Questions and responses All Sessions January 17, 1994, to present

With regard to the fishing organizations or groups of fishing licence holders who, excluding fees for commercial fishing licenses as set under the regulation, provide monies, fish quotas or allocations to fund Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) activities on an annual basis for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007: (a) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders have paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by an allocation of quota from their fishery; (b) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by way of a cash contribution to the department or its contractor; (c) in each year, what is the total value by fishing organization or groups of license holders of the cash contributions or quota allocations aforementioned; (d) what science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities carried out in 2005 and 2006 and not paid directly from the department’s ‘A’ base budget will be undertaken and paid for by an allocation from the department’s ‘A’ base budget for 2007; (e) how much did each fishing organization or groups of license holders pay DFO, by way of an allocation of quota or cash contribution, for activities such as science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities for 2005 and 2006; (f) which fishing organizations or groups of license holders has the department agreed to reimburse wholly or in part for their cash contribution or quota allocations to cover the department’s science administration, enforcement costs or other activities from previous years, indicate how much or what portion of what was collected by year will be returned to the fishing organization or groups of licence holders; (g) did the department indicate that it would need to curtail fishing opportunities unless fishermen agreed to contribute money or fishing quota to fund departmental activities and, if so, what are the nature of the fishing opportunities at issue and the fishermen or fishing organization involved; (h) were the amounts raised from fishermen and their organizations reported and accounted for in the department’s spending estimates submitted to Parliament in each of these years, if so, indicate where and in what manner and form, and, if not, why; and (i) has the Auditor General ever reported on or advised the department on its method of collecting funds from fishermen or their organizations or with respect to the use of fish quotas or allocations to fund departmental activities, if so, when and what actions were taken to implement the Auditor General’s advice?

With regard to the expansion of the Roberts Bank Port Facility to include a third berth and a second terminal as per the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and related Side-Agreements, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Tsawwassen Band and the Vancouver Port Authority, and the related Settlement Agreement between the Tsawwassen Band, Canada, British Columbia (B.C.), Vancouver Port Authority, B.C. Ferry Services, B.C. Rail Ltd and B.C. Transportation and Financing Authority: (a) how many acres (or hectares) of farm land will be used for Roberts Bank port and rail related developments now underway or under study; (b) with the completion of the Roberts Bank port expansion, including both the third berth and second terminal, what plans, if any, are there to use the Brunswick Point farmlands; (c) is the affected Roberts Bank farmland presently protected by the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve designation; (d) does the Tsawwassen Final Agreement address the issue of farmland protection and if so, how; (e) will the farmland continue to be protected by the Agricultural Land Reserve designation following ratification of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and, if not, why; (f) did the Vancouver Port Authority undertake to work jointly with the Tsawwassen Band to ensure the removal of the Agricultural Land Reserve designation from the farmland and, if so, why and what alternate measures did it put in place to protect farmland adjacent to the Roberts Bank port, rail and highway expansion; (g) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree to jointly develop with the Tsawwassen Band a container handling facility on the farmland protected by the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve designation and, if so, why did the Vancouver Port Authority enter into such an agreement rather than develop container handling facilities further inland in a less environmentally sensitive area; (h) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree that the land would be leased at lease rates based on comparable market equivalent rates for industrial lands associated with port terminals; (i) has the Vancouver Port Authority considered the secondary destruction of farmland and wildlife habitat from the expanded rail yards and the construction of the container storage area on the environmentally sensitive lands adjacent to Roberts Bank and, if so, what measures has it put in place to protect farmland and the ability of wildlife now making use of the area to continue to be able to rely on these farmlands; (j) how much farmland and wildlife habitat will be destroyed as a result of the rail yards and rail line expansion both on the farmland and Deltaport Causeway as part of the Roberts Bank port expansion and how much will be destroyed as a result of the related highway construction; (k) did the Vancouver Port Authority consider the use of less environmentally sensitive land further inland for the storage of containers as well as the unpacking and reshipment of the containers and, if so, what are the options considered and why did it not adopt such options for the port; (l) what part of the farmland adjacent to Roberts Bank is available for the wintering of migrating waterfowl of the Pacific flyway and how many birds did the farmland adjacent to Roberts Bank support in the winters of 2005, 2006 and 2007; (m) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment noted snow geese and trumpeter swan crowding in the over wintering areas adjacent to Roberts Bank; (n) what studies have been undertaken by the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada as to the impact of the loss of this land following ratification of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and the further development of the Roberts Bank port and related rail and highway infrastructure; (o) what impact on the over-wintering of migratory waterfowl did the studies identify with regard to the loss of habitat due to the Roberts Bank port third berth construction and related rail and highway development and are the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada working with B.C. to ensure that there will be a zero net loss of habitat; (p) was culling of the snow geese and trumpeter swan population considered as an option and, if so, how many birds would have to be culled due to the loss of farmland and wildlife habit to the Roberts Bank port development; (q) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada (i) enumerated the number of barn owls that inhabit barns on farm land in the vicinity of Roberts Bank, (ii) considered the impact of the loss of nesting areas on the barn owl, (iii) identified the number of barn owl nesting areas that have already been destroyed and (iv) has any federal government agency put in place a plan to protect the barn owls and their nesting areas; (r) has the loss of this farmland to port expansion and related container storage and rail and highway infrastructure construction been studied by Agriculture Canada as to the effect on the economic viability of the remaining farms as viable farm units and, if so, what studies have been undertaken; (s) has the Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) considered or studied the effect of the loss of the farm land and wildlife habitat on the quality of life and the value of residential property on the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve; (t) has the CMHC considered or studied the effect of the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat on the Tsawwassen and Ladner communities and in south Delta generally and, if so, what effects on the quality of life of the residents and the value of residential properties were identified; (u) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree to support efforts to remove the Wildlife Management Area designation or to refrain from so designating water lots at Roberts Bank and, if so, did the Port request the Province to refrain from making the Wildlife Management Area designation and, if not, has the Port requested the Province to designate the remainder of the Roberts Bank area a Wildlife Management Area and, if not, why; (v) has the Vancouver Port Authority received from B.C. the water lots identified in the Memorandum of Agreement and, if so, which water lots were received; (w) what measures has the Vancouver Port Authority put in place to ensure that migratory birds are not displaced from the foreshore area and that eelgrass beds are not destroyed during port expansion and have these protective measures been in place since the beginning of the Roberts Bank port expansion; (x) have eelgrass beds been destroyed or otherwise impacted and migratory birds been displaced from the foreshore by the work thus far in 2007 and, if so, what are the impacts and the mitigation plan for the loss of the eelgrass beds and the displacement of migratory birds; (y) have studies been undertaken or consideration given to the impact on migratory waterfowl from the shell fish aquaculture operation referenced in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and, if so, what impacts on migratory waterfowl were considered; and (z) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada considered any plan to fill in the foreshore area between the causeways for the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal and the Roberts Bank port and, if so, what would be the impact be on fish and wildlife habitat?

