Questions and responses 40th Parliament, 2nd session January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Refine your search

Search results for topic:"Borders"

Results from historical information do not include searching within the departmental responses.
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-270

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-270

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Asked by
Date asked
May 25, 2009
Answered
September 14, 2009
With respect to the government’s policy of arming Canada’s border guards: (a) how many border guards are currently armed, broken down by region and border crossing; (b) how many border guards still remain to be armed; (c) what is the government’s current schedule for the training and arming of the remaining border guards, from the present until the scheduled date of completion; (d) has the schedule been amended and, if so, how, when and why; (e) what methodology is being used to determine the order in which border guards are armed; (f) what is the current budgeted cost of arming border guards; (g) has this amount changed and, if so, why, when and by how much; (h) what is the detailed breakdown of money spent to implement this policy, broken down yearly, to date; (i) what is the total dollar amount budgeted for this project since its inception, broken down by year, from now until completion; (j) which department or agency is supplying the funds for the arming of border guards; (k) who did the government consult before initiating the arming policy, and when; (l) are these consultations on-going as this policy is rolled out and, if so, at what point do the consultations occur and how are they conducted; (m) was the government provided with advice or studies to support their claim that the arming of border guards will improve border security and, if so, by whom and how were their conclusions reached; (n) was the government provided with any advice or studies that did not support their claim that the arming of border guards will improve border security and, if so, by whom and how were those conclusions reached; (o) was the government provided with advice or studies that recommended other policies as more effective at improving border security and, if so, by whom where they provided, what were they, how were their conclusions reached and, what were their detailed cost breakdown; (p) what is the government doing with border guards who do not wish to be trained to carry a gun or who do not have the competency to do so; (q) what is the detailed cost to the government, broken down annually, of accommodating those guards; (r) what is the current pay scale of an unarmed guard as compared to an armed guard; (s) how many times have armed border guards had to upholster their guns to date, how many time have they had to fire their gun, and what were the circumstances surrounding each situation; and (t) is the government considering extending the arming policy to include national park wardens and, if so, when will that occur and what is the detailed cost of this policy?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-369

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-369

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Asked by
Date asked
June 17, 2009
Answered
September 14, 2009
Concerning the Akwesasne Mohawk border dispute: (a) on what dates did Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) or other government officials meet with the Akwesasne, who was present at these meetings, and what was discussed; (b) on what dates did CBSA or other government officials communicate with the Akwesasne, either by phone or via correspondence, who participated, and what was discussed; (c) has the Minister or anyone representing the Minister ever spoken or met with the Akwesasne and, if so, when, where, and what was discussed; (d) when was the government made aware that the Akwesasne would protest the arming of border guards, and that this protest could result in the shutdown of the Cornwall Island border crossing post, and how did that occur; (e) what is the rationale for the government’s decision to proceed with the arming of the border guards at the Cornwall Island border crossing on June 1, 2009, given the likelihood of protest by the Akwesasne, and given that the policy is being rolled out at border crossings until 2016; (f) did the government receive any advice to delay the implementation of the arming policy at this specific border crossing and, if so, when, by whom, and what was the basis for the advice; (g) were any actions taken by the government to try and prevent the closing of the border post on Cornwall Island and, if so, what were they and when did they occur; (h) when was the government informed that CBSA workers would be walking off the job at midnight June 1, 2009, and by whom; (i) what did the government do to prepare for the abandonment of the Cornwall Island border post by the CBSA; (j) what did the government do to safeguard highly sensitive material held at the border post, such as computer files, paperwork, etc., that could compromise national security if it were purloined; (k) has anyone been into the Cornwall Island border crossing post since the CBSA evacuated the premises at midnight on June 1, 2009 and, if so, who, when and for what purpose were they there; (l) who is in charge of ensuring that the security of the border crossing post itself is maintained while it is non-operational, and how often are they surveying the post; (m) what actions has the government taken since the shutdown of the Cornwall Island border post to divert commercial and tourist traffic to other border posts, when did those actions take place, and what were they; (n) has the government received an assessment of how much money the closure of the Cornwall Island border post is costing the government and the economy and, if so, what did the assessments say; (o) since the closure of the Cornwall Island border post, has the government taken any actions to increase resources at surrounding border crossings to help deal with the increased traffic; (p) were any stakeholders consulted about the arming of border guards on Cornwall Island and, if so, when did the consultations take place, who was present, and what was the content of these consultations; and (q) was the Customs Excise Union consulted about the closure of the Cornwall Island border post and, if so, when, and what was their position on the closure of the border post?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-36

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-36

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Asked by
Date asked
January 27, 2009
Answered
March 12, 2009
With respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments that were closed in Quebec in 2004: (a) five years later, what are the government’s plans for these nine detachments, specifically with respect to their possible reopening and to an increase in border staff; and (b) if an analysis of the positive and negative impacts of closing these detachments was done, what were the findings?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-448

