false notion that this industry in Canada receives subsidies and advantages that it does not receive in the United States. We do not have time today to document it, but this is simply not the case, and we can show that. What the Americans have shown is that when you have 50 Senators who represent less than 20% of the American population, they can put up a very strong protectionist wall against Canadian exports, and that is what they have done in the case of softwood lumber.
I disagreed with the government's decision to go for an agreement, because I felt that agreement simply entrenched American resistance to a competitive, open, and fair trading relationship. I believe that at that time it would have been far better for the Canadian government to have stood up and stood by the industry as it went through this difficult period of adjustment and change. The decision was made not to do that, but instead to rely on the Softwood Lumber Agreement as the framework that would take us forward. The fact remains that the ability of this industry to provide the jobs of the future will depend on its capacity to innovate, change, develop new products, and look for new markets rather than relying exclusively on the market of the United States.
I find it ironic as I travel and visit some of the mills and factories in the United States, as I am sure members opposite have done, to see that our mills are every bit as competitive and every bit as modern. We have as much new technology as they do in any other place. What we have not been able to do, in my opinion, is enough as a country to provide the industry with the kind of support it needs to reach new markets, develop new products, and to deal with some of the competitive disadvantages that we face.
The competitive disadvantages we face are not of our own making. They are made of a protectionist wall in the United States and of a very high dollar which is proving to be a tremendous challenge to us. We have to change the culture of the relationship between business, industry, and governments both federally and provincially, so that we can work more effectively in partnership to take us to a new step and a new stage in terms of this industry. That is what we need to do.
I am very much in support of the motion being put forward by my colleagues of the Bloc, because I think it will allow this House to express its strong support for the industry.
View Paul Szabo Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Paul Szabo Profile
2009-10-06 12:16 [p.5613]
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, and maybe the member missed the beginning of it, the budget implementation act deals with parts of a budget. It is the budget that is the plan.
Mr. Mike Wallace: He supported it.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question if he would stop yelling at me. The member for Burlington is a chronic whiner, for Pete's sake.
I really think it is important to take it in the context that I put it. When we deal with a budget implement act, we deal with the budget and the government's manner in which it plans to address the problems of the nation.
The Liberal Party has lost confidence in the government's ability to address the economic recession, to address job loss, to address recovery, to address the elimination of a $60 billion deficit. That is non-confidence. It is directly addressing this bill.
I love some things in the bill, but we cannot just say we like some things so we will take everything else. On balance, the package does not meet the requirements that Canadians have of their government.
View Gerard Kennedy Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Gerard Kennedy Profile
2009-09-30 14:38 [p.5371]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused to answer simple questions about the misspending of infrastructure money in New Brunswick. How about today we try the other side of the country, where it is even worse?
In British Columbia, the Prime Minister has now promised to give $158 million in extra government funds to his Conservative colleagues at the expense of the unemployed and their families in other parts of the province. Rather than focusing on jobs, the Prime Minister is focused on helping his Conservatives keep theirs.
Why should Canadians anywhere in this country trust the government?
View Gerard Kennedy Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Gerard Kennedy Profile
2009-09-30 14:39 [p.5371]
Mr. Speaker, for 10 long months the unemployed in British Columbia have waited to even hear an announcement. The Prime Minister has his priorities badly mixed up. These are difficult times. He is supposed to be standing up for Canadians in need.
Instead, in B.C. he gave his own MPs an average of three times as much money as those in opposition ridings in the province. All the top 10 allocations went to hungry Conservatives. Two-thirds of his cabinet took those top 10 positions.
Will the Prime Minister explain today why he and his ministers are too busy dividing up the cash among themselves instead of looking after British Columbians who need the assistance?
View Peter Milliken Profile
Lib. (ON)
Motion No. P-5
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before the House a copy of all contracts between Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Hill and Knowlton between September 1, 2007 and February 25, 2009.
View Joe Comartin Profile
NDP (ON)
View Joe Comartin Profile
2009-09-28 11:43 [p.5226]
Mr. Speaker, in the almost nine years since I have been elected, I do not know how many times I have spoken in the House and a lot more in committee, both in the justice committee and in the public safety and national security committee, on the issue of the gun registry. What has consistently frustrated me from the very beginning is the lack of willingness of those who are opposed to the gun registry to deal with facts rather than emotion, to deal with the gun registry on a factual basis rather than as some kind of iconic devil out there that has been perpetrated by prior Liberal governments against farmers and people who enjoy hunting. I know I will not make a difference today to those people, but I believe it is absolutely paramount that we deal with the facts.
There is absolutely no question that guns continue to be a problem in our society. No member of the House who has spent any amount of time studying the issue will dispute that fact.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Hand guns, Joe, and you know it.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I am now hearing from the member for Yorkton—Melville who has been consistently on the side of refusing to deal with the facts.
Let us just deal with one fact regarding police officers. This comes from a letter from Mr. Momy, who is the current president of the Canadian Police Association. From 1999 to 2008 there were 15 police officers killed in this country. Like the member from the Bloc, I was at the funeral of the woman police officer just outside Montreal, Quebec. We took time off from the election in 2006 to go to that funeral. It was a tragedy for her family. She was an exemplary police officer. She was one of those 15 officers that had been killed over a 10 year period. Only two of those officers were killed with handguns. The other 13 were killed with long guns.
We could say that the firearm registry was in effect during that period of time, and ask why it did not stop those killings. There is a simple answer, and if the member for Portage—Lisgar was willing to deal with the facts she might know this. Throughout most of that period of time, the long gun registry was not being enforced. As a result of that lack of enforcement, we had significantly additional deaths, including among our police forces.
Let me state another example of the effectiveness of the long gun registry. Another tragedy in our country was the death of those four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe. We know from the same letter and from other sources that the key mechanism used in determining that the two men, who were subsequently convicted of aiding and abetting, had been involved in aiding and abetting the perpetrator of that crime was the long gun registry.
Ms. Candice Hoeppner: That is absolutely wrong.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from the member that that is wrong. I heard from her when she stood up to attack the police chiefs and the leadership of the police associations in this country by calling them people who sit behind their desks and do not know what is going on in the street. Every single one of those men and women who lead the chiefs of police and the professional police associations came off the street. There is not one of them who did not come off the street. They know what they are talking about.
The information I just gave the House on the incident in Mayerthorpe came directly from Mr. Momy. I invite the member for Portage—Lisgar to have a meeting with him. Maybe she would find out that in fact they have surveyed their membership on an ongoing basis. The last time there was a survey was in 2004. That survey was based on if we had the gun registry under financial control, which we were beginning to achieve at that time--I think we had finished it around 2005-06--the police officers across the country by an overwhelming majority said to get the costs under the control and if that was the case, and it is now, then they support the long gun registry.
It is impossible to go through this in any kind of detail, but I want to cover one more point on the cost issue.
I have studied this extensively, as I sat on the public safety committee for a number of years. We know that we brought the cost under control. It is irrefutable, and we heard it from the Auditor General, from the RCMP which is administering the registry now, and from some of the other speakers today, that if we get rid of the long gun registry, the savings would be somewhere between a minimum of $2 million and a maximum of $5 million.
Again, we heard from the member for Portage—Lisgar, who has brought forth this bill, that we should be using all that money, and of course the Conservatives think in terms of the $2 billion, which is a totally fabricated figure, mostly coming from the member for Yorkton—Melville. The savings this year, and for the last three to four years, would be in the range of $2 million to $5 million. I will use the example of a police officer on the street. Somewhere between $150,000 to $200,000 a year has to be spent for the officer's wages, benefits and all the required equipment. It costs between $150,000 to $200,000 a year to equip and staff one police officer in this country. If we do the math fairly quickly using the figure of $200,000, we would get 10 more police officers and if it is the higher figure of $5 million--my math is going to fail me here--it would be 25 police officers.
If we do that we are going to see a proliferation of long guns in the country. After we brought the registry in and we were charging people to register their long guns, the number of weapons in this country dropped dramatically, we think by as much as several million and maybe as high as seven million. Corresponding to that drop we saw a drop in the number of suicides and accidental deaths, and that one was very significant. We saw fewer deaths as a result. We can do all sorts of analyses but there is no other explanation for the drop in the suicide rate and the drop in the accidental deaths as a result of the use of long guns than the fact that there were fewer of them in our country.
There is not a Canadian, and I do not think there is a member on the opposite side, as strong as they are against the long gun registry, who would say that spending between $2 million and $5 million on the long gun registry to save 20 or 30 and maybe as many as 100 lives from suicides and accidental deaths is not worth it. Again, if we get rid of the long gun registry, other than some attempt by the member for Yorkton—Melville in a previous incarnation of this bill, that being Bill C-301, there is nobody who wants to either curtail the use of and certainly not get rid of the registry that registers restricted weapons, mostly handguns. That savings is minimal. We need the long gun registry in order to ensure that we do not have a proliferation of guns back in the hands of people who are careless with them. That is really what the number of suicides and accidental deaths mean to us.
Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that I ran out of time. I think there is work that can be done on the registry, and in fact on the acquisition certificates, that would make it a better and more effective system. That is what we should be driving at, not getting rid of the long gun registry, because getting the long gun registry out of our system is going to save very little money and we are going to have additional deaths in this country.
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 101--
Hon. Judy Sgro:
With respect to providing safe, quality, and affordable housing to the most vulnerable: (a) how much money will the government invest for the fiscal year of 2009-2010 in affordable housing; (b) how much investment will the government make in 2009-2010 in affordable housing specifically allocated for seniors; (c) will the government enter into new provincial agreements in order to work to facilitate the building and renovation of affordable housing units; and (d) will the government commit to make affordable housing a priority and expedite the building and maintenance of these critical units?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has a multi-pronged housing approach to facilitate access to housing. This approach has made significant contributions to the creation of an efficient housing industry; an effective system of building standards; a well-functioning housing finance system; and support for those with housing needs.
Canada’s economic action plan is strengthening Canada’s economy with a one-time investment of more than $2 billion over two years to build new, and repair existing social housing. This funding includes: $1 billion to support much needed repairs to social housing--$850 million to be cost-shared with provinces and territories, and $150 million to address needs of existing social housing which Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation administers--;$600 million for new housing and repairs to existing housing on-reserve and in the north--$400 million for on-reserve and $200 million for the north;$400 million to build more housing for seniors; and,$75 million for new housing for people with disabilities.
In response to (a), in 2009-10, it is estimated that federal housing related expenditures through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be $3.1 billion. This excludes housing related investments by other federal agencies and departments.
Annually, the Government of Canada, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, invests an estimated $1.7 billion in support of almost 625,000 social housing units across Canada. These social housing units were committed under long-term agreements under various programs.
The Government of Canada has committed to a $1 billion investment in housing through the affordable housing initiative. Under the initiative, the federal government, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, provides contributions to increase the supply of affordable housing, in partnership with the provinces and territories. Under bilateral agreements, the provinces and territories cost match the federal investment. Some $935 million has been committed or announced under the affordable housing initiative as of March 31, 2009, for the provision of over 42,300 units across Canada.
On September 4, 2008, the Government of Canada approved funding for housing and homelessness programs at $387.9 million per year for five years to March 31, 2014. As part of this commitment, funding for the affordable housing initiative, the renovation programs including the residential rehabilitation assistance program, and the homelessness partnering strategy were renewed at current levels for two years, to March 31, 2011. For 2009-10, this extension represents additional funding of $125 million for the affordable housing initiative and $128.1 million for the renovation programs.
Canada’s economic action plan builds on this with an investment of more than $2 billion over two years to build new, and renovate existing social housing. For 2009-10, this represents an additional investment in housing by the federal government of more than $1 billion on affordable housing.
In response to (b), of the $1.7 billion invested annually by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in support of almost 625,000 social housing units, approximately one-third of these units are occupied by seniors.
Through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s suite of renovation programs, seniors will have access to funding in 2009-10 under programs such as the residential rehabilitation assistance program and home adaptations for seniors independence, HASI. Note HASI is specifically targeted to seniors. It is estimated that financial assistance of approximately $32 million will be provided to seniors in 2009-10 under the renovation programs.
As noted above, the Government of Canada has also committed to a $1 billion investment in housing through the affordable housing initiative. Approximately 25% of the funding was directed to housing for seniors. I
In addition, Canada’s economic action plan includes $400 million over two years for affordable housing specifically targeted for seniors. In 2009-10, this represents a federal commitment of $200 million towards new affordable housing for low-income seniors who will also benefit from other mainstream affordable housing programs. The $1 billion under Canada’s economic action plan allocated for the renovation and retrofit of existing social housing will benefit the current residents of this housing. As one-third of the existing housing is estimated to serve seniors, it is estimated that in the order of one-third of the new renovation funding will also benefit seniors.
In response to (c), existing agreements between Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and provinces and territories are being amended to implement both the September 2008 federal government decision to renew for two years the existing affordable housing initiative and renovation programs, to March 31, 2011, as well as a significant component of the economic stimulus measures announced under Canada’s economic action plan.
In response to (d), the Government of Canada is committed to helping all Canadians find safe, adequate, and affordable housing through recent investments of close to $2 billion over five years towards housing and homelessness programs as well as more than $2 billion over the next two years toward building new or repairing existing social housing through Canada’s economic action plan.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)