With regard to the land areas and persons who reside within the area covered by the Tsawwassen Territory as set in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement: (a) what is the number of persons who currently reside in the Territory; (b) how many persons reside in the Territory and how many of these persons are under the Indian Act members of the Tsawwassen Band in (i) each of the Gulf Islands, (ii) the City of Richmond, (iii) the City of Vancouver, (iv) the Municipality of Delta, (v) the City of White Rock, (vi) the City of Surrey, (vii) the City of Burnaby, (viii) the City of New Westminster, (ix) the City of Coquitlam, (x) the City of Port Coquitlam, (xi) Langley City, (xii) the Municipality of Pitt Meadows, (xiii) the Municipality of Maple Ridge, (xiv) the Township of Langley, (xv) the Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area “A”; (c) what was the population of the Tsawwassen Indian Band on an annual basis from its establishment to December 31, 2006; (d) what were the land holdings, in hectares, of the Tsawwassen Indian Band on an annual basis from its establishment as a band to December 31, 2006; (e) if the Tsawwassen Indian Band landholdings were decreased in any year, for what reason did the decrease occur and what, if any, compensation or payment was provided to the Band; and (f) what other bands, tribes or aboriginal organizations have territorial claims that overlap Tsawwassen Territory?

With regard to the fishing organizations or groups of fishing licence holders who, excluding fees for commercial fishing licenses as set under the regulation, provide monies, fish quotas or allocations to fund Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) activities on an annual basis for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007: (a) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders have paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by an allocation of quota from their fishery; (b) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by way of a cash contribution to the department or its contractor; (c) in each year, what is the total value by fishing organization or groups of license holders of the cash contributions or quota allocations aforementioned; (d) what science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities carried out in 2005 and 2006 and not paid directly from the department’s ‘A’ base budget will be undertaken and paid for by an allocation from the department’s ‘A’ base budget for 2007; (e) how much did each fishing organization or groups of license holders pay DFO, by way of an allocation of quota or cash contribution, for activities such as science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities for 2005 and 2006; (f) which fishing organizations or groups of license holders has the department agreed to reimburse wholly or in part for their cash contribution or quota allocations to cover the department’s science administration, enforcement costs or other activities from previous years, indicate how much or what portion of what was collected by year will be returned to the fishing organization or groups of licence holders; (g) did the department indicate that it would need to curtail fishing opportunities unless fishermen agreed to contribute money or fishing quota to fund departmental activities and, if so, what are the nature of the fishing opportunities at issue and the fishermen or fishing organization involved; (h) were the amounts raised from fishermen and their organizations reported and accounted for in the department’s spending estimates submitted to Parliament in each of these years, if so, indicate where and in what manner and form, and, if not, why; and (i) has the Auditor General ever reported on or advised the department on its method of collecting funds from fishermen or their organizations or with respect to the use of fish quotas or allocations to fund departmental activities, if so, when and what actions were taken to implement the Auditor General’s advice?

