House Publications

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

Bilingual view PDF


Monday, September 18, 2006 (No. 47)

Questions

The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing in the list have been answered, withdrawn or made into orders for return.

Q-4 — April 4, 2006 — — With regard to the report “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”: (a) what have been the specific responses prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to any or all of its recommendations; and (b) what have been the specific responses prepared by any other federal department or agency to any or all of the recommendations?

Q-5 — April 4, 2006 — — With regard to correspondence between the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Canadian Wheat Board: (a) did the Department correspond either in writing or by e-mail with the Canadian Wheat Board between November 1, 2005 and February 13, 2006 and, if so, on which dates; and (b) in any correspondence were specific questions or requests for information submitted to the Canadian Wheat Board and, if so, which questions or requests for information were submitted and on which dates were the responses due?

Q-10 — April 20, 2006 — — How much money has the government paid out (including federal grants, disbursements by granting councils and by the Business Development Bank of Canada) for science and technology projects undertaken at all Canadian colleges and universities since 2002-2003, and, in each case: (a) how much was disbursed; (b) which departments were involved; (c) who received the funds; (d) where are the recipients located; (e) what was the specific purpose of the disbursement; and (f) how long did the funding last?

Q-28 — May 9, 2006 — — With respect to the procedures and practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness regarding immigrant students: (a) how many schools and school board officials have been approached by either department for information regarding the status of their students; (b) how many students have been apprehended or approached by either department since January 1, 2004; (c) what are the policies and procedures regarding entering educational institutions; and (d) have any officers of either department been reprimanded because policy was not followed?

Q-31² — May 10, 2006 — — With respect to the money required to clean the Greenwich-Mohawk brownfield site located in the riding of Brant (Ontario): (a) has the government approved the allocation of any government funds for the clean-up of the site; (b) has the government taken any steps to stop or reduce the previous allocation of any government funds for the clean-up of the site; (c) what steps have been taken by the government to determine whether to fund the clean-up of the site; (d) are there any funds available in either the estimates tabled by the government in April 2006, or the budget tabled by the government in May 2006 to fund the clean-up of the site; (e) has the government received any advice from the public service on whether it would be appropriate to provide funding to clean up the site; and (f) are there any proposals to fund the clean-up of the site currently being studied by cabinet, a cabinet committee, or any department and, if so, at what stage are each of the proposals, and what steps need to be taken before a final decision is made?