Question No. 226--
Mrs. Michelle Simson:
With regard to the human swine flu: (a) when exactly was the government first approached by Mexico for help in managing this serious health issue; (b) how many fatalities did the Mexican authorities attribute to this respiratory disease at the time they first notified Canada of their situation; (c) how many victims, that were not fatalities, were they treating when they first approached Canada on the swine flu; (d) what were the official concerns cited by the Mexican authorities in seeking Canadian and international assistance in managing this emergency; and (e) when did the Canadian government undertake the requested assistance?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada was first approached by Mexico for laboratory testing assistance on April 17, 2009.
In response to (b), Mexican authorities did not disclose the number of fatalities attributed to the respiratory disease at the time they first notified Canada of their situation. Events were very unclear at that time.
In response to (c), when Mexican authorities first approached Canada on the H1N1 flu virus, they advised Canada that a number of outbreaks were occurring in different regions in Mexico, with approximately 600 suspect cases of influenza-like illness.
In response to (d), Mexican authorities contacted Canada as they were experiencing what appeared to be a late influenza season with higher than normal rates in health care workers, as well as some severe illness which they assessed as unusual. Laboratory testing in Mexico had failed to yield the diagnosis.
In response to (e), the Government of Canada responded April 17, 2009 offering laboratory and technical assistance to Mexico

Question No. 227--
Hon. Larry Bagnell:
With regards to motion M-426 (rare diseases and disorders), in the name of Mr. Bell (Vancouver North), adopted by the House on May 6, 2008, since that time: (a) has the government acted on this policy and, if not, why not; (b) how much contact has the government initiated and had with stakeholder groups such as Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders to enact this policy; (c) what financial resources has been set aside for this policy; (d) what assurances can the government give Canadians with rare disorders that they have a right to and can access effective therapies and medications; and (e) what actions will the government take to make Canadians aware of this program?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
In response to (a), the motion called for exploratory work related to research, regulation and reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases, in collaboration with provinces and territories and stakeholders. The Motion did not establish a program or policy. Initial analysis on motion no 426 was undertaken after it was adopted in May 2008 and before Parliament was dissolved. The Government continues to consider the issue of drugs for rare diseases and the need, if any, for action in areas of federal responsibility. Further work in this area will require the active engagement of provinces and territories, who, as noted above, have primary responsibility for drug coverage.
In response to (b), No stakeholder consultations on the motion were held before the dissolution of Parliament. However, Health Canada officials have discussed related issues with stakeholders, notably the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders CORD, on numerous occasions. CORD has been an active participant in formal consultations with respect to legislative and regulatory modernization since 2006. The organization has identified data challenges in the review and authorization of products for small populations as a key concern. They have been very supportive of efforts to modernize the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations.
In response to (c), Past analytical work related to the motion and the broader issue of drugs for rare diseases has been conducted within existing resources.
In response to (d), The federal government recognizes the challenges faced by Canadians with rare disorders, and will continue to examine issues related to treatments for rare disorders within the scope of federal role and responsibilities. For example, Health Canada is looking at the regulatory challenges posed by drugs for rare diseases, as part of the department’s ongoing work on regulatory modernization. CORD and other stakeholders have been consulted in this work. It is important to note that prescription drugs provided outside of hospital are outside of the scope of the Canada Health Act and hence, provincial and territorial governments determine, at their own discretion, whether, and under what terms and conditions, to publicly finance prescription drugs, including drugs for rare diseases. The only exceptions are federal populations, e.g., first nations and Inuit, military, veterans, for which the federal government directly provides services. However, the federal government continues to pursue constructive and collaborative work with provinces and territories, including finding ways to better assess drugs for rare diseases for potential reimbursement by our respective drug programs.
In response to (e) To clarify, no program was established through this motion, which called for exploratory work only.

Question No. 228--
Hon. Larry Bagnell:
Since coming to power, (i) what has the government done to promote and help get started the Alaska Highway gas pipeline, (ii) what meetings have been held with stakeholder groups, (iii) what has been the total government expenditures to date on this project, (iv) what is the target date for the construction of this gas pipeline?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in resonse to (i), there are two separate proposals to build an Alaska Highway pipeline, AHP. Both project proponents are benefiting from single window access into a streamlined regulatory approvals process, either through a re-staffed Northern Pipeline Agency, NPA, or else through the Major Projects Management Office which was created to improve regulatory performance through a more accountable, predictable, transparent and timely regulatory review process for major resource projects. On March 5, 2008, the then Minister of Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, wrote to the Governor of Alaska expressing support for an AHP. NRCan has publicly expressed the government’s support for an AHP at large conferences including the Alaska Resource Development conference in Anchorage, Alaska, in November 2008, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Conference in May 2008, and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association’s Annual Dinners in 2008 and 2009. Recognizing the importance of first nation engagement and consultation, the Government of Canada is engaging first nations along the proposed pipeline route. The government has both funded and participated in aboriginal workshops organized by the Alaska Highway Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition, AHAPC. Currently, federal departments including NRCan, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the NPA and the National Energy Board, NEB, are conducting a series of Yukon and first nation community visits along the Yukon portion of the Alaska Highway to raise awareness and answer questions related to the proposed pipeline.
In response to (ii), since January 2006, NRCan has had several meetings with the proponents for an AHP. Meetings have taken place at all levels from working level through to ministerial. First nations are important stakeholders and the government has been actively meeting with them. To date there have been three aboriginal workshops hosted by the AHAPC, which is a service organization to Yukon first nations along the proposed route. Similar, though smaller meetings, have also taken place in British Columbia. In addition to formal workshops, NRCan has met separately with the chair of the AHAPC. Until recently, NRCan chaired an AHP Director General Steering Committee which met semi-annually to share information with key federal departments. The committee’s most active sub-group was the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Working Group, EARWG. The EARWG met regularly with provincial government representatives as well.
In response to (iii), many AHP related expenditures have been routine business including preparing briefing material and monitoring project developments. However, NRCan did provide approximately $18,000 toward funding an Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition workshop in 2007. Approximately $3,000 was spent to attend each of the three workshops. Attending the round of community visits currently under way will add additional expenses. NRCan also sent several attendees and speakers for large conferences including the Alaska Resource Development Conference and the Interstate Oil and Gas Commission conference. Such conferences cost approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per person attending, including travel. Finally, NRCan houses the NPA, which has responsibility for the Foothills Alaska pipeline project. However, all NPA’s expenditures are cost recovered from the owner of Foothills, TransCanada Pipelines.
In response to (iv), both the TransCanada and the Denali projects have estimated first gas to start flowing in 2018--best case scenarios.

Question No. 242--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to Employment Insurance: (a) has the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development been provided any documents or departmental briefing notes that outline changes to the processing time of Employment Insurance cheques; (b) under the rules, how many days does an unemployed worker have to wait for his or her first cheque; (c) on average, how many days does an unemployed worker currently wait for his or her cheque; and (d) how many service telephone lines are available to workers looking for information, and how many of those telephone lines are staffed at one time?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the minister has received various products that have discussed and outlined measures to maintain the standard for processing Employment Insurance, EI, claims given the significant increase in EI applications over the last eight months. A number of them have dealt with the additional resources and measures that are being added to EI processing such as: redistributing workloads across the country; increasing processing staff by over 900 and adding another 400 over the next few months; increasing overtime on a voluntary basis; reassigning staff from other areas of the department that are not involved in processing benefits; recalling recent retirees; increasing the level of automation of claims processing; and extending the regular hours of operation for EI call centres from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday and Fridays and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
In response to (b), the standard of service is to have 80% of clients who file for benefits receive their first payment or a non-payment notification within 28 days of the date their claim was filed.
In response to (c), for the first seven months of 2009, the average number of days from the date of application until payment or notification of non-payment was 23 days.
In response to (d), the service has 1,041 telephone lines with up to 821 staff available at any one time. Call centre telephone line capacity always exceeds the number of telephone lines staffed to enable incoming calls, queuing of callers until agents become available, and internal call transfer capabilities.

Question No. 247--
Mr. Anthony Rota:
With regards to the measures announced in Budget 2009 concerning assistance for consumers of financial products by enhancing disclosure and improving business practices in respect of credit cards issued by federally regulated financial institutions: (a) which government departments, agencies, government officials and their titles were involved in the consultation process and drafting process in regards to this measure and when did they begin; (b) were there any consultations with any of the Credit Card companies who operate in Canada and, if so, when did these meetings occur and who was present; and (c) which other organisations or stakeholders were involved in the consultation process and with which government officials and when did they occur?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in advance of the budget presented to the House of Commons on January 27, 2009, the earliest in modern history, the government launched unprecedented consultation across Canada. These steps were taken to ensure as many Canadians as possible from members of Parliament, business leaders, economists, industry associations non-profit organizations, public interest groups, community groups, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and most important, everyday citizens were consulted, such as:
an online consultation open to all Canadians was launched at www.fin.gc.ca;
a series of roundtable discussions was held with business leaders, economists, academics, industry leaders, community and labour organizations in cities across Canada from Saint John to Victoria;
the Minister of Finance held town hall meetings in locations across Canada to hear from Canadians personally;
meetings with finance ministers and first ministers from all provinces and territories;
the establishment of a non-partisan Economic Advisory Council of prominent Canadians from across the political spectrum for advice on the budget and on the economy in the months ahead;
meetings with leading representatives of other political parties, including the official opposition Liberal Party of Canada, to ask for their ideas; and
the Minister of Finance wrote every member of Parliament asking them to consult with the people in their communities and report what they heard back to him.
As members are likely aware, the Minister of Finance released the aforementioned proposed Credit Business Practices Regulations this past May for comment. The relevant news release and backgrounders are available online at http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/09-048-eng.asp. To summarize, the proposed regulations would:
mandate an effective minimum 21 day, interest-free grace period on all new credit card purchases when a customer pays the outstanding balance in full;
lower interest costs by mandating allocations of payments in favour of the consumer;
allow consumers to keep better track of their personal finances by requiring express consent for credit limit increases;
limit debt collection practices that financial institutions use in contacting a consumer to collect on a debt;
prohibit over-the-limit fees solely arising from holds placed by merchants;
provide clear information in credit contracts and application forms through a summary box that will set out key features, such as interest rates and fees;
assist consumers to manage their credit card obligations by providing information on the time it would take to fully repay the balance, if only the minimum payment is made every month; and
mandate advance disclosure of interest rate increases prior to their taking effect, even if this information had been included in the credit contract.
With respect to the reaction to the proposed regulations, following is a small sampling of analysis by public interest groups or commentators:
Bruce Cran, president of Consumers' Association of Canada, said “All of the things that [the finance minister has] done in there are actually just what we asked for …overall, I’ve got to congratulate [the finance minister]”.
Mel Fruitman, vice president of Consumers' Association of Canada, said, “[They] will solve some of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies … it's a big step in the right direction towards helping us control the amounts we pay on our credit cards. We think it will greatly improve the situation”. A Toronto Star editorial stated, “[the] finance minister … has introduced some welcome regulatory changes that will both introduce more transparency to the [credit card] system and save consumers some money”. A Burnaby Now editorial stated. “[the finance minister’s] new regulations … aim to give consumers more rights when it comes to the credit card industry. One of those regulations … involves forbidding card issuers from increasing credit limits without the written consent of cardholders. We hope this and the other proposed regulations - which include a 21-day interest-free grace period on all new transactions when consumers pay their balance in full by the due date - gain approval in Ottawa”.
Additionally, please note, the aforementioned regulations were published in the Canada Gazette on May 23, 2009 and interested persons were invited to make representations to the Financial Institutions Division of the Department of Finance concerning the proposed regulations within 21 days. The deadline for submissions was June 13, 2009.
Regarding the development of the important budget 2009 measures to help consumers of financial products and the subsequent detailed proposed credit business practices regulations, officials from the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada were involved in the development and drafting of these measures.