With regard to the expansion of the Roberts Bank Port Facility to include a third berth and a second terminal as per the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and related Side-Agreements, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Tsawwassen Band and the Vancouver Port Authority, and the related Settlement Agreement between the Tsawwassen Band, Canada, British Columbia (B.C.), Vancouver Port Authority, B.C. Ferry Services, B.C. Rail Ltd and B.C. Transportation and Financing Authority: (a) how many acres (or hectares) of farm land will be used for Roberts Bank port and rail related developments now underway or under study; (b) with the completion of the Roberts Bank port expansion, including both the third berth and second terminal, what plans, if any, are there to use the Brunswick Point farmlands; (c) is the affected Roberts Bank farmland presently protected by the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve designation; (d) does the Tsawwassen Final Agreement address the issue of farmland protection and if so, how; (e) will the farmland continue to be protected by the Agricultural Land Reserve designation following ratification of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and, if not, why; (f) did the Vancouver Port Authority undertake to work jointly with the Tsawwassen Band to ensure the removal of the Agricultural Land Reserve designation from the farmland and, if so, why and what alternate measures did it put in place to protect farmland adjacent to the Roberts Bank port, rail and highway expansion; (g) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree to jointly develop with the Tsawwassen Band a container handling facility on the farmland protected by the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve designation and, if so, why did the Vancouver Port Authority enter into such an agreement rather than develop container handling facilities further inland in a less environmentally sensitive area; (h) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree that the land would be leased at lease rates based on comparable market equivalent rates for industrial lands associated with port terminals; (i) has the Vancouver Port Authority considered the secondary destruction of farmland and wildlife habitat from the expanded rail yards and the construction of the container storage area on the environmentally sensitive lands adjacent to Roberts Bank and, if so, what measures has it put in place to protect farmland and the ability of wildlife now making use of the area to continue to be able to rely on these farmlands; (j) how much farmland and wildlife habitat will be destroyed as a result of the rail yards and rail line expansion both on the farmland and Deltaport Causeway as part of the Roberts Bank port expansion and how much will be destroyed as a result of the related highway construction; (k) did the Vancouver Port Authority consider the use of less environmentally sensitive land further inland for the storage of containers as well as the unpacking and reshipment of the containers and, if so, what are the options considered and why did it not adopt such options for the port; (l) what part of the farmland adjacent to Roberts Bank is available for the wintering of migrating waterfowl of the Pacific flyway and how many birds did the farmland adjacent to Roberts Bank support in the winters of 2005, 2006 and 2007; (m) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment noted snow geese and trumpeter swan crowding in the over wintering areas adjacent to Roberts Bank; (n) what studies have been undertaken by the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada as to the impact of the loss of this land following ratification of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and the further development of the Roberts Bank port and related rail and highway infrastructure; (o) what impact on the over-wintering of migratory waterfowl did the studies identify with regard to the loss of habitat due to the Roberts Bank port third berth construction and related rail and highway development and are the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada working with B.C. to ensure that there will be a zero net loss of habitat; (p) was culling of the snow geese and trumpeter swan population considered as an option and, if so, how many birds would have to be culled due to the loss of farmland and wildlife habit to the Roberts Bank port development; (q) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada (i) enumerated the number of barn owls that inhabit barns on farm land in the vicinity of Roberts Bank, (ii) considered the impact of the loss of nesting areas on the barn owl, (iii) identified the number of barn owl nesting areas that have already been destroyed and (iv) has any federal government agency put in place a plan to protect the barn owls and their nesting areas; (r) has the loss of this farmland to port expansion and related container storage and rail and highway infrastructure construction been studied by Agriculture Canada as to the effect on the economic viability of the remaining farms as viable farm units and, if so, what studies have been undertaken; (s) has the Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) considered or studied the effect of the loss of the farm land and wildlife habitat on the quality of life and the value of residential property on the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve; (t) has the CMHC considered or studied the effect of the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat on the Tsawwassen and Ladner communities and in south Delta generally and, if so, what effects on the quality of life of the residents and the value of residential properties were identified; (u) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree to support efforts to remove the Wildlife Management Area designation or to refrain from so designating water lots at Roberts Bank and, if so, did the Port request the Province to refrain from making the Wildlife Management Area designation and, if not, has the Port requested the Province to designate the remainder of the Roberts Bank area a Wildlife Management Area and, if not, why; (v) has the Vancouver Port Authority received from B.C. the water lots identified in the Memorandum of Agreement and, if so, which water lots were received; (w) what measures has the Vancouver Port Authority put in place to ensure that migratory birds are not displaced from the foreshore area and that eelgrass beds are not destroyed during port expansion and have these protective measures been in place since the beginning of the Roberts Bank port expansion; (x) have eelgrass beds been destroyed or otherwise impacted and migratory birds been displaced from the foreshore by the work thus far in 2007 and, if so, what are the impacts and the mitigation plan for the loss of the eelgrass beds and the displacement of migratory birds; (y) have studies been undertaken or consideration given to the impact on migratory waterfowl from the shell fish aquaculture operation referenced in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and, if so, what impacts on migratory waterfowl were considered; and (z) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada considered any plan to fill in the foreshore area between the causeways for the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal and the Roberts Bank port and, if so, what would be the impact be on fish and wildlife habitat?

With regard to the waters of the Tsawwassen Territory, both in the Strait of Georgia, the Fraser River and elsewhere, as set out in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and Side-Agreements: (a) what was the nature of the vessel traffic in the Tsawwassen Territory in 2006 both on the Fraser River and the Strait of Georgia; (b) how will vessel traffic in the waters of the Tsawwassen Territory be impacted by the Final Agreement and what studies have been undertaken on the impacts of the Final Agreement on vessel traffic; (c) in addition to the Strait of Georgia and the Fraser River, what are the additional bodies of water within the Territory; (d) what species of fish or shell fish were caught by recreational and commercial fishermen within the Tsawwassen Territory in the years 1986 to 2006; (e) what was the number or quantity and the landed value of fish and shellfish caught under commercial license by species in each year during the period 1986 to 2006; (f) how many commercial fishermen were licensed to fish for any area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (g) how many recreational fishermen were licensed to fish in the area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (h) how many commercial fishing licenses by species were held by fishermen for any part of the area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (i) how many hours of fishing time were authorized for the Tsawwassen Indian Band to undertake food, social and ceremonial fisheries by species for each year during the period; (j) how many pounds of fish were landed by the Tsawwassen Indian Band for food, social and ceremonial fisheries for each year during the period; (k) how many sockeye salmon could have been caught under the Tsawwassen Fishing Right Allocation for each year if it had been in place during the period, and what was the total catch of Fraser sockeye for each year during the period; (l) how many members of the Tsawwassen Indian Band as registered under the Indian Act were resident on the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve for each year during the period; (m) what studies have been undertaken to identify the impacts of the creation of the Tsawwassen Fishing Right on other recreational and commercial fishermen who have traditionally fished in what is now the Tsawwassen Territory, in particular the displacement of traditional recreational and commercial fishermen; (n) if the 0.78% of the Canadian commercial total allowable catch for Fraser sockeye that is being transferred to the Tsawwassen Band had been fished by the Tsawwassen Band what would the total catch be in pounds for each year during the period; (o) what measures have been put in place to guarantee that those recreational and commercial fishermen who have traditionally fished in the area that now constitutes the Tsawwassen Territory will be able to continue to fish in the public recreational and commercial fisheries unimpeded; (p) what would have been (i) the value, in number of fish, of the 0.78% allocation of the Canadian Commercial Total Allowable Catch to the Tsawwassen Band for Fraser sockeye for each year during the period as provided under the Final Agreement and accompanying side-agreements, (ii) the total Canadian commercial catch of Fraser sockeye for each year, (iii) the average allocation to the Tsawwassen Band for the period based on the 0.78% allocation; (q) what would have been the value, in quantity and dollars, of the 3.27% allocation of terminal commercial catch of Fraser River chum salmon to the Tsawwassen Band for each year during the period; (r) what would have been the value of the 0.78% allocation to the Tsawwassen Band of the Canadian commercial total allowable catch of Fraser River pink salmon for each year during the period; (s) what would have been the value of the five commercial crab licenses to be issued to the Tsawwassen Band under the Harvest side agreement for each year during the period; (t) what is the size limit going to be for crab taken under the Final Agreement and Side-Agreements for food, social, ceremonial and commercial purposes; (u) what is the quantity and value of the crab taken by the band for food, social and ceremonial fisheries for each year of the period; (v) what was the quantity and value of each species caught during food, social and ceremonial openings or under such licenses and exported to the United States or any other country for each year during the period; and (w) does the Final Agreement and Side Agreements provide for self catch monitoring and reporting by the Tsawwassen Band and, if so, how does that differ from the reporting and catch monitoring planned for those public recreational and commercial fisheries that will still be able to operate within the Tsawwassen Territory following the implementation of the Final Agreement?