Q-33² — May 15, 2006 — — With regard to the Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees with the Afghan government: (a) the Arrangement states that it applies “in the event of a transfer”, does the government intend to transfer all detainees to the Afghan authorities, or would Canada retain custody of some detainees or transfer them to recipients other than the Afghan authorities; (b) what is the scope of application of the Arrangement and does it apply to all Canadian troops operating in Afghanistan, particularly to embedded staff officers at Combined Joint Task Force 76 (CJTF-76) in Bagram; (c) do the embedded staff officers at CJTF-76 in Bagram in any way participate in the detention or interrogation of detainees by the United States; (d) how will the Arrangement operate when Canadian soldiers are engaged in a joint operation with Afghan soldiers or police, particularly Afghan Forces; (e) if an Afghan soldier or police officer physically apprehends a detainee or prisoner during joint operations, would it be considered a transfer and would the Arrangement apply; (f) does the government consider that the armed conflict, in which Canadian Forces (CF) are engaged in Afghanistan, is or is not an “armed conflict not of an international character”, as that phrase is used in Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention; (g) does the government consider that persons detained by CF under the Arrangement could be “prisoners of war”, as that phrase is used in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention; (h) does the government consider that persons detained by CF under the Arrangement are entitled to have their status “determined by a competent tribunal” as that phrase is used in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention; (i) if other articles of the Third Geneva Convention or its Additional Protocols apply to CF deployed to Afghanistan, whether by legal obligation or by Canada’s agreement, what are each of them, accurately enumerated; (j) upon detaining a person, will the CF always offer that detained person access to legal counsel; (k) does the government believe that CF detaining non-Canadian persons in Afghanistan must respect section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in so doing; (l) what is the government's position as to the possible criminal culpability of a Canadian soldier if he or she transfers a detainee into Afghan custody and that detainee does indeed experience torture as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Torture Convention, Criminal Code or Canadian military law; (m) does the government consider that this Arrangement guarantees that there will be no further transfers of detainees by the Afghan authorities into the custody of any other government without Canada’s consent; (n) why does the Arrangement not provide a right for the Canadian government or for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to monitor and inspect detainees after they are transferred to the Afghan authorities, as the government of the Netherlands sought and obtained; (o) why has Canada chosen not to develop and maintain its own detention facility in Afghanistan, or a detention facility operated jointly with either the Afghan government or other NATO states; (p) does the government consider the terming of the document as an "Arrangement" as affecting the document's legal weight; (q) how many detainees have CF transferred to the Afghan authorities since the Arrangement was signed; (r) has the Canadian government requested access from the Afghan authorities to any of the transferred detainees, to verify their well-being and, if so, did Afghanistan agree to the request; (s) does the government consider that this Arrangement is a treaty, consistent with statements made by the Prime Minister as reported on May 13, 2006; (t) what are the personal details regarding the detainees that can be discussed publicly, consistent with the Geneva Conventions and other human rights obligations; (u) given that the Arrangement provides for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to inspect and monitor the treatment of detainees after CF transfer them to the Afghan authorities, does the government now consent to the ICRC sharing the results of these inspections on a routine basis with Parliament and the public; (v) when Canadian operations in southern Afghanistan are transferred to NATO control later this year, will a NATO-Afghanistan detainee transfer agreement supercede the Canada-Afghanistan Arrangement; (w) will the NATO agreement contain all of the rights of visit and notice found in the Netherlands-Afghanistan agreement, and, if not, why; (x) will the government make the NATO agreement available to Parliament as soon as possible, and, if not, why; (y) what additional procedures or safeguards do the CF apply when transferring a detainee who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18 to the Afghan military; (z) has Canada detained anyone in Afghanistan under the age of 18; (aa) what additional procedures or safeguards do the CF apply when transferring a female detainee to the Afghan military; (bb) whether owing to ICRC inspections or any other source of information, is the Canadian government aware of any instances where a detainee transferred to the Afghan military was subsequently tortured or abused and, if so, what were the circumstances in each case; and (cc) did any government or representatives of any foreign government other than that of Canada and Afghanistan review the text of this agreement before its signature?

Q-36 — May 16, 2006 — — With regard to the agreement with the government of the United States of America (USA) concerning the handling of detainees in Afghanistan: (a) is there a Canada-USA detainee transfer agreement and, if so, (i) does that agreement remain in force notwithstanding the existence of the Canada-Afghanistan agreement, (ii) how do the two agreements relate to each other, especially in a situation where an individual detainee is specifically requested by the USA; and (b) have any detainees been transferred to USA custody since the Canada-Afghanistan arrangement was signed?

Q-40² — May 17, 2006 — — With respect to the distribution of promotional Canadian materials by the government, including, but not limited to, flags, pins and posters: (a) what was the total value of the materials distributed in each of the last 5 years and the percentage in each year of material that was produced in Canada; (b) what is the breakdown of countries that produced these materials and the value of the materials that were produced; (c) what companies were responsible for shipping the portion of the materials that were foreign-made; (d) what was the value of the portion of these materials that each company shipped to Canada; (e) in which countries are these companies based; (f) what was the overall weight of the portion of the goods shipped from overseas; (g) what protocol is associated with the awarding of contracts for the production and shipment of these goods; (h) what assurances does the government have that any of the materials produced overseas were not produced in sweat-shop-style conditions; and (i) what initiatives have been undertaken to increase the amount of domestic production of these goods since June 2004?