Question No. 253--
Mr. Scott Andrews:
With regard to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) announced in Budget 2008, and the subsequent Nominating Committee announced July 21, 2008: (a) have the Nominating Committee identified candidates for appointment to the CEIFB and, if so, (i) has a list of potential members been presented to the Governor in Council for appointment, (ii) has the Governor in Council appointed members for the CEIFB, (iii) who were the individuals listed or appointed, (iv) what is the home province or territory for each individual; (b) what has the CEIFB done since being founded to fulfill their responsibilities, including (i) implementing Employment Insurance (EI) premium rate-setting mechanism to ensure EI revenues and expenditures break even over time, (ii) using any excess EI revenues in a given year to reduce premium rates in subsequent years, (iii) maintaining a $2 billion cash reserve fund to support rate stability measures; and (c) has a contingency fund been established, if so, (i) has the transfer of $2 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund into a contingency fund occurred, (ii) what is the current balance in the established contingency fund?
Response
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) (i), yes, the nominating committee has submitted a list of candidates for the board of directors to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, HRSD.
In response to (a) (ii), yes, five members of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, CEIFB, were announced by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on June 26, 2009. A sixth member was announced by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on August 5, 2009. The remaining member is expected to be announced in the coming weeks.
In response to (a) (iii and iv), the six directors who were named to the board of directors include Ms. Elaine Noel-Bentley, Alberta; Mr. David Brown, Ontario; Mr. Jacques LeBlanc, Quebec; Ms. Janet Pau, British Colombia; Mr. Pankaj Puri, Ontario; and Mr. Tim O’Neill, Prince Edward Island.
The board of directors will be chaired by Mr. David Brown, whose qualifications include 29 years as a senior corporate law partner with the firm Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg. He was also the chairman and chief executive officer of the Ontario Securities Commission, OSC, for seven years, where he led the expansion and reorganization of the OSC to meet the increasing demands of a changing market.
In response to (b) and (c), the CEIFB is not yet fully operational, and as such the CEIFB reserve has not yet been established.
In order to maintain a competitive advantage and to support employers and employees, the government has frozen EI premium rates for 2010 at $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings, the same level as 2008 and 2009, providing an economic stimulus of $10.5 billion, as confirmed in Canada’s Economic Action Plan: A Second Report to Canadians, June 2009.
With the appointment of the board of directors, the CEIFB is taking the necessary steps toward setting EI premium rates on a break-even basis, beginning in 2011. The creation of a separate account will ensure that excess premiums will be held and invested until used for EI purposes only. The creation of the CEIFB ensures that EI funds are managed independently and used to pay for EI benefits, premium rates reflect actual program costs, and the program is on firm financial footing going forward.

Question No. 255--
Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal:
With respect to the Police Officers Recruitment Fund: (a) how does the government track how many new police officer positions are created and filled from the fund; and (b) how many positions has the fund created and how many of those positions have been filled?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), establishing the first-ever Police Officers Recruitment Fund is a considerable investment that marks an important step forward in a way that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction for policing while ensuring maximum flexibility. The government concluded its active role in the Police Officers Recruitment Fund on June 22, 2008, with the establishment of trust accounts for each jurisdiction. Consistent with their responsibility for policing, it is up to the provinces and territories to allocate funding as they see fit to their municipal and provincial police services. Provinces and territories are able to use the trust fund in a way that is best suited to address their local public safety priorities and policing needs. Provincial and territorial governments have been encouraged to report directly to their residents on the expenditures and the outcomes achieved. It is through public media releases made by provinces and territories that the Government of Canada is kept apprised of how jurisdictions choose to allocate their funding.
In response to (b), to date, seven of the provinces--Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and New Brunswick--have, through public media releases, announced their intentions with the funding. Publicly announced hiring includes 30 new positions in Saskatchewan, 45 officers in Nova Scotia this year as part of a plan to hire 250 officers by 2011, 329 officers in Ontario, 83 officers in Alberta and 168 officers in British Columbia. Prince Edward Island is using its share to staff and launch its Criminal Intelligence Service Bureau, and New Brunswick is investing its portion to improve regional integrated intelligence units to fight organized crime, establish a police cadet graduate bursary to attract recruits, as well as establish a safer communities and neighbourhoods enforcement unit. Further details on provincial or territorial expenditures should be directed to the responsible provincial or territorial minister.

Question No. 258--
Hon. Maria Minna:
With regard to the wage earner protection program WEPP, (a) how much money was spent on this program in 2008-2009; (b) how many individuals received payments of any kind eligible under the program; (c) were payments in (b) more or less than budgeted; (d) what was the average payment per individual; (e) how many claims were made last fiscal year; (f) how many claims are expected this year; (g) has the government planned for an increase in bankruptcies and insolvencies this year; (h) what are the administrative costs of this program; (i) how many staff are employed to administer this program; and (j) does the department plan to hire additional staff in the face of the current economic crisis to administer the WEPP?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Labour, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, all data in the responses below were compiled from the Common System for Grants and Contributions. The custom data tabulation was provided to the labour program by Service Canada.
The wage earner protection program, WEPP, was created on July 7, 2008.
In response to (a), $6.82 million in payments were issued to eligible WEPP recipients between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009.
In response to (b), the total number of WEPP reimbursement recipients between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009 was 4,802.
In response to (c), total payments made between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009 have been less than budgeted for but demand for the program has been steadily increasing in recent months.
In response to (d), the average WEPP payment made per recipient between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009 was $1,420.
In response to (e), between July 7, 2008 and May 31, 2009, the number of Canadians who filed claims for WEPP support was 5,751.
In response to (f), given that this is a new program, and one that was recently expanded as part of Canada’s economic action plan, it is difficult to estimate precisely the number of claims expected in the first full year of operation.
In response to (g), budget 2009 added greater protection for workers by extending the WEPP to cover severance and termination pay. The enhanced protection and increased demand for the program due to the uncertain economic climate is estimated to cost $25 million per year. The expanded program provides financial assistance to Canadian workers. The WEPP was originally budgeted for $31.2 million. With the additional $25 million from budget 2009 the total budget for the WEPP is now $56.2 million.
In response to (h), annual ongoing administrative costs for the WEPP are $3.5M.
In response to (i), at present there are approximately 30 staff members administering the WEPP. Of these, 9 work for the labour program and 21 work for Service Canada.
In response to (j), the labour program added two staff members and Service Canada added six staff members to support the WEPP expansion as part of budget 2009. WEPP demand is closely monitored and staffing is adjusted accordingly.

Question No. 260--
Hon. Maria Minna:
With regard to replacement workers: (a) has the government reviewed subsection 94 (2.1) of the Canada Labour Code which prohibits the use of replacement workers if these workers are used to undermine a trade union’s capacity to engage in bargaining and represent its member; (b) has the use of replacement workers ever been prohibited under subsection 94 (2.1); (c) has the government compared federal legislation to provincial legislation as it relates to replacement workers and, if so, what were the findings and conclusions; (d) has the department held consultations or provided information to the Minister of Labour to define what services would be deemed essential under federal jurisdiction in the event of a labour dispute should a ban on replacement workers be implemented; (e) does the government intend to take any action on replacement workers in 2009-2010; and (f) has the department provided the Minister of Labour with any documentation indicating that the number of work stoppages would increase and last longer if a replacement worker ban were implemented?
Response
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Labour, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the effectiveness of section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code regarding replacement workers has been continually reviewed by the government.
In addition, the replacement worker issue was recently considered in Peter Annis’ 2008 independent report to the Minister of Labour, entitled “Work Stoppages in the Federal Private Sector: Innovative Solutions”. Mr. Annis found that there is no conclusive evidence that banning replacement workers or modifying section 94(2.1) would lead to a decrease in the incidence or duration of work stoppages.
Finally, the government tracks the number of complaints filed with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, CIRB, alleging a violation of section 94(2.1). Since the provision was enacted in 1999, only 23 complaints have been filed alleging unfair use of replacement workers. Of these, 18 were eventually withdrawn by the union, four were dismissed and one is pending. These statistics suggest that the use of replacement workers to undermine a union’ bargaining ability is not a pressing problem in the federal jurisdiction.
In response to (b), to date, the use of replacement workers has not been prohibited under section 94(2.1). It only prohibits the use of replacement workers where their presence in the workplace is intended to undermine a union’s representational capacity.
In response to (c), only two provinces have labour legislation which restricts the right of employers to use the services of replacement workers during work stoppages. Such restrictions have been in force in Quebec since 1977 and in British Columbia since 1993. While Ontario enacted similar provisions in 1993, they were repealed in 1995.
Despite this kind of legislation, a number of complaints concerning the use of replacement workers during work stoppages are filed each year in both Quebec and British Columbia. In 2007-08, 25 complaints were filed in each province respectively. Of the 25 complaints filed in Quebec, 10 were upheld by the provincial labour board. In British Columbia, 5 of the 25 complaints were upheld.
Peter Annis’ 2008 independent report to the Minister of Labour, “Work Stoppages in the Federal Private Sector: Innovative Solutions”, found that there is no conclusive evidence that banning replacement workers would lead to a decrease in the incidence and duration of work stoppages.
In response to (d), the code does not deal with “essential services”; rather, it includes a requirement, under section 87.4, that, in the event of a work stoppage, goods and services continue to be supplied to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious threat to public safety or health. Currently, if the parties cannot reach an agreement on maintenance of activities, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, CIRB, will decide what services must be maintained.
There have been no consultations on what services would need to be maintained in the event of a labour dispute specifically in the context of a replacement worker ban.
In response to (e), the government does not intend to make any changes to the labour relations provisions of the Canada Labour Code without broad agreement among stakeholders.
In response to (f), no. Data suggests that there is no significant difference in the number or duration of work stoppages whether or not there is a replacement worker ban in place. For the period 2006 to 2008, data indicates that the average duration of a work stoppage in Quebec was 52 days and in British Columbia 55.4 days, while in the federal jurisdiction, the average duration of a work stoppage was 49.2 days.

Question No. 266--
Ms. Chris Charlton:
With respect to the Government’s agreement with the Government of Ontario to harmonize the Goods and Services Tax and Ontario Provincial Sales Tax: (a) what additional classes of goods and services will the new harmonized sales tax apply to that the GST does not; (b) what additional classes of goods and services will the new harmonized sales tax apply to that the Ontario provincial sales tax does not; (c) owing to this agreement, on an annual basis, how much sales tax revenue does the government project it will lose from (i) corporations, and (ii) consumers; and (d) owing to this agreement, on an annual basis, how much new sales tax revenue does the government project it will collect from (i) corporations, and (ii) consumers?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) and (b), in the 2009 Ontario budget, “Confronting the Challenge: Building Our Economic Future”, which is available online at http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/budget/ontariobudgets/2009/papers_all.pdf, the Government of Ontario announced its decision that, starting July 1, 2010, Ontario’s retail sales tax, RST, would be converted to a value-added tax structure and combined with the federal goods and services tax, GST, to create a federally administered single sales tax, subject to the approval of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
The Memorandum of Agreement, MOA, Concerning a Canada-Ontario Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement, signed by the governments of Canada and Ontario specifies that Ontario agrees to adopt the goods and services tax, GST, tax base for the Ontario portion of the harmonized sales tax. However, the MOA allows the province to designate a limited number of point-of-sale rebates for the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax, not exceeding 5%, in aggregate, of the value of the GST base in the province. The MOA commits both governments to a comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreement, CITCA, that will elaborate on the provisions of the MOA, such as those relating to provincial tax policy flexibility, e.g., point-of-sale rebates.
In response to (c) and (d), under the MOA the federal portion of the harmonized sales tax in Ontario is 5% , and, therefore, equivalent to the current GST rate. As a result, it is not anticipated that the Government of Canada will see any change to the revenues it currently collects with the GST.