With regard to the land areas and persons who reside within the area covered by the Tsawwassen Territory as set in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement: (a) what is the number of persons who currently reside in the Territory; (b) how many persons reside in the Territory and how many of these persons are under the Indian Act members of the Tsawwassen Band in (i) each of the Gulf Islands, (ii) the City of Richmond, (iii) the City of Vancouver, (iv) the Municipality of Delta, (v) the City of White Rock, (vi) the City of Surrey, (vii) the City of Burnaby, (viii) the City of Westminster, (ix) the City of Coquitlam, (x) the City of Port Coquitlam, (xi) Langley City, (xii) the Municipality of Pitt Meadows, (xiii) the Municipality of Maple Ridge, (xiv) the Township of Langley, (xv) the Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area “A”; (c) what was the population of the Tsawwassen Indian Band on an annual basis from its establishment to December 31, 2006; (d) what were the land holdings, in hectares, of the Tsawwassen Indian Band on an annual basis from its establishment as a band to December 31, 2006; (e) if the Tsawwassen Indian Band landholdings were decreased in any year, for what reason did the decrease occur and what, if any, compensation or payment was provided to the Band; and (f) what other bands, tribes or aboriginal organizations have territorial claims that overlap Tsawwassen Territory?

With regard to contracts let to Morrison Hershfield by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Research Council: (a) name the contract; (b) the title of any research paper if a paper was prepared; and (c) the dollar value of the contract for each fiscal year beginning in 1980?

With regard to the regulation of Malachite Green whether in use at fish hatcheries or farms, or found in fish for human consumption: (a) did farmed fish test positive for traces of Malachite Green in 2004 or 2005, (i) were any imported and, if so, from what country, (ii) were any farmed in Canada and, if so, in what location; (b) did the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) conduct a public recall of the contaminated fish and, if not, why not; (c) on what basis did CFIA conduct a recall of all available products in distribution; (d) what was the amount of contaminated fish, if any, that had gone into the food distribution network; (e) how, when and where were the contaminated fish destroyed, including both domestically produced and imported; (f) did any contaminated product go to market in Canada, the United States or any other country; (g) what are the Canadian standards for allowable residues of Malachite Green; (h) what percentage of Canadian farmed fish is tested for residues of Malachite Green; (i) what percentage of imported farmed fish is tested for residues of Malachite Green; (j) what are the measures taken to safeguard Canadian consumers; (k) is DFO the agency responsible for ensuring good management practices in aquaculture including the responsibility for informing government hatcheries and the aquaculture industry of which chemicals are, and are not, approved for food fish production; (l) what are the responsibilities of CFIA and Health Canada with regard to Malachite Green; (m) if Malachite Green has not been authorized for use in Canada, why then did CFIA detect levels of Malachite Green in fish produced in Canada; (n) can Malachite Green spread from a farm site and contaminate wild fish; (o) what are the health risks to those who are exposed to Malachite Green through eating contaminated fish; (p) was Malachite Green administered to Puntledge Chinook at a DFO fish hatchery since being banned in 1992; (q) did DFO hatcheries or DFO funded hatcheries have Malachite Green on hand in June 2005, and, if so, which hatcheries and why; (r) did CFIA inform DFO in May 2005 that CFIA had been informed that Malachite Green was being used in all of DFO hatcheries; (s) is DFO’s “SEP Policy on Use of Drugs and Chemicals on Fish” of September 4, 1992 still in effect; (t) does the policy on “Use of Drugs and Chemicals on Fish” prohibit the use of adult fish, which have been treated with any substance other than carbon dioxide or sodium chloride, for human or pet food; (u) does the policy prohibiting fish treated with any substance other than carbon dioxide or sodium chloride from being used for human or pet food extend to Canadian farmed fish and, if not, why not; (v) does the policy extend to imported farmed fish and, if not, why not; (w) the policy states that treated carcasses should be buried, is that part of the policy strictly enforced; (x) does that part of the policy stating that treated carcasses should be buried cover farmed fish and, if not, why not; (y) does that part of the policy cover imported farmed fish and, if not, why not; and (z) how many times have users of Malachite Green been prosecuted for illegal use?