Q-41² — May 17, 2006 — — With regard to House committee reports on the subject of status of women, how has the government provided action on: (a) the 1991 report entitled “The war against women : report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women”; (b) the 1991 government response entitled “Living without Fear Everyone’s Goal, Every Women’s Right”; (c) the 2005 report entitled “Increasing Funding to Equality-Seeking Organizations”; (d) the 2005 government response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Increasing Funding to Equality-Seeking Organizations”; (e) the 2005 report entitled “Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”; (f) the 2005 government response to the Second Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Gender-Based Analysis: Building Blocks for Success”; (g) the 2005 report entitled “Funding through the women's program: Women's groups speak out”; (h) the 2005 government response to the Third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Funding through the women's program: Women's groups speak out”; (i) the 2005 report entitled “Moving Forward on the Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations”; (j) the 2005 government response to the Fourth Report of the Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Moving Forward on the Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations”; and (k) the 2005 report entitled “Interim Report on the Maternity and Parental Benefits Under Employment Insurance: The Exclusion of Self-Employed Workers”?

Q-44² — May 25, 2006 — — With regard to the lease-purchase agreement between Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Minto Developments for the property at 3000 Merivale Road: (a) what financial details have gone to Treasury Board to support this agreement in principle; (b) was the search for a lease agreement publicly tendered; (c) what are the details of the tendering process for the relocation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters from 1200 Vanier Parkway; (d) what are the details of the analysis for all of the options considered by PWGSC prior to the agreement in principle with Minto Developments; and (e) was the City of Ottawa’s 2001 policy of stimulating growth by encouraging the location of “future federal workplaces near Transitway Stations and give particular consideration to the east-end part of the City” considered in this decision and, if so, how?

Q-45 — May 29, 2006 — — Has the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had a budget surplus during the last five years and, if so, what was the surplus for each year; and how has the government spent these surpluses?

Q-46 — May 29, 2006 — — With respect to the $474 million that has not been spent of the $1 billion allocated to federal housing programs in November 2001, what does the government plan to do to speed the flow of federal dollars allocated to housing?

Q-48² — May 29, 2006 — — With respect to government spending on post-secondary education: (a) is the figure cited by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development in the House on May 3, 2006, specifically “the $16 billion for education that is included in the Canada Social Transfer,” a precise figure; (b) and, if so, what is the breakdown of that spending, if available, allocated to (i) direct student financial assistance in the form of loans, (ii) direct student financial assistance in the form of non-repayable grants, (iii) indirect student financial assistance, (iv) post-secondary institutions for operating expenses, (v) post-secondary institutions for research expenses, (vi) post-secondary institutions for capital expenses; (c) if the response to section (a) is no, what is the precise proportion, in dollars and in percentage, of the Canada Social Transfer (CST) dedicated to post-secondary education; (d) what mechanism exists to guarantee that the funding for post-secondary education included in the CST ensures high-quality, accessible education for all Canadians; (e) what is the precise amount of spending on post-secondary education outside of the CST; (f) what is the breakdown of that spending, if available, allocated to (i) direct student financial assistance in the form of loans, (ii) direct student financial assistance in the form of non-repayable grants, (iii) indirect student financial assistance, (iv) post-secondary institutions for operating expenses, (v) post-secondary institutions for research expenses, (vi) post-secondary institutions for capital expenses; and (g) what mechanism exists to guarantee that the funding for post-secondary education outside of the CST ensures high-quality, accessible education for all Canadians?