Question No. 272--
Mr. Joe Comartin:
With respect to the Police Officers Recruitment Fund: (a) how much has been allocated to the fund since its inception; (b) how much has been allocated to each jurisdiction since inception; (c) is the government aware of how many new police officers have been hired with this fund and, if so, how many in each jurisdiction; (d) what plans does the government have to help jurisdictions retain new recruits beyond the conclusion of this fund; and (e) what controls has the government put on the fund?
Response
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as part of our safer communities strategy, this government has delivered on a key platform commitment by making funding available to provinces and territories to support the recruitment of 2,500 new front-line police officers. Budget 2008 set aside $400 million to assist provinces and territories with the hiring of new front-line police officers. This money has been invested in a third-party trust for provinces and territories, allocated proportionately, to meet this objective.
In response to (b), all provinces and territories chose to participate in this initiative, and on June 22, 2008, the $400 million was allocated as follows: Newfoundland and Labrador, $5.9 million; Prince Edward Island, $1.6 million; Nova Scotia, $11.2 million; New Brunswick, $8.8 million; Quebec, $92.3 million; Ontario, $156 million; Manitoba, $14.4 million; Saskatchewan, $11.7 million; Alberta, $42.4 million; British Columbia, $53.3 million; and each of the three territories received $800,000. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to draw down all of these funds at any time over five years.
In response to (c), to date, seven of the provinces--Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and New Brunswick--have, through public media releases, announced their intentions with the funding. Publicly announced hiring includes 30 new positions in Saskatchewan, 45 officers in Nova Scotia this year as part of a plan to hire 250 officers by 2011, 329 officers in Ontario, 83 officers in Alberta and 168 officers in British Columbia. Prince Edward Island is using its share to staff and launch its Criminal Intelligence Service Bureau, and New Brunswick is investing its portion to improve regional integrated intelligence units to fight organized crime, establish a police cadet graduate bursary to attract recruits, as well as establish a safer communities and neighbourhoods enforcement unit.
In response to (d), establishing the first-ever Police Officers Recruitment Fund is a considerable investment that marks an important step forward in a way that respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction for policing while ensuring maximum flexibility. Consistent with their responsibility for policing, it is up to the provinces and territories to allocate funding as they see fit to their municipal and provincial police services. Provinces and territories are able to use the trust fund in a way that is best suited to address their local public safety priorities and policing needs. The government concluded its active role in the Police Officers Recruitment Fund on June 22, 2008, with the establishment of trust accounts for each jurisdiction.
In response to (e), consistent with their responsibility for policing, it is up to the provinces and territories to allocate funding as they see fit to their municipal and provincial police services. Provinces and territories are able to use the trust fund in a way that is best suited to address their local public safety priorities and policing needs. Provincial and territorial governments have been encouraged to report directly to their residents on the expenditures and the outcomes achieved.

Question No. 296--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
With regard to the Agriculture Minister’s 2008 request for his then-Parliamentary Secretary Guy Lauzon to conduct a study on the future of agriculture, trends in agriculture and how to attract youth to agriculture: (a) what were the findings of this report; (b) when was the report completed and presented to the Minister; (c) what communities were visited by the Parliamentary Secretary as part of the research, (i) who did he meet with in compiling his information, including their names, positions, associations represented and stakeholders in the agriculture industry, (ii) what documents were submitted for this report; (d) what were the dates, times and locations of town hall meetings held in researching this paper; (e) what were the costs associated with producing this report, including travel, meals, hospitality, meeting venues, support staff, and accomodation; (f) why has the study not been tabled in Parliament; and (g) what are the government's plans for acting on this report?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), (b), (f) and (g), no report was produced as the 40th General Election occurred ending the activities of the 39th Parliament.
In response to (c), the parliamentary secretary visited Chilliwack, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Ridgetown, Ontario; Vineland, Ontario; St. John’s, Newfoundland.
In response to (i), the parliamentary secretary met with a select group of young farmers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario (two sessions), and Newfoundland and Labrador. The sessions averaged between 8 and 12 participants.
The young farmers were chosen as individuals based on the recommendations of regional representatives from the following four organizations: Canadian 4-H Council, 4-H; Canadian Farm Business Management Council, CFMBC; Canada’s Outstanding Young Farmers’ Program, COYFP; and Canadian Young Farmers’ Forum, CYFF.
Neither the parliamentary secretary nor his office was involved in suggesting or choosing participants.
The participants were chosen for their ability to engage in a frank and open discussion on issues and concerns that most directly affect young and new farmers. Participants were not chosen as representatives of any association or stakeholder organization, or in any other official capacity.
Sections 19(1) and 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act preclude us from sharing the names of the participants.
In response to (ii), no documents were submitted as no report was produced due to the 40th general election occurring ending the activities of the 39th Parliament.
In response to (d), the dates, times and locations of town hall meetings held in researching this paper are: Chilliwack, British Columbia, Best Western Rainbow Country Inn, July 7, 2008, 09:00 to 11:00; Calgary, Alberta, Ramada Hotel, Downtown Calgary, July 9, 2008, 09:30 to 11:00; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, University of Saskatchewan, July 10, 2008, 09:00 to 11:00; Ridgetown, Ontario, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, August 19, 2008, 09:00 to 11:00; Vineland, Ontario, Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre, August 21, 2008, 09:00 to 11:00; and St. John's, Newfoundland, Quality Hotel Harbourview, August 28, 2008, 14:00 to 16:00.
In response to (e), the costs associated with producing this report, including travel, meals, hospitality, meeting venues, support staff, and accommodation were $15,931.22

Question No. 302--
Mr. Dennis Bevington:
With respect to political meetings held at Blatchford Lake Lodge, Northwest Territories, on the weekend of February 27 to March 1, 2009, which led to the creation of a political declaration for the Northwest Territories (NWT Declaration): (a) was the Manager, Indian and Northern Affairs Aboriginal Economic Development, Northwest Territories (Mr. Altaf Lakhani), in attendance at these meetings and, if so, why was a senior civil servant in attendance at a political meeting; (b) what, if any, role did Mr. Lakhani play in organizing these meetings; (c) what, if any, role did Mr. Lakhani play at the meetings; (d) what, if any, activities did Mr. Lakhani take part in following the meetings which were connected to the meeting or the NWT Declaration; (e) was Mr. Lakhani involved in any follow-up meetings or activities either flowing from these meetings or in connection with the NWT Declaration and, if so, when and where were these meetings held; (f) if Mr. Lakhani took part in any activities following the Blatchford Lake meetings what were these activities; (g) were government funds provided either directly or through another person or organization to organize, conduct or carry out follow-up activities related to this or other meetings or the NWT Declaration; (h) if government funds were dispersed, what were the amounts; (i) which persons or organizations received these funds; (j) under which government programs were such funds dispersed; and (k) if any government funds were dispersed, who authorized the release of these funds?
Response
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Mr. Altaf Lakhani was in attendance as a private citizen, not in his capacity as a public servant.
In response to (b), Mr. Lakhani was an invited participant and did not play any role in organizing the meetings.
In response to (c), Mr. Lakhani was invited for the exchange of ideas.
In response to (d), there was no further involvement by Mr. Lakhani following these meetings connected to the NWT declaration.
In response to (e), there was no further involvement of Mr. Lakhani in any follow-up meetings or activities.
In response to (f), there were none.
In response to (g), government funds were not provided either directly or through another person or organization to organize, conduct or carry out follow-up activities related to this or other meetings or the NWT declaration.
In response to (h), there were none provided.
In response to (i), there were none.
In response to (j), none were dispersed.
In response to (k), none were released.

Question No. 305--
Mr. Todd Russell:
With respect to phytosanitary management, what measures, if any, are in place to prevent the transmission or spread of potato wart and golden nematode: (a) from Newfoundland to Labrador; (b) within Labrador; (c) from Labrador to any other part of Canada; (d) if no such measures are in place, are any such measures being planned or otherwise under consideration; and (e) if so, what are they?
Response
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s, CFIA, mandate and priorities include preventing the spread of quarantine pests within Canada. Control of such pests is pursued primarily under provisions of the Plant Protection Act and, for potatoes, relevant provisions of the Seeds Regulations Part II. Newfoundland and Labrador is designated as a quarantine area in relation to potato wart, PW, and potato cyst nematode, PCN, with provisions in place to mitigate the spread of these pests from and within the province.
The primary control measures to prevent spread of PW and PCN within Newfoundland and Labrador have been the planting of pest-free seed potatoes combined with the use of varieties that are resistant to these pests. The CFIA, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the provincial government in Newfoundland have also implemented programs to support and encourage private gardeners to plant PW- and PCN-resistant varieties.
The mainland areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, commonly referred to as Labrador, have been surveyed for PW and PCN. PCN has not been found in mainland Labrador. PW is present but only in private gardens and is not found in any of the commercial agricultural fields that exist. Measures are in place to suppress PW and prevent its spread, including soil surveys, encouragement of the use of potato varieties resistant to PW, and agricultural extension that includes good management practices that will assist in pest suppression. These measures are pursued in partnership with the provincial government.
PCN and PW are both present on the island of Newfoundland. The movement of soil, potato wart and PCN from Newfoundland is restricted legislatively under the Plant Protection Act and its regulations. In addition, under this legislation, the CFIA has the authority to impose individual notices restricting movement of regulated articles from specific gardens or fields known to be infested with PCN or PW.
Existing CFIA plant protection activities designed to prevent the spread of PCN and PW are routinely reviewed. In addition, the CFIA monitors for any changes that may indicate an increased risk of the spread of these pests to non-infested agricultural areas of Labrador or other Canadian provinces. If an increased risk were to be identified, alternative measures could be developed and implemented to mitigate the risk appropriately.
The current PCN and PW measures have proven to be effective in mitigating the risk of spreading PCN from the island of Newfoundland to Labrador and other parts of Canada, and of PW from Newfoundland and Labrador to other Canadian provinces.
Legislative restrictions for PW and PCN are specified in schedule I and schedule II of the Plant Protection Regulations, SOR/2001-287, s. 1; SOR/2004-80, s. 18.
Schedule I, entitled “Prohibited Movement within Canada”, contains the following movement restriction intended to prevent potato varieties susceptible to PW from being produced on the island of Newfoundland:
3. Movement of potato varieties with blue or purple skin (except for the varieties: Brigus, Blue Mac, A.C. Blue Pride and A.C. Domino, and any potato variety to be used for research purposes by a government, an educational institution or a corporation) is prohibited from the rest of Canada into Newfoundland.
Schedule II, subsection 50(3) and sections 51 and 52, of the Plant Protection Regulations, SOR/2001-287, s. 1; SOR/2004-80, s. 18., is entitled “Restricted Movement within Canada”. The relevant provisions relating to PW and PCN are provided below:
29. All plants produced within Newfoundland are restricted from moving to all other areas of Canada, based on the requirement for a movement certificate.
38. Soil, compost material, peat moss or anything with soil, compost material or peat moss attached are restricted from moving from Newfoundland to all other areas of Canada by the requirement for a movement certificate.
43. In order to be moved from Newfoundland to other areas of Canada, used bags, boxes, containers and other articles used to move root-crops, soil, compost material or peat moss are required to be free from soil, compost material and peat moss, or to have been subjected to a treatment or process to eradicate PCN and PW.
49. Used vehicles and equipment that are or may be infested must be free from soil and must exit the island of Newfoundland through an inspection centre with washing stations at Argentia, Port aux Basques, St. John’s or Cornerbrook.

Question No. 308--
Mr. Robert Oliphant:
With respect to the Algoma Tankers Limited application to the Department of Finance regarding a remission order for the recently paid import duty on the new petroleum product tankers, Algonova and AlgoCanada: (a) when will a decision be rendered on this application; (b) what are the qualifications necessary for a successful application; (c) have there been any consultations with any of the following organizations regarding this application, including, the Shipbuilders Association of Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the Canadian Shipowners Association, the Chamber of Marine Commerce and the Ontario Marine Transportation Forums and, if so, what has been the result of those consultations?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), this application for duty remission on the two tankers imported by Algoma Tankers Limited is currently under review by the Department of Finance. Once the review is completed, the department will make its recommendation to the Minister of Finance for his consideration.
In response to (b), in any remission request, the applicant is asked to provide the department with evidence supporting its request, including, inter alia, the effect the payment of the duties would have on its operations. As part of the process, the department also consults with all relevant stakeholders to seek their views on the remission request. Each application is reviewed on its own merits to determine whether duty remission is in the overall economic interest of Canada. A number of factors are taken into consideration in this review, including, inter alia, the results of consultations with all relevant stakeholders. Once the review is completed, the department makes a recommendation to the Minister of Finance for his consideration.
In response to (c), as part of broad consultations undertaken by the Department of Finance on this remission request, views were received from the following stakeholders: Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Canadian Shipowners Association, Chamber of Marine Commerce, Algoma Central Corporation, Imperial Oil, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation and the Ontario Marine Transportation Forum. The department also consulted officials at Industry Canada and Transport Canada. The views of all stakeholders will be fully considered as the department prepares its recommendation to the Minister of Finance.