With regard to the conclusion reached by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in August 1981 that the government’s energy conservation measures were a primary source of moisture damage in frame construction: (a) did CMHC conclude that certain energy conservation programs such as CHIP at the Department of Natural Resources (then Energy Mines and Resources) contributed to the problem and did it warn Natural Resources that their energy conservation programs were a source of the problem; (b) did Natural Resources acknowledge that its energy conservation programs were indeed causing moisture damage; (c) did Natural Resources warn the public that its energy conservation programs were a source of the problem and, if so, when and in what manner and, if not, why not; (d) did Natural Resources immediately stop promoting such energy conservation measures and, if so, when and how did it change its program so as to avoid causing buildup of moisture in walls; (e) did CMHC conclude that the National Research Council’s National Building Code led to the construction of homes with moisture induced damage; (f) did the CMHC President on August 27, 1981, request the National Research Council’s Associate Committee on the National Building Code to “provide the focus for the consideration of the appropriate changes to the code measures and standards development” and, if so, why; (g) did the National Research Council acknowledge that it indeed was contributing to the moisture induced damage in home construction; (h) did the National Research Council move to immediately make the appropriate changes to the National Building Code and standards development as requested by CMHC on August 27, 1981; (i) did CMHC, Natural Resources and the National Research Council immediately warn homeowners in British Columbia of the wet wall problem and, if not, why not; (j) did CMHC, Natural Resources and the National Research Council publicly accept and acknowledge any responsibility for the rotting walls and necessary repairs and, if so, when and, if not, why not; (k) did CMHC, Natural Resources and the National Research Council fund the repairs to homes with moisture induced damages and, if not, why not; (l) did CMHC, Natural Resources and the National Research Council fund representative claims by homeowners so as to establish once and for all whether CMHC, Natural Resources and the National Research Council are legally liable for moisture induced damages caused whole or in part by these departments’ energy conservation schemes and, if not, why not; and (m) what were the results for British Columbia of each CMHC survey of the nature, extent and severity of the moisture induced problems?

With regard to the finding in 1981 by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) that there had been a significant increase in the incidence of moisture damage in frame construction and the conclusion that construction practices associated with energy conservation measures increase the hazard of moisture induced structural damage: (a) did CMHC conclude that it had an obligation to warn stakeholders of the problem and, if so, what was the nature of the obligation; (b) did CMHC warn the provinces in 1981 and, if so, on what date and what was the nature of the warning; (c) did CMHC warn the Deputy Minister of Energy in 1981 and, if so, on what dates and what was the nature of the warnings; (d) did the Deputy Minister of Energy reply and, if so, on what dates and did he acknowledge that energy conservation measures were a source of the problem; (e) did CMHC warn the National Research Council and its associate committee on the National Building Code in 1981 and, if so, on what date and what were the nature of the warnings; (f) did the National Research Council and its associate committee on the National Building Code reply and, if so, on what date and did they acknowledge that the National Building Code was a source of the problem; (g) did CMHC warm homeowners of the problem in 1981 and, if so, on what date and what was the nature of the warning, if not, why; (h) did CMHC warn architects of the problem in 1981 and, if so, on what date and what was the nature of the warning, if not, why; (i) did CMHC warn builders of the problem in 1981 and, if so, on what date and what was the nature of the warning, if not, why; (j) did CMHC advise the Barrett Commission of the problem they encountered in 1981 and did they provide the Commission with copies of all letters of warning and, if not, why; (k) did CMHC conclude in 1981 that there was similar moisture damage in social housing, co-op and other federally funded housing and, if so, what was the date and nature of the warnings; and (l) did CMHC warn their counterparts in foreign countries, particularly the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan and, if so, on what date and what was the nature of the warning, if not, why?

With regard to the regulation of fish farm sites to govern the environmental consequences of fish farms on wild species, parasites, release of drugs, chemicals and toxins in the marine environment and human health: (a) name the drugs, chemicals and other treatments used on farmed fish or equipment at fish farm sites in Canada; (b) how are each of these drugs, chemicals and other treatments regulated to protect wild stocks, the marine environment and human health; (c) what constitutes an emergency when the unlicenced drug, Emamectin Benxoate, is approved for use under emergency release to treat infestations of sea lice in farmed salmon; (d) how many requests for emergency release have been received, by province, for each of the following years: 2003, 2004 and 2005; (e) how many requests for emergency release have been approved, by province, for each of the following years: 2003, 2004 and 2005; (f) what was the quantity of the drug that was approved for use, by province, for each of the following years: 2003, 2004 and 2005; (g) how many fish were treated by the drug, by province, in each of the following years: 2003, 2004 and 2005; (h) what are the known side effects of the drug if ingested by shrimp, prawns, and lobsters; (i) what are the known effects of the drug on humans, for example if salmon that have been directly treated with the drug or shrimp, prawns and lobster that might have been indirectly treated with the drug are ingested by humans; (j) what are the areas of Canada’s coastline that have been exposed to this drug; (k) can Malachite Green be legally used at fish farm sites in Canada’s coastal waters, and, if so, what is the approved use; (l) where do the results of testing and monitoring indicate that Malachite Green has been used, by location and by province, for each of the following years: 2003, 2004 and 2005; (m) what charges or penalties have been levied against fish farm operators or distributors of Malachite Green where the chemical has been found to have been illegally used; (n) what actions were taken at farm sites when fish were found to have been exposed to Malachite Green, were the fish destroyed, and, if not, were they sold for human consumption and, if so, what countries were they sold to; (o) what is Health Canada’s position on Malachite Green and human consumption of any fish that might have been exposed to the chemical; (p) have there been outbreaks of diseases and parasites associated with farmed salmon at farm sites in the marine environment, and, if so, what is the nature and location of the outbreaks of disease and parasites; (q) have there been outbreaks of disease and parasites associated with Pacific sablefish amongst cultured sablefish; (r) what is the nature and result of monitoring programs for sea lice in the rivers and marine waters of the Broughton Archipelago and Knight Inlet with regard to infestation levels in general and, in particular, the infection or infestation level on wild pink salmon and chum in each of the following years: 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005; (s) what are the specific plans of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for monitoring pink and chum escapements in the Broughton for the fall of 2005: (i) what resources are to be allocated to ensure that the count is as accurate as possible, (ii) on the ground how many river/stream walks, (iii) how many fly overs and on what systems, (iv) what will be the role of the salmon farm industry in the count, (v) what methodology will be used, and (vi) when will the escapement data for the Broughton system be released; (t) name the location of operating fish farm sites that have not successfully undergone a complete environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, indicating what species of fish are farmed at that site; (u) name the location of operating fish farm sites that have successfully undergone a complete environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, indicating the species and the quantity of fish approved to be farmed at each of these locations; (v) how many applications for introduction, transplant or transfer of fish or aquatic invertebrates were received in each of the following years: 2003, 2004, and 2005, what were the species, quantity, locations and purpose of the proposed introduction or transplant; (w) how many applications for introduction, transplant or transfer of fish or aquatic invertebrates were approved in each of the following years: 2003, 2004, and 2005, what were the species, quantity and locations involved; and (x) what health testing and site inspections were involved in each introduction, transplant or transfer application and approval for 2003, 2004, and 2005?