Q-49² — May 29, 2006 — — With respect to government funding for literacy initiatives, programs, and organizations; and to the National Literacy Secretariat (NLS): (a) what is the current status of the NLS; (b) what is the status of the departmental reorganization in reference to the NLS; (c) what details can the government provide about the new national literacy program or secretariat that will emerge, or has emerged, in response to the mandated Treasury Board review and departmental reorganization; (d) how will the transition affect the level of literacy funding transferred to literacy projects and organizations; (e) what is the status of the 3-year, $30 million funding allocated specifically to the NLS in Budget 2005; (f) what is the status of the former NLS’ annual call for proposals for the literacy community; (g) how many grants or contribution agreements related to literacy have been distributed by the Department of Human Resources and Social Development since January 24, 2006; (h) how many proposals for funding for literacy initiatives, programs and organizations have been submitted to the NLS, or to any new national literacy program or secretariat under the department, or to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada since November 1, 2005; (i) of those submissions, how many have not yet been processed; (j) how much money will the government allocate to funding literacy initiatives, programs and organizations between May 18, 2006, and the release of the next budget; (k) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for raising the level of literacy in Canada; (l) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for maintaining and raising the level of literacy in the French language in Canada; (m) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for maintaining and raising the level of literacy in the French language in Canada outside of Quebec; (n) what is the government’s official commitment to funding and supporting literacy initiatives, programs and organizations across Canada; and (o) what specific plans does the government have to fund local literacy organizations and initiatives between May 18, 2006, and the release of the next budget?

Q-50^1-2 — May 30, 2006 — — With regard to First Nations Inuit Health Branch tuberculosis funding and outbreaks of tuberculosis (TB) in Canada: (a) since the program’s inception in 1992 what has been the rate of TB in Canada; (b) what has been the rate in each province; (c) has the government assessed what reasons exist for different rates among the provinces and territories; (d) has the government undertaken or contracted for any audits, evaluation reports or analyses of its TB prevention and control activities, including the Tuberculosis Elimination Strategy (TES); (e) what have been the annual allocations and expenditures by the government for the TES since its inception; (f) what have been the annual expenditures and allocations for the TES in each province and territory; (g) what are the annual allocations and expenditures of the government on First Nations disease prevention and health promotion programs in the 2006-2007 main estimates and the budget tabled in May 2006; (h) has the government received any advice from the public service on whether it would be appropriate to provide further funding to prevent TB among First Nations; (i) has the government approved the allocation of any funds for community-wide screening at the Garden Hill First Nations community in Manitoba; (j) what is the number of active cases in the community as of May 15, 2006; (k) has the government approved the allocation of any funds for additional nursing staff to support directly observed therapy in the community; (l) has the government allocated funding for an independent investigation into what led the TB source case in the community to remain undetected for so long; (m) has the government allocated funding for a full time doctor for the community; (n) are there any increased funds to support programs to eradicate TB in Canada in the estimates tabled in April 2006 or the budget tabled in May 2006; (o) are there any funds allocated in the estimates tabled in April 2006 or the budget tabled in May 2006 to fund activities to prevent and treat TB in countries outside of Canada; and (p) when will appropriate and adequate funding and services be provided to prevent and treat TB among First Nations?

Q-52 — June 1, 2006 — — With regard to the Off-campus Work Program announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on April 27, 2006, what was the rationale for excluding: (a) Canadian International Development Agency-funded foreign visa students; (b) Canadian Commonwealth Scholarship Program students; (c) Government of Canada Awards Program students; and (d) exchange students enrolled in English or French as a Second Language Programs?

Q-53 — June 1, 2006 — — With regard to graduate students possessing Canadian International Development Agency-funded foreign student visas: (a) how many were studying at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 1995 and April 2000 and how many completed graduate degrees during this period; and (b) how many were studying at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 2000 to April 2005 and how many completed graduate degrees during this period?

Q-54 — June 1, 2006 — — With regard to students possessing Commonwealth Award Program foreign student visas: (a) how many studied at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 1995 and April 2000; (b) how many studied at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 2000 and April 2005; (c) how many were undergraduate students; (d) how many were graduate students; (e) how many completed their studies during the prescribed periods; and (f) what were the countries of origin of these students?

Q-55 — June 1, 2006 — — With regard to undergraduate students possessing Canadian International Development Agency-funded foreign student visas: (a) how many were studying at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 1995 and April 2000; (b) how many completed undergraduate degrees during this period; (c) how many were studying at Canadian universities during the academic years between September 2000 and April 2005; (d) how many completed their studies during this period; and (e) what were the countries of origin of these students?