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-448

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Asked by
Date asked
October 2, 2009
Answered
November 17, 2009
Concerning the Akwesasne Mohawk border dispute: (a) what discussions, if any, were held about alternatives for a solution to the Akwesasne border dispute; (b) what negotiations, if any, were held with the United States about relocating the Canadian border post to American soil, similar to the current agreement to allow U.S. Customs to operate inside some major Canadian airports; (c) what is the anticipated cost of relocating the border post to its new location; (d) what is the assessed cost to cross-border trade during the closure of the Cornwall Island border crossing; and (e) what is the assessed cost to tourism during the closure of the Cornwall Island border crossing?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-268

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-268

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Asked by
Date asked
May 25, 2009
Answered
September 14, 2009
With regard to the Shiprider Project: (a) at what stage are the negotiations with the United States; (b) is there a deadline for the signing of the permanent agreement and, if so, what is it; (c) on what date did the discussions about this project begin and by whom were they initiated; (d) which Canadian government departments or agencies, and which officials have participated in the negotiations; (e) which United States government departments or agencies and officials have participated in the negotiations; (f) were other stakeholders consulted and, if so, who; (g) when did these consultations occur and what was discussed; (h) what is the mandate of this project; (i) what are the rules under which this project operates; (j) which government departments are funding this project, both here and in the United States; (k) what is the total dollar amount spent by the government on this project since its inception, broken down by year; (l) what is the total dollar amount spent on this project since its inception, broken down by year; (m) which government departments will operate and fund this project should it become permanent, both in Canada and the United States; (n) what is the total anticipated cost of this project should it become permanent; (o) how much of that anticipated cost is being covered by the Canadian government and how much will be covered by the American government; (p) how many Canadian vessels and how many American Coast guard vessels are participating in this project currently; (q) how many Canadian vessels and how many American Coast Guard vessels will participate when and if this project becomes permanent; and (r) what precautions have been taken to ensure that Canadian sovereignty is not violated?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-132

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-132

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Asked by
Date asked
April 23, 2009
Answered
June 5, 2009
With respect to the new United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) user fee requirements for Canada: (a) what did the government do, if anything, to negotiate this fee change with the United States; (b) what communications occurred between Canada and the United States in preparation for this fee change; (c) what notice, if any, was provided to Canadian railway companies by the United States government of the August 25, 2007 interim rule authorizing APHIS to collect fees to cover costs for agricultural quarantine, inspection as well as planned increases to the program’s inspection capacity related to ports of entry in Canada; (d) does the Government of Canada know why the exemption removal was issued by the United States government, as an interim rule, as opposed to publishing a proposed rule for comments; (e) why was the targeted risk management model for customs reforms in North America not followed; (f) what overall purpose did the additional inspection under the APHIS proposal demonstrate; and (g) why is this fee being imposed on railway companies seeing as railways do not engage in the shipping of any substantial quantities of agricultural products across the border?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-90

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-90

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Asked by
Date asked
March 23, 2009
Answered
May 7, 2009
Since January 2006 to present date have Canadian aircraft responded to near border violations by foreign aircraft and, if so: (a) what was the date and location of each incident; (b) what was the response by Canadian aircraft, including the number of aircraft involved and the point of contact with the foreign aircraft; (c) was Canadian airspace actually breached and, if so, to what extent; (d) what was the country of origin of each of the implicated aircraft; (e) who ordered each of the interceptor flights and what was the rationale behind the threat risk; (f) what was the purported mission of each of the implicated foreign aircraft; (g) what was the outcome of each interception, the cost of each response mission, the damage to Canadian aircraft if any and what were the risks involved for the pilots; (h) for each incident, was a diplomatic note filed with the country in question and what was the response from the involved country; and (i) under the same criteria used above what is the response to any incursions or near incursions into Canadian territory by naval vessels or land based forces?
Historical information
The information shown below relates to a prior session.

Q-134

40-2
January 26, 2009, to December 30, 2009

Q-134

40th Parliament, 2nd session
Asked by
Date asked
April 23, 2009
Answered
June 4, 2009
With respect to the Alaska-Yukon boundary dispute, since 2006: (a) what steps have been taken to resolve the Alaska-Yukon boundary dispute; (b) what discussions have been held involving the governments of Canada and the United States; (c) where were these discussions held; (d) who was involved in these discussions; (e) what departments or agencies from both governments were represented at these discussions; (f) what were the outcomes of the discussions; (g) who has been involved and who has been consulted in the efforts to develop Canada’s position in these negotiations; (h) what is Canada’s position; (i) when does the government anticipate a resolution in this dispute; and (j) has the government placed a high level of importance to this issue in its relations with the United States?
Top of page