With regard to the anthropological and historical study undertaken by Professor Alexander von Gernet for the Department of Justice entitled, “The Early History of Lobster Harvesting Among Natives and Newcomers in Atlantic Canada”, and the transfer to aboriginals in the Maritime Provinces access to lobster for food, social and ceremonial purposes (Sparrow) and commercial purposes (Marshall): (a) what year was identified as the year of first contact between Mi’kmaq and Europeans; (b) does the report find evidence or come to a conclusion that lobster was important to the Mi’kmaq prior to contact or at the time of contact with Europeans; (c) does the report find evidence or come to a conclusion that lobster was important to the Maliseet prior to contact or at the time of contact with Europeans; (d) does the report find evidence of significant lobster harvest by the Mi’kmaq during the first three centuries after contact with Europeans and, if so, what was the evidence or indication of significant harvest or reliance on the harvest of lobster; (e) does the report find evidence of a significant Mi’kmaq reliance on lobster as a food source prior to contact or at the time of contact with Europeans; (f) does the report find evidence of a significant Mi’kmaq reliance on lobster as a food source in the first three centuries after contact; (g) does the report conclude that either individual bands or the Mi’kmaq as a whole relied on lobster for food at this time, and, if so, which bands; (h) does the report conclude that there was a significant difference between the reliance of Fraser River aboriginals on salmon and that of the Mi’kmaq on lobster and, if so, what was the difference; (i) does the report find evidence that the Europeans were harvesting lobster immediately following contact; (j) which Mi’kmaq and Maliseet bands have received licences to harvest lobster for food, social and ceremonial purposes and how much was harvested in each year by each band following the Marshall decisions; (k) which Mi’kmaq and Maliseet bands have received licences to harvest lobster for commercial purposes and what was the amount harvested in each year by each band following the Marshall decisions; (l) is the decision to provide these food and commercial licences consistent with the findings of the report and, if so, in what way is it consistent with the historical evidence outlined in the report; (m) following a review of the report, what action did the Department of Fisheries take to revise its plan to implement the transfer of lobster licences and vessels to aboriginal organizations; and (n) how many licensed lobster fishermen (other than aboriginal organizations) were engaged in the public fishery in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 in (i) New Brunswick, (ii) Nova Scotia, and (iii) Prince Edward Island?

With regard to government measures that result in the build-up of moisture in the wall cavity of buildings and their inability to dry-out: (a) did Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) management consider this wet wall syndrome in 1981, and if so, what action was taken; (b) did CMHC management consider this wet wall syndrome in subsequent years, and if so, when and what actions were taken; (c) was CMHC management advised that by being aware of the wet wall problem the corporation would be delinquent if they did not advise the public of the nature of the problem, and if so, what actions were taken; (d) was CMHC management advised that government departments could be exacerbating the wet wall problem, and if so, what actions were taken, when were they advised, which departments were involved and what was the result of these actions; (e) was CMHC management advised that government programs were resulting in the wet wall syndrome, and if so, what actions were taken, when were they advised, which programs and what was the result of these actions; (f) were there, by 1981 and in subsequent years, reported cases of moisture induced structural damage in housing across Canada, and if so, indicate the number by year and by province; (g) was CMHC management advised by 1981 and in subsequent years of risks involving structural damage to National Housing Act (NHA) insured housing leading to widespread defaults on mortgages with CMHC having to repossess these units and rectify the problem at substantial costs, and if so, when and what action was taken; (h) when was CMHC aware that the wet wall syndrome occurred most often in coastal regions with significant rainfall, and what action was taken with regard to building codes and construction practices affecting British Columbia; (i) were there concerns, by 1981 and in subsequent years, that the wet wall syndrome was triggered by barriers trapping moisture and preventing natural drying, and if so, what was the nature of these concerns and what actions were taken to address them; (j) was there an awareness at CMHC, by 1981 and in subsequent years, of results of research undertaken by the National Research Council (NRC) suggesting that rain penetration was a primary cause of moisture problems in some climates, and if so, when and what action was taken with regard to British Columbia; (k) was there an awareness by 1981 and in subsequent years that changes in the building practices, in part induced by changes in the National Building Code and government programs promoting energy efficiency, were sometimes a source of the wet wall problem, and if so, when and what actions were taken to address this problem; (l) which of these changes to the National Building Code addressed moisture penetration in exterior walls and natural drying of the wall cavity, particularly in areas of high relative humidity and rainfall and in what years were these changes made; (m) in which years did CMHC or NRC recommend changes to the National Building Code that had the effect of reducing the ability of the wall cavity to dry naturally; (n) what measures did CMHC and NRC undertake to alleviate the wall moisture problems, in spite of the slower drying effects of better insulated and airtight assemblies, and when did they take these measures; (o) when and what were the nature of National Building Code revisions after 1981 that were designed to improve the ability of the wall cavity to dry naturally, or at least to reduce moisture incursions; (p) what active measures did CHMC and NRC take to inform homeowners in British Columbia of the wet wall problem and when were they taken; (q) what active measures did CMHC and NRC take to inform builders and the housing industry in British Columbia of the wet wall problem and when were they taken; (r) what active measures did CMHC and NRC take to ensure that building practices in British Columbia addressed the wet wall problem, indicating the date of such actions and the success of the initiative; and (s) did CMHC liquidate its national portfolio of co-op housing, and if so, (i) when did this occur, indicating by street address the locations, and indicating the number of these co-ops by province, (ii) what was the reason behind the decision to liquidate, (iii) how many of these projects suffered from wet wall and drying problems, (iv) were these problems disclosed to the individuals or government agencies that purchased them, and (v) were engineering reports written, and if so, detail what they disclosed?