Question No. 310--
Ms. Olivia Chow:
With respect to the Toronto Port Authority (TPA), will the government: (a) conduct an internal and external audit, as requested in a letter to the Minister of Transport outlined by four directors of the TPA, on the management of the Port Authority by the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) during 2008; (b) disclose the legal advice to the Board of Directors of the TPA, as obtained by the former CEO in 2008; (c) order the minutes of TPA meetings from 2008 be released from abeyance; (d) provide a justification of the $80,000 in hospital and travel expenses in 2007 and part of 2008, incurred by the CEO, while operating a deficit; (e) provide a justification for changing the constitution of the TPA by expanding two extra members onto the Board; and (f) ensure no board member has a conflict of interest, and that all board members act in an ethical manner?
Response
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), section 41 of the Canada Marine Act requires that Canada port authorities undergo a special examination every five years, to allow an examiner to report on the port authority’s practices and protocols, including those related to financial management and control. The Toronto Port Authority has indicated that it will soon undertake its second special examination under this provision, and it should be completed prior to the end of this fiscal year. These reviews are conducted by a qualified, independent auditor.
In response to (b), the legal advice provided to the board of directors of the Toronto Port Authority belongs to the authority, and the decision to disclose the advice provided rests with the board.
In response to (c), paragraph 7(2)(b) of the Port Authorities Management Regulations requires any port authority to “prepare and maintain … at its registered office or at such other place in Canada as the board of directors thinks fit, a record of the minutes of meetings and resolutions of the board of directors and committees of directors.” This requirement to keep minutes of board meetings is consistent with good governance practices. This provision does not require Canada port authorities to make minutes of meetings public. Furthermore, the minister does not hold copies of the minutes.
In response to (d), the member of Parliament for Trinity--Spadina has been provided with a listing of travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the former chief executive officer of the Toronto Port Authority in 2007 and 2008, Question No. 61, February 19, 2009.
In response to (e), section 8 of the Canada Marine Act stipulates that the board of directors of a Canada port authority shall consist of between seven and eleven members. In December 2008, the Toronto Port Authority’s supplementary letters patent were amended, as permitted under the act, to increase membership on the board of directors from seven directors to nine.
A significant increase in airport operations and the need to ensure adequate representation of all port stakeholders led the government to increase membership on the board of directors at the Toronto Port Authority. The operation of an airport, in addition to a working port, requires additional governance oversight. The increase in membership was taken in the interests of strengthening the authority’s governance structure and the board’s ability to deal with complex issues facing the Toronto Port Authority. The individuals added to the board need to be people that know local issues and have valuable experience to bring to the table.
In response to (f), members of the board of directors at the Toronto Port Authority have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the port. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities takes allegations of conflict of interest on the board very seriously, and will consider the findings of any reviews or investigations related to the Toronto Port Authority.
In April 2006, the then minister of transport requested that a review of the Toronto Port Authority be undertaken to ensure that the principles of accountability and good governance had been upheld in decisions and actions taken by the Toronto Port Authority. The review of the Toronto Port Authority resulted in a comprehensive report on the Toronto Port Authority and satisfied the former minister that the board and management of the Toronto Port Authority had upheld the principles of accountability and good governance.

Question No. 312--
Hon. John McCallum:
With respect to section 162 of the Federal Accountability Act passed on December 12, 2006, what expenses were incurred by the office of the head of each department or ministry of state in fiscal year 2006-2007 for: (a) personnel; (b) transportation and communications; (c) information services, and (d) professional and special services?
Response
Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this information was not centrally tracked prior to the coming into force of the Federal Accountability Act. Data gathering and reporting procedures were amended to report this information in the Public Accounts of Canada on a go forward basis commencing for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Question No. 313--
Hon. Dan McTeague:
With respect to the government's decision to increase the lowest personal income tax bracket from 15% to 15.5% in Budget 2006: (a) what was the justification for the increase; (b) what was the total revenue generated by the tax increase; and (c) why the government felt it was necessary to lower the rate back to 15%?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the lowest personal income tax rate remained at the legislated level of 16 per cent until following the budget tabled in the House of Commons on May 2, 2006.
Budget 2006 announced a permanent reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate from 16 per cent to 15.5 per cent effective July 1, 2006. Subsequently, this reduction was legislated in C-13: an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, Royal Assent given on June 22, 2006.
More information on budget 2006 is available at www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/bp/bptoc-eng.asp.
In response to part (b), as explained in part (a), only following the budget tabled in the House of Commons on May 2, 2006 was a reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate legislated. No revenue was generated by the measure. Indeed, as detailed in the budget 2006 document (see Table 3.6), reducing the lowest rate provided total tax relief of about $6.3 billion over the 2005-06 to 2007-08 period.
In response to part (c), the lowest personal income tax rate was reduced further to 15 per cent in the economic statement tabled in the House of Commons on October 30, 200, available at http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoc/2007/ec07_-eng.asp.
The motivation for this reduction was clearly stated in that document (please see page 7), “Canada’s economic and fiscal fundamentals are rock solid, yet the world economy is experiencing turbulence and increased uncertainty. Given this global economic uncertainty, now is the time to act. Our strong fiscal position provides Canada with an opportunity that few other countries have—to make broad-based tax reductions that will strengthen our economy, stimulate investment and create more and better jobs”.
Subsequently, this reduction was legislated in C-28: an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, Royal Assent given on December 14, 2007.
A vast array of public-interest groups heralded this important reduction. For instance, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation cheered that “all taxpayers are benefitting today on the personal income tax side. This is certainly a very good announcement today, and it is an amount that is going to be felt and noticed by Canadian taxpayers." The Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce also proclaimed, “Canadians are overtaxed and (the economic statement 2007) announcements take concrete measures to address the situation in an immediate and bold fashion. These measures are particularly welcome as global competitive pressures intensify and underscore the need for international tax competitiveness… the reduction in the lowest marginal personal income tax rate to 15 per cent will help stimulate work effort, saving and investment, all of which have a direct bearing on productivity, competitiveness and prosperity”.

Question No. 314--
Hon. Dan McTeague:
With respect to government action in the case of Mr. Muhammad Kohail, what was every official communication with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while respecting Mr. Kohail's right to privacy by not revealing the substance of the communication and, specifically, (i) who initiated the communication, (ii) who was involved on behalf of the Canadian government, (iii) who was involved on behalf of the Saudi government, (iv) what was the date of the communication, (v) what was the method of communication?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, since his arrest in Saudi Arabia in January 2007, consular officials in Ottawa and in Saudi Arabia have been actively providing assistance and support to Mohamed Kohail, his brother, Sultan, and their family. In March 2008, following the death sentence imposed by the Saudi Court, the Government of Canada announced that it would seek clemency for Mohamed Kohail.
The Government of Canada has raised Mohamed Kohail’s case at the ministerial level at every opportunity. During a trip to Saudi Arabia in March 2008, the then Minister for Public Safety raised the case with Prince Muqrin, President of the Saudi General Intelligence Service. The Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote and spoke to his Saudi counterpart, Prince Saud Al-Faisal in May 2008. The Minister for Natural Resources raised the case with the Saudi Oil Minister while in Jeddah in late June 2008.
In December 2008, the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised the case during a phone call with Prince Saud al-Faisal. During a visit to Saudi Arabia in December 2008, the Parliamentary Secretary met with senior officials at the Saudi Human Rights Commission and the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs to raise the case. The Parliamentary Secretary also met with the Saudi Minister of Justice to reiterate the Government of Canada's concerns. In February 2009, the Minister of Agriculture raised the case to his Saudi counterpart during a visit to Saudi Arabia. Finally, in June 2009, the Minister of International Trade raised the case with the Governor of Jeddah and the President of the Saudi Human Rights Commission during a visit to Saudi Arabia. The minister also met with the Kohail family to reiterate the Government of Canada’s commitment to pursuing all avenues to provide assistance to their sons.
Consular officials at the Canadian Embassy in Riyadh continue to closely monitor Mohamed Kohail’s case and remain in regular contact with Saudi authorities at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by means of diplomatic notes and meetings. They are also in regular contact with prison officials in Jeddah to ensure that concerns regarding Mr. Kohail’s welfare are promptly addressed. When allegations of mistreatment were brought to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ attention in 2007, consular officials immediately raised the matter with Saudi authorities, including by diplomatic note, to request a thorough investigation into the matter.
The former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and the current Chargé d’Affaires have raised the case with senior level Saudi authorities both in writing and in meetings, including the Saudi Minister of Justice, the Governor of Mecca, and the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Deputy Minister for Consular Affairs.
During an April 2008 trip to Saudi Arabia, the Director of the Consular Case Management Division and the Director of the Gulf and Maghreb Division met with key officials including the Director of Judiciary Affairs at the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In November 2008, at the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ instruction, the Director General of the Consular Operations Bureau and the Director General of the Middle East Bureau met with the Saudi Chargé d’Affaires in Ottawa to raise the case. The Director of Gulf and Maghreb Division met with the Head of the Legal Department at the Saudi MFA to raise the case in November 2008.
In accordance with the Access to Information Act, Section 15, detailed responses to questions (i) to (v) could be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, and will not be released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Question No. 315--
Hon. Larry Bagnell:
Since the government announced plans for the construction of a $720 million polar ice breaker to be named HMCS Diefenbaker: (a) what progress has been made to date on this project; (b) have design contracts been awarded and, if so, to whom; (c) has the government altered its plans on the Diefenbaker by shelving the project and, if so, (i) when was the decision made, (ii) on who’s recommendation, (iii) what is the rational for the curtailment, (iv) why was this information not made public; (d) what is the latest estimated cost for the Diefenbaker; and (e) has the government decided to reassess the plans for the Diefenbaker in favour of recapitalizing the Coast Guard fleet on a more useful basis, with the support of the Canadian Armed Forces?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, budget 2008 providing funding of $720M to procure a Polar Icebreaker to replace Canadian Coast Guard Ship (CCGS) Louis S. St. Laurent, currently Canada’s most capable Heavy Icebreaker, at the end of her planned operational life in 2017. The Polar Icebreaker will provide Canada with an enhanced Arctic capability to operate farther North and over a longer period each year than is currently the case.
In response to (a), to date the following progress has been achieved:
(1) Establishment of positions and hiring of key project personnel;
(2) Broad consultation with internal and external project stakeholders to develop a preliminary mission profile for this new class of vessel; and with project definition phase of the project.
In response to (b), design contracts have not yet been awarded.
In response to (c), the procurement process for the acquisition of the Polar Icebreaker, to be named CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, is unfolding on schedule. The government has not altered any plans in this regard and remains fully committed to this project as a key component of Canada’s Northern Strategy initiative.
In response to (d), the total estimated cost for the project is $720 million.
In response to (e), the government has not reassessed its plans regarding the Diefenbaker. The project remains on schedule and delivery is planned for 2017. The Canadian Coast Guard’s current approach to fleet operations is that all vessels are multi-tasked as the most efficient and effective means of maintaining its assets and delivering on its mandated programs and providing support to and working closely with other government departments and agencies.

Question No. 324--
Mr. Bruce Hyer:
With regards to passenger rail in Northern Ontario: (a) have there been any proposals, initiatives, reports or studies on expanding service to Thunder Bay since 1990; (b) what is the estimated cost of expanding service to Thunder Bay; (c) what would be the estimated boost in ridership with extension to Thunder Bay; (d) what is the total cost of current Via Rail operations in the region; (e) what is the total revenue from the region; (f) what capital assets are owned in the region; and (g) what is the proportion of freight traffic to passenger traffic in the region?
Response
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in August/September 2000, VIA Rail undertook a preliminary internal review of a number of train service proposals including the re-routing of “The Canadian” through the Thunder Bay/Lake Superior route on Canadian Pacific Railway infrastructure. This would also necessitate the introduction of a Capreol-Hornepayne-Winnipeg local service to maintain access for remote communities along the present route of of “The Canadian” on the Canadian National Railway line.
In response to (b), the incremental costs of introducing this combined service change, based on the 2000 estimate, would be $5.9 million annual operating costs plus capital expenditures of $17.9 million for rolling stock and stations.
In response to (c), a market assessment of the potential impact on ridership levels has not been undertaken.
In response to (d), the total annual operating cost of VIA Rail operations in the area (i.e. Sudbury – White River service) is $2.6 million.
In response to e) Total revenue from the region (i.e. Sudbury – White River service) is $183,000.
In response to (f), capital assets owned in the region include station facilities in Washago, Sudbury Junction, Capreol, and Foleyet.
In response to g) VIA does not have information with respect to the proportion of freight traffic.

Question No. 329--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With respect to Health Canada and the Canadian Apheresis Group: (a) is the Minister of Health going to submit a Treasury Board submission that would renew the mandate for funding that was given by the Canadian Blood Committee and the Canadian Blood Agency (October 1997); and (b) since existing funding is expected to expire on March 15, 2010, will the government show a renewed commitment to this group by granting permanent funding?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the 1997 federal-provincial-territorial memorandum of understanding on the establishment of the National Blood Authority, Health Canada provides funds to the Canadian Blood Services, CBS, for research and development on blood safety and effectiveness ($5M/annum since 2000-2001). Beginning in 2008, Health Canada also provides funds to CBS to improve the delivery of organ and tissue donation and transplantation activities in Canada ($3.58M /annum between April 2008 and March 2013).
Funding to the Canadian Apheresis Group ended in 2003. There is no current funding agreement between Health Canada nor the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Apheresis Group.