Q-56² — June 7, 2006 — — With regard to the comprehensive due diligence review of the role of airports in southern Ontario and future air traffic growth, which was announced by the Minister of Transport on September 9, 2005, in the context of the future of the Pickering Lands: (a) what are the terms of reference of this review; (b) when and by whom were these terms established; (c) which officials or outside organizations will be conducting this review; (d) which airport planning studies have been or will be reviewed as part of this process; (e) what criteria will be used to assess these studies; (f) when will this process be completed; and (g) when will the results of this process be made public?

Q-57 — June 7, 2006 — — With regard to employment at 5 Wing Goose Bay, Labrador, how many uniformed military personnel, civilian employees of the Department of National Defence and employees of Serco were stationed or employed there, as the case may be, as of November 1, 2005, and June 1, 2006?

Q-58² — June 7, 2006 — — With regard to government jobs in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of Public Service employees in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (b) the number of employees of government agencies, Crown corporations or any other government bodies in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region, from 1998 to 2006?

Q-59² — June 7, 2006 — — With regard to leases signed by the government in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of such leases expiring in 2006 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (b) the number of such leases expiring in 2007 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (c) the number of vacant premises in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region in 2006

Q-60² — June 9, 2006 — — With respect to the budget plan for 2006 distributed by the Department of Finance, which states specifically on page 85, in Section 3: “Building a Better Canada” (subsection: “Opportunity”): “Over the coming year, the Minister of Industry will be developing a science and technology strategy, in collaboration with the Minister of Finance, that will encompass the broad range of government support for research, including knowledge infrastructure”: (a) has the development of this strategy begun; (b) when is it expected that this science and technology strategy will be completed; (c) who will be or who has been consulted in developing the strategy; (d) will the Minister of Industry, Minister of Finance or departmental officials travel outside of the Ottawa region while developing this strategy and, if so (i) what are the names and titles of the traveling participants, (ii) how much will the travel cost, (iii) what will be the duration of the travel, (iv) what will be the destinations of the travel; (e) will the general public be consulted and, if so, how should they direct their concerns; (f) will Industry Canada or the Department of Finance hold public meetings while developing this strategy and, if so (i) where will the meetings be held, (ii) what is the budget forecasted for these meetings, (iii) will the meetings be advertised and, if so, how; (g) what will be the focus of the strategy; and (h) what is the total expected cost of the development of the strategy?

Q-61 — June 12, 2006 — — How much money has the government paid out through all programs from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) since 2000-2001, and, in each case: (a) how much was disbursed annually in each province; (b) which programs were used to finance the projects; (c) who received the funds; (d) what was the specific purpose of the disbursement; and (e) how long did the funding last?

Q-62 — June 12, 2006 — — With regard to the Innovative Communities Fund (ICF) operated by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and the government’s commitment to use funds from ACOA to support the construction of the Moncton Stadium and completion of the Fundy Trail: (a) which ACOA programs are being used to finance the Stadium and Trail projects; (b) precisely how much federal money will be provided for these two projects and over what time period; and (c) how many applications to the ICF have been received from each province in Atlantic Canada since the fund’s creation, including (i) which projects have been approved and announced so far to receive funds from ICF, (ii) how much money has been disbursed from the ICF, (iii) who are the recipients of these disbursements, (iv) what is the breakdown of ICF disbursements by province?

Q-63 — June 12, 2006 — — With regard to the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund and the Prime Minister’s announcement in March 2006 of $200 million in support for highway upgrades in New Brunswick: (a) what is the status of the $7 million approved by Infrastructure Canada in November 2004 for Phase 1 of the Nashwaak/Marysville bypass; (b) did the government receive any revised proposals or designs in 2006 from the government of New Brunswick for this project enabling Treasury Board to forward this $7 million; (c) which program will be used to deliver the $200 million that has been committed by the Prime Minister; (d) when will these monies start flowing to the province; (e) what is the order of precedence in which individual highway projects will be funded under the $200 million commitment; and (f) has the government of New Brunswick submitted a design for the Route 8 Marysville bypass to South Portage?