With regard to programs and all other special expenditures involving the Musqueam Indian Band, what was the total expenditure by department, agency, or Crown corporation for fiscal years (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004 and (v) 2004-2005 to the band or any corporation in which it has a controlling interest?

With regard to programs and all other special expenditures for aboriginals in the riding of Delta—Richmond East, what was the total expediture by each federal department, agency or Crown corporation for fiscal years 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 for each band, aboriginal organization, aboriginal society and corporation?

With respect to spending in Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in the Pacific Region in each year for the 1990 to 2003 period: (a) what was the total amount spent by the Pacific Region in each year; (b) how much of the Pacific Region budget was spent in regions outside of the Pacific Region but was allocated to the Pacific Region budget; (c) on an office by office basis in the Pacific Region how much was spent at each office; (d) what was the total annual budget for each branch in the Pacific Region, such as the Conservation and Protection Branch, the Communications Branch, the Aboriginal Affairs Branch and the other branches within the Pacific Region; (e) how much was spent on travel within Canada; (f) how much was spent on international travel; (g) how much was spent on the Operations and Maintenance aspect of the Conservation and Protection program; (h) how much was spent on salaries and benefits for Fishery Officers; (i) how much was spent on salaries and benefits for all DFO officials on an office by office basis within the Pacific Region; (j) how much was spent on the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy; (k) how much was spent on the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy by persons or organizations outside of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; (l) how much was spent on the management of the public commercial salmon fishery in B.C.; (m) how much was spent on the management of public recreational salmon fishery in B.C.; (n) how much was spent on the management of the aboriginal salmon fishery in B.C.; and (o) what is the total expenditure related to aboriginal fisheries in the Pacific Region by category, for example grants and contributions to Indian bands and aboriginal organizations, enforcement, and administration?

With regard to the used hovercraft, the Liv Viking, which was recently acquired by the Canadian Coast Guard base at Vancouver International Airport to provide search and rescue service: (a) what was the original purchase price of the Liv Viking when originally constructed; (b) what was the purchase price of the Liv Viking paid by the Government of Canada; (c) what was the cost of the refit; (d) what were the design costs; (e) what were the costs of survey engineering and related feasibility work; (f) what were the travel and associated expenses of the Coast Guard, Public Works and other government agencies associated with the selection, design, purchase and refit of the Liv Viking; (g) what were the total administrative charges levied against the project; (h) what was the cost to put the Liv Viking into service; (i) when was the Liv Viking originally constructed; (j) when did it go into service in Europe; (k) what was the nature of the service in Europe; (l) when was it withdrawn from service in Europe; (m) why was it withdrawn from service in Europe; (n) how many hours of service did it have in Europe; (o) what happened to the hovercraft when it was taken out of service in Europe; (p) what are the maximum wind conditions (in knots) in the Coast Guard's Search and Rescue (SAR) Area 303 (where the Liv Viking will be expected to operate) in (i) spring, (ii) summer, (iii) fall, and (iv) winter and is the craft certified to operate in such conditions; (q) what is the wave height (percentage of time) in SAR Area 303 for the following wave height conditions – 0-1 metre, 1-2 meters, 2-3 metres and 3 or more metres – in (i) spring, (ii) summer, (iii) fall, and (iv) winter and has the craft been accredited to operate in such conditions; (r) do the operational performance requirements ensure that the craft has the ability to (i) undertake search and rescue operations in wave heights of 3 metres and winds of 40 knots, (ii) maintain a speed of 35 knots for a continuous period of 8 hours; and (iii) maintain a speed of 20 knots in wave heights of 1 metre and winds of 25 knots; (s) does the Liv Viking have a bow-ramp for use in medical evacuations and if not, why not; (t) as part of the refit, were the “lift” engines replaced, if not, why not, and how many hours have they been in service; (u) after going into service in Canada has the Liv Viking had any breakdowns or repairs, if so what were they; and (v) what kind of diving platform does the Liv Viking have, how do rescue divers enter the water from it, how do rescue divers and those in the water in need of assistance get aboard, and are they able to get onboard without assistance?