Question No. 337--
Hon. Shawn Murphy:
With regard to the November 2006 funding announcement made by then-Health Minister Tony Clement detailing a five-point plan for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) funding in Canada, what are the details regarding: (a) the status of the commitment to sponsor an ASD stakeholder symposium; (b) the status of the commitment to establish a chair focusing on interventions and treatment for ASD; (c) the status of the commitment to undertake a consultation process to see how an ASD surveillance program could be set up through the Public Health Agency of Canada; (d) the status of the commitment to establish a dedicated web page on the Health Canada website with ASD information and resources; (e) the status of the commitment to designate the Health Policy Branch of Health Canada as the ASD lead for actions related to ASD at the federal health portfolio level; and (f) how much federal funding these and other autism programs will receive during the fiscal year 2009-2010?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), with regard to the commitment to sponsor an ASD stakeholder symposium, in November 2007, a national symposium on autism research was hosted by Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, to share knowledge and to support dialogue on future research priorities. The report from this Symposium is now available on the CIHR web site.
In response to (b), with regard to the commitment to establish a chair focusing on interventions and treatment for ASD, funding for an autism research chair to address issues related to treatments and interventions was announced at Simon Fraser University on October 20, 2007. This joint initiative with the Government of British Columbia is being supported with $1M in federal funding over five years. Efforts to establish a Chair are currently underway by Simon Fraser University.
In response to (c), between November 2007 and May 2008, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, undertook a consultation process to examine options for the development of an Autism Spectrum Disorders, ASD, surveillance program in Canada. This process was guided by a steering committee comprised of ASD experts, and included three components:
1. an environmental scan of the current scope of ASD surveillance activities in Canada;
2. a technical workshop on the information needs and data collection options for ASD surveillance; and
3. a broader stakeholder consultation on the information needs of ASD communities and how they would like surveillance information disseminated to them.
The results of this consultation process will be used by PHAC as it undertakes a new national surveillance system for developmental disorders such as autism. This initiative, a component of the federal government’s 2008 action plan to protect human health from environmental contaminants, will be a national sentinel surveillance program to track and assess the linkages between environmental contamination and developmental disorders such as sensory impairments, autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Using centres for surveillance expertise, data will be collected from a variety of local sources such as schools, hospitals, community paediatricians, and other health professionals.
In response to (d), with respect to the commitment to establish a dedicated web page on the Health Canada website with ASD information and resources, the website has been created. It provides facts and information on ASD, as well as links to Canadian and International autism organizations. The website can be found at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/dc-ma/autism-eng.php As well, in 2007-08 Health Canada provided $50,000 to the Offord Centre for Child Studies (a research centre dedicated to improving the life quality of children with mental health and developmental problems) to support the dissemination of the latest evidence pertaining to autism through the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network, CAIRN, via the Network’s website. The Canadian Autism Intervention Network, CAIRN, is a group of parents, clinicians and scientists working to conduct research in early intervention in autism, and is part of the Offord Centre for Child Studies. The web page on the Health Canada website links to the CAIRN website in order to direct Canadians to evidence-based information of a more clinical nature, and complement the content on the Departmental site.
In response to (e), with respect to the commitment to designate the Health Policy Branch of Health Canada as the ASD lead for actions related to ASD at the federal health portfolio level, this was done in 2007. Since then, the Health Policy Branch has become the Strategic Policy Branch, and the Chronic and Continuing Care Division within the Branch holds the lead on the ASD file.
In response to (f), with respect to federal funding for autism related initiatives during fiscal year 2009-10, the federal government has committed $200,000 to Simon Fraser University, as part of the $1M over five years for the Autism Research Chair. In addition, the federal government has a multi-year contribution agreement with the Offord Centre for Child Studies, with $25,000 in 2008-2009 and $50,000 in 2009-10, for a total of $75,000 over two years. This funding will support the development and dissemination of research priorities in Autism Spectrum Disorders, ASD, among parents, policy makers, researchers, health professionals, health educators and individuals with ASD. This work will be accomplished through a national on-line survey, a national conference in fall 2009, and by further updating the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network website, which is the primary bilingual source for disseminating evidence-based information about ASD in Canada. In fiscal year 2009-10, CIHR has currently committed approximately $3.4 million towards autism research.

Question No. 342--
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes:
Concerning the establishment of future permanent full service passport offices throughout Canada: (a) does Passport Canada have a long term plan to increase the number of permanent full service passport offices, (i) if yes, what is the break down and timeline for the establishments of these offices, (ii) if no, is Passport Canada looking at developing such a plan; (b) has Passport Canada considered opening full service passport offices utilising the infrastructure that currently exists in local Service Canada outlets; (c) has Passport Canada considered using the trained staff that are tasked as frontline customer service worker to staff new regional full service passport offices; and (d) has Passport Canada looked into regional disparities in obtainning passports in relation to their current full service offices, (i) if yes, what recommendations were presented, (ii) if not, does Passport Canada intend on conducting such a study?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am informed by Passport Canada that in response to (a), Passport Canada finances its operations from the fees charged for passports and other travel documents. The agency must generate sufficient revenues to meet expenditures. It periodically reviews demand patterns to evaluate whether it is feasible to open new offices. Where demand is not sufficient to sustain a passport office, the agency now offers passport services through partnership agreements. In 2003, 30 passport offices were operating across the country. Since then, the agency has opened three additional passport offices and, through partnerships with Canada Post and Service Canada, now has 230 passport points of service. Consequently, 95 per cent of Canadians now have in-person access to a passport point of service within 100 km of their residence.
As a Special Operating Agency, Passport Canada does not receive an annual parliamentary appropriation-- the service the Agency provides is supported by applicants rather than taxpayers. Passport Canada operates under a revolving fund which allows it to accumulate an annual surplus (or deficit) of up to $4 million. Passport Canada can also carry over surplus revenues from year to year to offset future shortfalls.
(ii) Other than a new regional office in Kelowna, British Columbia, scheduled to open in 2010, Passport Canada’s long-term plan does not include the opening of additional permanent full-service passport offices.
In response to (b), the cost to adequately equip and provide the security required for a full-service passport office ranges from $1.2 million to $4 million. Were Passport Canada to extend full-service status to all 320 Service Canada outlets, the required investment would be significant. The existing Service Canada network would also require substantial physical modifications to accommodate additional applicant volume and to meet security criteria. Current and new employees would also need considerable training to perform their new duties.
In response to (c), front-line examiners are trained to make decisions about whether a passport can be issued. The training is intensive, in-depth and is part of the expense required for each new regional office. Passport Canada’s human resource practices are fair and transparent. Positions are posted as they become available and all applicants are screened against a series of criteria including skills, knowledge, education and abilities.
In response to (d), Passport Canada’s receiving agent network has considerably broadened access to passport services throughout the country, especially in rural, remote and northern locations. Given the existing broad access to service, any passport expansion would result in marginal improvements in service to the majority of Canadians at a significantly higher cost.
(i), the Passport Canada Mobile Passport Unit, created in 2007, has increased accessibility in rural regions and border communities. This minimizes delays due to incomplete applications. Since January 2007, the Mobile Passport Unit has held 166 clinics and accepted more than 42,000 applications.
Passport Canada continues to explore ways to improve client services while prudently managing its funds.

Question No. 343--
Ms. Christiane Gagnon:
With respect to the defence of the former lieutenant governor of Quebec, Ms. Lise Thibault, regarding the allegations of her spending while in office: (a) how much has the government spent on legal fees associated with the defence of the former lieutenant governor of Quebec; and (b) how much will the government spend on legal fees associated with the defence of Ms. Thibault?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice Canada is not implicated in the defence of Mrs. Lise Thibault.
If proceedings are eventually undertaken against Mrs. Thibault, employees from Canadian Heritage may be called as witnesses. Counsel from our office could then be consulted to advise government employees of their rights and obligations and of the progress of the proceedings.
In certain cases, if the situation and interests of the Government of Canada require it, government employees may be accompanied by Justice counsel.
We estimate that the time and fees incurred by the Department of Justice in this case will remain minimal and will be incurred only to preserve the interests of the Government of Canada and its employees.

Question No. 344--
Mr. Thomas Mulcair:
With regards to Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, passed during the First Session of the 38th and: (a) the Post-Secondary Education Infrastructure Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were allocated; (b) the Public Transit Capital Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; (c) the Affordable Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; (d) the Off-Reserve Aboriginal Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated; and (e) the Northern Housing Trust, (i) does the government know which projects received funding, (ii) what are the amounts involved, (iii) to what were the funds allocated?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, trusts are financial vehicles used by the Government of Canada to transfer funds to provinces and territories in order to meet urgent, short-term pressures in areas of shared national priority. The trust mechanism gives provincial and territorial governments the flexibility to withdraw funding in support of the identified objectives, according to their respective needs and priorities, over the lifespan of each trust.
In response to (i) and( ii), trusts established pursuant to Bill C-48, five trusts were established pursuant to Bill C-48, An act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, which received Royal Assent in July 2005. These trusts were highlighted in the budget presented to the House of Commons on May 2, 2006:
$1 billion for the post-secondary education infrastructure trust, to support investments to promote innovation and accessibility, including investments in university and college infrastructure and equipment. The funding is notionally allocated over two years on an equal per capita basis among provinces and territories;
$900 million for the public transit capital trust, in support of capital investments in public transit infrastructure both as a means to reduce traffic congestion and to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions. The funding is notionally allocated over three years on an equal per capita basis among provinces and territories;
$800 million for the affordable housing trust to help address short-term pressures with regard to the supply of affordable housing. The funding is notionally allocated over three years on an equal per capita basis among provinces and territories;
$300 million for the off-reserve aboriginal housing trust to help provinces address short-term housing needs for aboriginal Canadians living off-reserve. The funding is notionally allocated over three years among provinces based on the provincial share of the aboriginal population living off-reserve; and
$300 million for the northern housing trust to help meet short-term pressures with regard to the supply of affordable housing in the North. The funding is notionally allocated over three years among the three territories as follows: $50 million each for the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, plus an additional $150 million for urgent needs in Nunavut.
Payments to the trusts were made on September 27, 2006, after the Government was able to confirm that sufficient funds were available from surpluses in the two fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
In response to (iii), Projects receiving funding, allocation, and amounts involved, operating principles were established for each trust. Once the funds have been transferred to the trustee, the trustee, and subsequently the provinces and territories, are accountable for the distribution and use of those funds.

Question No. 346--
Ms. Ruby Dhalla:
What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantee has the government issued through the Department of Canadian Heritage, over $1,000, since January 1, 2006, and in each case where applicable: (a) the name of the recipient; (b) the constituency of the recipient; (c) the program for which the grant, loan, or loan guarantee was given; (d) the date the application was received; (e) the amount of the individual grant, loan, or loan guarantee; (f) the date the payment was made; and (g) the total amount from all programs received by the recipient in that calendar year?
Response
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s information systems do not capture financial information by federal riding.

Question No. 348--
Ms. Ruby Dhalla:
With regard to government advertising, since January 24, 2006: (a) how much was spent per print advertisement, listed alphabetically by supplier; (b) in which constituencies were the print advertisements distributed; (c) what dates did the print advertisements run; (d) how much was spent per radio advertisement, listed alphabetically by supplier; (e) on what stations did the radio advertisement air; (f) on what dates and times did the radio advertisements air; (g) how much was spent per internet advertisement, listed alphabetically by supplier; (h) on what websites were the internet advertisements posted; (i) how many hits did each internet advertisement receive; (j) how much was spent per television advertisement, listed alphabetically by supplier; (k) on what stations did the television advertisement air; and (l) on what dates and times did the television advertisement air?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested in question No. 348 is too voluminous and costly to produce. The data required to adequately respond to the question is contained on 29,472 pages, in English only. Furthermore, given the magnitude of this question, it is not practical or cost effective for the government to translate these documents.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-eng.html

Question No. 350--
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:
With respect to the Natural Health Products Directorate (NHPD): (a) is the 2010 compliance deadline purely an internal deadline or one that should be of concern to product license applicants; (b) is the current deadline is not enforced given the current large unaddressed backlog of applications; (c) will the backlog be solved simply through wholesale product rejection; (d) are reasonable application reviews taking place so that Canadians can enjoy access to safe, high quality natural health products; (e) will the government amend the Food and Drugs Act to establish a separate regulatory category for natural health products; and (f) will the government provide long term funding to the NHPD to act as the regulator for natural health products?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Health Canada has set a goal for itself to address the Natural Health Product, NHP, product licensing backlog by March 31, 2010. This date is not set out in law or regulation--it is an internal deadline adopted by Health Canada. The only date set out in the regulation is December 31, 2009 at which time all natural health products which were previously issued a drug identification number under the Food and Drug Regulations will be required to have a product licence, as per Section 108 of the Natural Health Products Regulations.
Health Canada is confident that, building on our progress to date, we can address the backlog by March 31, 2010.
In response to (b), the Natural Health Products Directorate, together with the Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate, are currently developing a compliance strategy for 2010.
Significant progress has been made to address the backlog of applications: as of June 2009, 47% of the product licence application backlog has been completed or is in the process of being completed and of the remaining 6661 applications, 48% have been addressed--meaning that the applicant has received at least one deficiency notice from NHPD as part of the assessment of their application. Of the product licence applications not considered in the backlog, 59% have been completed or are in the process of being completed and of the remaining 4836 applications, 25% have been addressed--meaning that the applicant has received at least one deficiency notice from NHPD as part of the assessment of their application. Of all product licence applications received since 2004, NHPD has completed or is in the process of completing 70%.
In response to (c), Health Canada continues to review applications and issue regulatory decisions. Some of those decisions will be refusals. To date, however, there have been more licences than refusals.
The Natural Health Product Regulations, NHPR, require that an applicant submit information to support the safety, efficacy and quality of a product for assessment by the NHPD. An estimated 25-30% of applications received do not include enough information or relevant information to allow the directorate, on behalf of the minister, to conclude that the product is safe and effective.
An applicant that does not include sufficient information in an application, to allow a licence to be issued is provided with an opportunity to submit further information to support the licensing of the product; in 26% of submissions, the applicant chooses not to take this opportunity and does not respond to a request from the NHPD to do so.
In response to (d), Health Canada’s priority is to protect and promote the health of Canadians by ensuring access to natural health products that are safe, effective, and of high quality. Only NHPs that are supported by adequate levels of evidence and carry appropriate labels will be authorized for sale and issued a product licence.
The safety and efficacy evaluation of a natural health product, NHP, includes an assessment of its recommended conditions of use and the existing totality of evidence related to the NHP.The information that is considered acceptable by NHPD in reviewing applications includes a range of data including:
(i) safety and efficacy information that is developed by the NHPD and made available to product licence applicants such as ingredient and product monographs and labelling standards (nearly 150 of these are now available and has been used by applicants to allow for the licensing of thousands of products);
(ii) reference to safety and efficacy information published reference texts and pharmacopeia (e.g., texts for homeopathic medicines and traditional chinese medicines);
(iii) reference to safety and efficacy information from small-scale trials that is publicly available from a variety of sources;
(iv) reference to relevant decisions made by other regulatory agencies.
In response to (e), Bill C-51, An Act to Amend the Food and Drugs Act, died on the Order Paper with the dissolution of Parliament in September 2008. Consultations with stakeholders resulted in revisions and additions to the Bill, which were to be introduced during review by Committee.
One proposed addition was the introduction of a definition for NHPs at the level of the act, clarifying that NHPs are separate from drugs. It is important to note that the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act would not have affected the way that NHPs are regulated in Canada. Under the Natural Health Products Regulations, NHPs are already regulated separately from drugs. The standards of evidence used to assess the risks and benefits of NHPs will continue to incorporate history of use, traditional uses and cultural practices.
In response to (f), Health Canada remains committed to ensuring safe, effective and high quality NHPs. In budget 2008, $33 million over two years was dedicated to implement a new approach to the regulation of NHPs and ensure the safety of Canadians. The government is committed to ensuring that the regulation of NHPs balances the protection of consumers’ health and safety with the freedom to choose alternative products.

Question No. 353--
Mr. Paul Szabo:
With regards to the Canadian Institute for Health Research: (a) how much has their budget been for each year since their inception; (b) how much of that has been spent each year on research related to reproduction technologies; (c) how much of that has been spent each year on research related to stem cell research; and (d) how much of that has been spent each year on embryonic stem cell research?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s, CIHR, total parliamentary appropriations since inception are as follows:
2000-01: $401.3 million
2001-02: $553.8 million
2002-03: $651.2 million
2003-04: $696.9 million
2004-05: $757.9 million
2005-06: $813.1 million
2006-07: $863.5 million
2007-08: $993.7 million
2008-09: $974.1 million
CIHR currently estimates its 2009-10 total appropriations to be approximately $983.9 million, $973.1 million of which has already been approved by the Treasury Board.
In response to (b) total estimated funding for reproductive technology per fiscal year since inception to 2008/09 is as follows:
2000-01: $294,000
2001-02: $341,000
2002-03: $1.2 million
2003-04: $2.8 million
2004-05: $3.4 million
2005-06: $3.4 million
2006-07: $4.2 million
2007-08: $5.1 million
2008-09: $5.0 million
In response to (c), total estimated funding for stem cell research per fiscal year since inception to 2008/09 is as follows:
2000-01: $7.9 million
2001-02: $10.2 million
2002-03: $13.9 million
2003-04: $17.1 million
2004-05: $20.3 million
2005-06: $23.6 million
2006-07: $29.9 million
2007-08: $35.0 million
2008-09: $38.0 million
In response to (d), total estimated funding for embryonic stem cell research, a subset of stem cell research, per fiscal year since inception to 2008/09 is as follows:
2000-01: --
2001-02: $189,000
2002-03: $492,000
2003-04: $619,000
2004-05: $766,000
2005-06: $770,000
2006-07: $1.2 million
2007-08: $2.3 million
2008-09: $3.6 million

Question No. 360--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to interest on advance deposits from corporate taxpayers: (a) what is the total amount of outstanding deposits; (b) what are the 30 largest amounts of outstanding deposits by company; (c) what has been the amount of interest paid over the last five years; and (d) over the last five years, which companies have refused to be repaied outstanding deposits?
Response
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to advance deposits from corporate taxpayers, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, to the above-noted question. Please note that the CRA’s reply includes information from fiscal years 2004-2005 to 2007-2008.
In response to (a), the total amount of outstanding advance deposits from corporate taxpayers, as of May 31, 2008, was $4.4 billion.
In response to (b), please note that the confidentiality provisions of the Income tax Act, specifically Section 241(1), prohibit the CRA from either directly or indirectly disclosing “taxpayer information”. As a result of this prohibition, the CRA cannot provide the information in the manner requested.
In response to (c), as the CRA data banks do not separate refund interest related to advance deposits from any other type of refund interest paid to corporate taxpayers, the information cannot be provided in the manner requested. However, the total amount of refund interest paid over the previous five years, 2004-2008, including interest on advance deposits, was $3.1 billion.
In response to (d), please note that the confidentiality provisions of the Income tax Act, specifically Section 241(1), prohibit the CRA from directly or indirectly disclosing “taxpayer information”. As a result of this prohibition, the CRA cannot provide the information in the manner requested.

Question No. 364--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to the Joint Supply Ship program: (a) what is the total amount of spending to date on the project; (b) what is the current staffing level of the project; and (c) what are the expected costs of a possible cancellation?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), total expenditures on the joint support ship project as of 17 June 2009 were $44 million.
In response to (b), the staffing level of the joint support ship project as of 17 June 2009 was 31 personnel.
In response to (c), as the only contracts currently in place are for engineering and management support on an as required tasking basis, there would be no costs associated with any project cancellation.

Question No. 365--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to National Defence Public Affairs: (a) for the previous 12 months, what is the total number of media requests received; (b) what is the average time of response to questions; (c) what is the total number of questions which did not receive a response; and (d) what number of requests came from international media?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), readily accessible departmental records indicate that the total number of media queries received by the Department of National Defence between June 23, 2008 and June 23, 2009 was 2,900, which includes all queries received at National Defence Headquarters and those reported through the regional and local offices.
In response to (b), the average response time was 12 hours.
In response to (c) approximately 17% of the total number of queries were not answered by the reporter’s stated deadline.
In response to (d) readily accessible departmental records do not provide information on the origins of the media requests; therefore, it was not possible within the time allotted to determine which requests came from international media.

Question No. 366--
Mr. Alex Atamanenko:
With regard to Canadian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program: (a) what has been spent on the project, broken down by year and program component; (b) what have been industrial regional benefits associated with the program, by year and project component; and (c) what would be the future costs of becoming a level two participant in the program?
Response
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response (a), total Department of National Defence expenditures to date (29 June 09) on the joint strike fighter program are US $142.57 million. Spending is not tracked by year and project component but rather by phase as outlined below.
i) For concept development, which occurred between 1997 and 2001, the Department of National Defence spent US $10 million.
(ii) For the system design and development phase, which began in 2002 and will conclude in 2013, the Department of National Defence has spent US $94.35 million. No further payments are required for system design and development.
(iii) For production sustainment follow-on development, commencing in 2006 and continuing until 2051, the Department of National Defence has spent US $38.22 million.
In response to (b), to date, the total value of joint strike fighter program contracts awarded to Canadian companies is CND $325 million.
In response to (c), level II participation was only possible in the system design and development phase of the program. The program no longer distinguishes between levels of partners.

Question No. 370--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regards to the case of Omar Khadr, currently held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: (a) what recommendations have been made by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade or any other government agency to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or his staff, with regards to Omar Khadr; (b) in which meetings was the topic of his legal situation and future plans for reintegration raised and in what capacity; and (c) what documentation exists in this regard?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the case of Omar Khadr, like other consular cases, is the subject of regular advice from and discussion among officials, including legal counsel in light of ongoing litigation. These discussions and any documents generated in connection therewith cannot be disclosed given the ongoing litigation, Privacy Act concerns as well as other protections afforded to information exempt from disclosure under the Access to Information Act.

Question No. 371--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regard to the operation and budget of Canadian diplomatic missions: (a) which embassies and consulates have experienced budget cuts since 2006; (b) which embassies and consulates have experienced personnel downsizing; (c) which embassies and consulates have been closed since 2006; and (d) how many Canadian diplomatic missions, including embassies and consulates are there around the world?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), diplomatic mission budgets are subject to constant fluctuations due to evolving operational requirements. Budget increases and decreases occur regularly in-year and from one year to the next for a variety of reasons including position creation and deletions, currency fluctuations, adjustments to previous year's anomalies in reference level, incremental positions to support growth of representation from other government departments, among others.
In response to (b), since 2006, 26 diplomatic missions have experienced a decrease in personnel.
Abidjan (Ivory Coast)
Alma Ata (Kazakhstan)
Athens (Greece)
Bandar Seri Begawan (Brunei)
Bangkok (Thailand)
Brasilia (Brazil)
Bratislava (Slovakia)
Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Colombo (Sri Lanka)
Conakry (Guinea)
Denver (Usa)
Dusseldorf (Germany)
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
Lisbon (Portugal)
Lusaka (Zambia)
New Delhi (India)
Oslo (Norway)
Prague (Czech Republic)
San Jose (Costa Rica)
Seoul/Pusan (Korea)
Tallinn (Estonia)
Tehran (Iran)
Tunis (Tunisia)
Vatican Vienna -- Embassy (Austria)
Warsaw (Poland)
In response to (c), since 2006, 11 diplomatic missions have been closed, namely: Phnom Penh (2009); Hamburg (2009); Tucson (2009); Cape Town (2009); Sarajevo (2009); Lilongwe (2009); Milan (2007); St. Petersburg (2007); Fukuoka (2007); Osaka (2007); and Libreville (2006).
In response to (d), there are currently 318 diplomatic missions abroad. These include: Embassies; High Commissions; Embassy/High Commission of Canada Program Offices; Offices of the Embassy / High Commission; Representative Offices -- Multilateral or Permanent; Consulates General; Consulates; Consular Agencies; and Honorary Consulates.

Question No. 373--
Hon. Bob Rae:
With regards to Canada’s involvement in Pakistan, has the government offered support to the Pakistani government to combat the incursion in the north and, if so, (i) how much money has been dedicated and through what economic channels, (ii) to which initiatives was it directed, (iii) what documentation exists in this regard?
Response
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting Pakistan’s government and long-term development, as both are important factors in achieving regional and global stability and security. The Government of Canada is not providing direct monetary support to the Pakistani government specifically to combat the incursion in the north. However, Canada remains concerned for the fate of millions of the internally displaced persons (IDPs), and the pressures on the Government of Pakistan as a result of the military offensive against the Taliban. In support for these displaced persons, Canada has pledged $8 million for the crisis and we continue to monitor the situation to assess whether further assistance will be required. Canada also has a long-standing and diverse development cooperation relationship with Pakistan which includes the Canada-Pakistan Debt For Education Conversion valued at $117 million. Our total bilateral aid allocation to Pakistan last fiscal year was $44 million, and Canada has also provided approximately $10 million to support reconstruction activities following the 2005 South Asia Earthquake. Our core bilateral assistance to Pakistan is also expected to rise to $50 million per year in coming years. CIDA’s bilateral program is currently focused on supporting the transition to civilian government and promotes national cohesiveness by focusing on democratic governance, basic public education, equality between men and women, and stimulating sustainable economic growth. This government is committed to working closely with the Government of Pakistan in addressing the challenges it faces and their implications for regional and global security.