With regard to the environmental and economic issues posed by the development of halibut or sablefish aquaculture: (a) has a comprehensive environmental impact analysis of halibut and sablefish aquaculture been completed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, the Navigable Water Protection Act or some other authority and what were the findings; (b) has a comprehensive economic impact and cost/benefit analysis of halibut and sablefish aquaculture been undertaken to determine the total impacts and net economic benefits to British Columbia and Canada been completed and what were the findings; (c) have the locations of nursery and juvenile rearing areas of various species of halibut and sablefish in coastal inlets, bays and fiords of British Columbia been established and if so where are they; (d) have guidelines been developed for the siting of halibut and sablefish aquaculture that would prohibit placement of halibut and sablefish net pens in nursery and juvenile rearing areas in coastal inlets, bays and fiords; (e) have authorizations or approvals been given for the establishment of halibut and sablefish net pen aquaculture operations in the coastal waters of British Columbia and if so what are the locations; (f) is a sablefish hatchery operation or operations, that would have as its objective the providing of stock for sablefish aquaculture operations, under construction and if so what is its location or locations and what measures have been undertaken to ensure that its production will not be placed in net pen aquaculture operations in Canadian waters until assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act have been completed and authorizations given under either the Fisheries Act or the Navigable Waters Protection Act; (g) has Fisheries and Oceans Canada undertaken or funded research into the development of halibut and sablefish aquaculture and if so what were the results and what species of sablefish were studied; (h) have provincial authorities licenced halibut and sablefish aquaculture operations in Canadian coastal waters without Canadian Environmental Assessment Act assessments and if so what is the specific location of each licence; (i) which of the sites licenced by a provincial authority are within five nautical miles of nursery or juvenile rearing areas of wild halibut or sablefish; (j) what studies or research have been undertaken or funded to ensure that these provincially licenced sites are not within five nautical miles of a halibut or sablefish nursery or juvenile rearing area; (k) what studies or research have been undertaken or funded with regard to diseases and parasites associated with halibut or sablefish aquaculture, their possible transfer to wild stocks, and what were the findings; (l) what studies or research has been undertaken or funded with regard to the level of escapes from net pens, whether escaped halibut and sablefish tended to migrate north toward Alaska or south toward California in the manner that wild stocks do and what were the findings; (m) what is the level and composition of waste from Fisheries and Oceans Canada experimental halibut and sablefish aquaculture operations or experimental operations funded or authorized by Fisheries and Oceans Canada; (n) what is the cost shared funding arrangement for the research and development work undertaken by Fisheries and Oceans Canada; (o) what is the cost to Fisheries and Oceans Canada with regard to all research and development activity involving halibut and sablefish aquaculture, including staff time, salaries and contributions; (p) what is the nature of the consultations with halibut and sablefish fishermen with regard to the development of halibut and sablefish aquaculture; (q) what measures have been established to compensate fishermen should halibut and sablefish aquaculture lead to a collapse of wildfish stocks or a reduction in fish caught; (r) what measures have been established to compensate fishermen should the production and marketing of farmed halibut and sablefish aquaculture lead to a decline in market prices for halibut and sablefish and a resulting loss of the income by fishermen; and (s) what measures have been established to restrict or prohibit the export of live halibut or sablefish broodstock?

With regard to the exclusive arrangement entered into by the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Nautical Data International (NDI) involving electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright and the reluctance by Navionics and C-Map to accept the new royalties and other fees now demanded by NDI: (a) when the exclusive relationship with NDI was renewed were competitive bids sought, and, if not, why not; (b) when the exclusive relationship was renewed, did the Canadian Hydrographic Service seek the approval of Canada’s competition watchdog, if not, why not, and, if yes, what was the response; (c) what is the nature of the exclusive relationship with NDI involving electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; (d) does this exclusive arrangement authorize NDI to prohibit re-sellers of electronic charts under Crown copyright from disclosing or complaining about the royalty or other fees imposed by NDI; (e) in response to the new 50% royalty and various access fees and annual renewal fees recently imposed by NDI for electronic nautical charts, did the Canadian Hydrographic Service seek the approval of Canada’s competition watchdog, if not, why not, and, if yes, what was the response; (f) did the Canadian Hydrographic Service approve the 50% royalty now being demanded by NDI; (g) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service given over to NDI the complete and final authority to set the royalties and other fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; (h) what authority or role does the Canadian Hydrographic Service have in the setting of royalties and various fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; (i) what is the purpose and value of the annual “access fees” for re-sellers and the annual renewal fees for purchasers of electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; (j) did the Canadian Hydrographic Service approve the “access fees” and annual renewal fees imposed on electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; (k) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service given over to NDI the complete and final authority to set “access fees” and annual renewal fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; (l) what authority does the exclusive contract renewed in 2003 with NDI give the Canadian Hydrographic Service to ensure that boaters and fishermen have continued access to electronic nautical charts in a timely manner necessary to ensure that marine safety is not impaired; (m) what remuneration has the Canadian Hydrographic Service received from NDI in each of the following years: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, and thus far in 2004; (n) what is the remuneration NDI has received under this exclusive arrangement in each year since 1993; (o) what grants, contributions or loans have been provided to NDI or other companies owned or controlled by Mohammed Al Zaidak since 1993, and what was the purpose and date of each; (p) what contracts have been entered into with NDI or other companies owned or controlled by Mohammed Al Zaidak since 1993, and what was the purpose and date of each; (q) what members of the staff of the Canadian Hydrographic Service have moved to NDI either as employees, officers, consultants or in some other capacity; (r) what unique value-added service, if any, does NDI provide in relation to the data used by Navionics and C-Map and similar electronic nautical chart re-sellers that could not be sourced elsewhere; and (s) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service undertaken comparisons with similar governmental agencies in the United States with regard to both its exclusive relationship with NDI and the royalties and other access fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright and, if so, what were the findings?