Question No. 378--
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:
With regard to aid for the Atlantic Canada Fishery: (a) how much funding has been allocated to each province from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ recent $65 million funding announcement; (b) what sectors of the fishery will receive the funding; (c) has any funding been allocated to support loss of income among fishermen; (d) does the government plan to contribute funding for the retirement of lobster licenses; (e) does the government plan to implement changes to the Employment Insurance system that will assist workers in the fishery sector; (f) has any new funding been allocated for industry infrastructure; (g) has any new funding been allocated toward research and development; (h) has any new funding been allocated toward easing access to credit for those in the fishery; and (i) what is the breakdown of the funding for each fiscal year from 2009 through 2014?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, on June 10, 2009 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced $65 million in new funding to help the Atlantic lobster fishery. These measures will help harvesters adapt to the extraordinary market conditions created by the global recession. This funding includes $15 million in immediate, short term support to assist qualified low-income harvesters severely harmed by the collapse in market demand for their products. This funding also includes $50 million in longer-term financial assistance to support industry to develop and implement sustainability plans.
With regard to (a), the availability of this funding will be based on eligibility criteria, which is currently being developed. While the programs are available to eligible lobster harvesters in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, the funding will not be allocated by province.
With regard to (b), these programs, the short term transitional measures and the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures will be made available to licenced lobster harvesters in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
With regard to (c), the short term transitional measures comprise $15 million of the announced funding and are for licenced lobster harvesters who have experienced a significant drop in income from lobster harvesting in 2009. This program would only be available for the 2009 fishing season.
With regard to (d), the details of the program are currently being developed.
With regard to (e), changes to the employment insurance program are not part of this initiative.
With regard to (f) and (g), the government has also made other efforts to support the lobster industry. On May 22, 2009, thegovernment announced that it is directing $10 million from the Community Adjustment Fund, CAF, to the Atlantic provinces and Quebec for activities to improve marketing, assist in innovation and develop products and technologies in the lobster industry. This CAF funding may also be used by fleets to organize and develop sustainability plans for consideration for funding under the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures. CAF will be implemented by through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.
With regard to (h), the current economic situation is also creating difficulties for the industry to access capital. To help alleviate this challenge, Budget 2009: Canada’s Economic Action Plan provided many measures which improve access to credit, including new funding to the Business Development Bank of Canada, the creation of a Business Credit Availability Program and a new Canadian Secured Credit Facility.
With regard to (i), the program details for the short term transitional measures and the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures are currently under development.

Question No. 382--
Hon. John McKay:
With respect to Canadians who suffer severe and life-threatening adverse reactions to synthetic insulins and are unable to obtain domestically an alternative and reliable supply of animal-based insulin at a reasonable cost and pursuant to our previous Order Paper question: (a) has the Minister pursued or will the Minister pursue an agreement with the United States Food and Drug Administration to harmonize the regulations regarding approval for animal insulin, thereby enabling manufacturers to enter the North American market; (b) has the Minister pursued or will the Minister pursue a concerted education effort on animal based insulin by Health Canada aimed at both physicians and patients; (c) has the Minister pursued or will the Minister pursue a discussion with the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA), which enjoys charitable tax status, to ensure that the treatment protocols that are sponsored by manufacturers include a clear statement on the safety and efficacy of animal insulin and that the CDA indicate what steps patients should take to obtain animal insulin in the event of adverse reactions; and (d) has the Minister pursued or will the Minister pursue subsidies for patients who are unable to afford animal insulin because of the excessive price?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), despite encouragements and repeated discussion with three manufacturers of animal insulin preparations, and despite the fact that these manufacturers were made aware of the potential financial incentives to them, including the reduction, even to zero, of fees charged for review of therapeutic products, they indicated that, without a sufficiently large, and guaranteed, market, none of the incentives offered were of sufficient interest to them.
It should be noted that two pork derived insulin products are already approved for market in Canada. Nonetheless, should there be additional applications for animal insulins and simultaneous filing in both Canada and the United States, in line with a memorandum of understanding and ongoing collaboration on a wide-variety of issues with the US, Health Canada would ensure that all regulatory requirements are harmonised between the two countries. Harmonisation of regulatory approaches and requirements is already an ongoing activity, and would not be limited to a single class of product(s).
In response to (b), Health Canada is working actively on an educational plan and materials to ensure that the medical community is aware of the issues surrounding the use of insulin of animal origin vs. biosynthetic insulin. These activities are directed at both physicians and patients.
In response to (c), Health Canada does not have the authority to pursue statements in treatment protocols through the Canadian Diabetes Association, CDA. As a professional body, the CDA is independent of the federal government. Despite this, Health Canada can introduce appropriate statements on the labels for all insulin products. The intent of these statements would be to inform physicians in a continuous manner of the reported issues surrounding animal vs. biosynthetic insulin products. Since labels contain a Consumer Information Section, patients would also be informed.
In addition, Health Canada is considering the publication of a short article on the subject in the Canadian Adverse Reaction Bulletin and even send letters to the editors of several continuous medical education publications to reinforce the messages. Finally, there may be an opportunity to update the Fact Sheet, published by Health Canada, on the treatment of diabetes.
In response to (d), the Canada Health Act requires provinces and territories to provide coverage of medically necessary pharmaceutical drugs administered in hospitals. However, there is no federal legal requirement for them to provide such coverage outside of a hospital setting. Provinces and territories of their own accord have developed publicly-funded pharmaceutical insurance plans, including insulin, and decide the terms and conditions for such plans for their residents, including eligible population groups, formularies, and pricing. The 2004 Health Accord has provided substantial additional funding to strengthen health care over a 10-year period to provincial and territorial governments, which they may use to enhance and expand publicly-funded drug plans, including coverage of increased drug costs for their residents.

Question No. 383--
Hon. John McKay:
Regarding the progress achieved thus far by the Department of International Cooperation and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in the implementation of The Development Assistance Accountability Act, 2008: (a) what steps have the Minister and CIDA taken to implement the Act, specifically, what consultations, meetings, and reviews have the Minister and CIDA conducted in order to examine how future Official Development Assistance (ODA) disbursements by CIDA are to accord with the Act; (b) how many programs now accord with the mandate of the Act and what percentage of Canada’s ODA expenditures now accord with the mandate of the Act; and (c) if no progress has been made in implementing the Act, what measures will the Minister and CIDA adopt to ensure accordance with the Act?
Response
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), after the act came into force in June 2008, a vice president-level steering committee on the implementation of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, ODA AA, was created to provide strategic guidance to the agency and to consider act-related policy decisions. As a result, CIDA employees have conducted the following consultations, meetings and reviews to ensure that future ODA disbursements are in accordance with the act:
(i) Reviewed strategic documents to ensure that the requirements of the act were reflected in key policy and programming documents. Key documents include: the department performance report, the report on plans and priorities, country development programming frameworks, and thematic strategies.
(ii) Developed a consultation directive to provide formal direction to CIDA employees. The development and revisions of the directive involved considerable internal consultations and meetings.
(iii) Held two interdepartmental meetings with other government departments impacted by the act. The purpose of the meetings was to provide an overview of the ODA AA, discuss the requirements under the act, and set key milestones for the process. The meetings were followed by continued support by CIDA to OGDs on the implementation of the act.
(iv) Increase consultations in the field by CIDA staff serving in countries abroad with local civil society, government, industry, businesses and community leadership.
Over the next few months and into the fall, the agency will engage partners and stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, the private sector and academia, in support of the development of strategies for CIDA’s thematic priorities. These consultations are intended to improve the agency’s knowledge and to seek advice on possible future directions.
In response to (b), the act states that international assistance can be reported as ODA if the competent minister is of the opinion that it: contributes to poverty reduction; takes into account the perspectives of the poor; and is consistent with international human rights standards. Given that the CIDA mandate is to reduce poverty, the act is already fully integrated into CIDA’s current CIDA programming.
The act also requires that CIDA prepare two annual reports on the Government of Canada’s official development assistance activities: a summary report and a statistical report. CIDA will submit the first Government of Canada summary report to Parliament on ODA activities in September 2009. The first statistical report will be published in March 2010. At that point, CIDA will be able to provide a more accurate breakdown of the percentage of Canada’s ODA expenditures.
In response to (c), progress has been made and CIDA is currently in compliance with the act. CIDA is reviewing its strategic documents to ensure that the requirements of the act are reflected in key policy and programming documents. The agency is taking measures to ensure that CIDA employees are aware of the requirements under the act through a consultation directive and to continue dialogue on the reporting requirement (i.e. the summary and statistical reports). CIDA is also providing guidance to other government department’s reporting obligations under the act, in a whole-of-government approach.

Question No. 384--
Hon. John McKay:
What is the current funding allocation to the Service Canada Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) program at the Willow Park location in Scarborough, Ontario and will the funding for the program continue, if funding for the LINC program changes, what is the reason for the change and if funding will not continue, why will it not continue?
Response
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Scarborough Willow Park Jr. Public School has provided language instruction for newcomers to Canada, LINC, training services under a contribution agreement between Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, and the Toronto District School Board, TDSB.
Through this agreement, since 2007, just over $550,000 has been provided for services at Scarborough Willow Park Jr. Public School.
CIC and the TDSB are currently negotiating a new contribution agreement for LINC and associated services to be delivered by the TDSB. Allocations to the various TDSB sites will be determined by the TDSB, in consultation with CIC, on the basis of local needs

Question No. 385--
Hon. John McKay:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s current budgetary deficit projection for fiscal year 2009-2010 of more than $50 billion, in light of current expenditures and revenue projections, does the Minister of Finance expect an increase in current deficit projections and, if so, by how much?
Response
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the June 2009 second report to Canadians on Canada’s economic action plan provided an update to the fiscal forecast for 2008-09 and 2009-10. The report is available online at http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/report-rapport/2009-2/index-eng.asp. Canadians can follow progress on the government’s website for the economic action plan at www.actionplan.gc.ca. As outlined on page 218 of that document, based on economic and fiscal developments since budget 2009, the deficit has been revised up by $2.9 billion for 2008–09 and $8.1 billion for 2009–10. This deterioration reflects, in part, the impact of automatic stabilizers, such as EI, which provide support to the economy by automatically raising spending and lowering tax collections as the economy slows. In addition, loans to the auto industry and the Canada health transfer top-up increased the deficit projection by $8.5 billion in 2009-10, so that the total projected deficit is $3.9 billion for 2008-09 and $50.2 billion for 2009-10.
The Fiscal Monitor, the most recent of which was released July 24, 2009, provides monthly highlights and details of the government’s fiscal performance. For the first two months of the fiscal year, there was a budgetary deficit of $7.5 billion.

Question No. 387--
Hon. Scott Brison:
With regards to government advertising: (a) how much money has the government spent on newspaper and magazine advertising to provide information to the public about government programs, services, or initiatives, since January 1, 2006, giving particulars of (i) how much has been spent by each department or agency of government, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the newspaper or magazine in which each ad was published, (iv) the name and publication location; and (b) what are the dates of the newspaper or magazine issues in which the advertisements were published?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested in question No. 387 is too voluminous and costly to produce. The data required to adequately respond to the question is contained on 2,232 pages, in English only. Furthermore, given the magnitude of this question, it is not practical or cost effective for the government to translate these documents.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-eng.html

Question No. 395--
Ms. Siobhan Coady:
With regards to government advertising, how much money has the government spent on television and radio advertising since January 1, 2006, giving particulars of (i) how much has been spent by each department or agency of government, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?
Response
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested in question No. 395 is too voluminous and costly to produce. The data required to adequately respond to the question is contained on 27,170 pages, in English only. Furthermore, given the magnitude of this question, it is not practical or cost effective for the government to translate these documents.
The Government of Canada produces an advertising annual report which provides information on the process used to manage government advertising, annual expenditures, and the major campaigns undertaken to support government priorities.
These annual reports are available at the following link: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/pub-adv/annuel-annual-eng.html.
Aboriginal peoplesAccommodation and hospitality servicesAdverse drug reactionsAglukkaq, LeonaAgreements and contractsAlaska HighwayAlaska Pipeline ProjectAlgoma Tankers LimitedAmbrose, RonaAndrews, ScottAnimal-based insulin
...Show all topics
Results: 1 - 15 of 50 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|