Q-64 — June 12, 2006 — — With regard to the ongoing projects that have been approved and are being funded under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF), the Municipal-Rural Infrastructure Fund (MRIF) and the Border Infrastructure Fund (BIF): (a) are any projects experiencing cost overruns as a result of unpredicted increases in the cost of building materials, labour, fuel and, if so, which ones and what is the value of these cost overruns; and (b) has the government developed any strategy for providing financial assistance to the recipients of CSIF, MRIF and BIF grants who are facing cost overruns caused by unprojected increases in the cost of fuel, labour or building materials?

Q-65² — June 12, 2006 — — With regard to the decision to discontinue or cancel funding of the Métis National Council of Women (MNCW): (a) for which Canadian Heritage programs and initiatives was funding cancelled or not renewed; (b) what current statistical or empirical data, rationale and evidence supports the discontinuation or cancellation of the funding of MNCW programs and initiatives; (c) what cost-benefit analysis or financial estimates compiled for or by Canadian Heritage exist relating to these decisions; (d) what information was provided to the Minister of Canadian Heritage or her staff by way of analysis prior to these decisions; (e) what recommendations, pertinent to these decisions, were made by the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Minister; (f) what recommendations, pertinent to these decisions, were provided to or by the Corporate Review Branch of the Department concerning the internal review and decision-making procedures used in arriving at such funding decisions; and (g) what information, pertinent to these decisions, was provided to or by other departments or the Privy Council Office to the Minister?

Q-66² — June 12, 2006 — — With regard to the 2000 Auditor General's report, “Chapter 30 Fisheries and Oceans — The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks”: (a) how many of the Auditor General’s recommendations have been implemented and what are the details of that implementation; and (b) how many of the Auditor General’s recommendations have not been implemented and why?

Q-67 — June 13, 2006 — — What was the government's total contribution, monetary and non-monetary, to the 2005 World Police and Fire Games in Quebec City?

Q-68² — June 13, 2006 — — With regard to government affordable housing programs, is it the intention of the government to: (a) cease funding for the programs after March 31, 2007; (b) renew all programs that are due to expire after March 31, 2007; and (c) renew funding after March 31, 2007, for the following programs, (i) Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI), (ii) Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), (iii) Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independance (HASI), (iv) Emergency Repair Program (ERP)?

Q-69² — June 15, 2006 — — With regard to the Wind Power Production Incentive Program and its allocation in the 2005 Budget of $920 million over 15 years, which has been frozen: (a) when will these funds be released; and (b) what additional plans does the government have to support the development of the wind energy industry in Canada?

Q-70 — June 15, 2006 — — 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?

Q-71² — June 19, 2006 — — With regard to the decision by the Minister of Natural Resources to discontinue or cancel the funding of certain programs, including EnerGuide for Houses Retrofit Incentive Program and EnerGuide for Low-Income Households Program, and initiatives relating to climate change, the reduction of pollution and the reduction of greenhouse gases: (a) for which of these programs and initiatives was funding cancelled or not renewed; (b) what current, statistical or empirical data, rationale and evidence can the Minister demonstrate to support the discontinuation or cancellation of the funding of these programs and initiatives; (c) what cost-benefit analysis, or financial estimates compiled for or by the Department of Natural Resources, relating to the discontinuation, cancellation or otherwise withdrawal of funding of these programs and initiatives, can the Minister provide; (d) what information was provided to the Minister or his staff by way of analysis prior to this decision; (e) what recommendations, pertinent to the decision to discontinue or cancel funding of these programs and initiatives, were made by the Department of Natural Resources to the Minister; and (f) what information, pertinent to the decision to discontinue or cancel funding of these programs and initiatives, was provided by other departments or the Privy Council Office to the Minister?

Q-72² — June 19, 2006 — — With regard to the proposal by the government to give public transit riders a tax credit to cover the cost of monthly transit passes: (a) what data, in either summary or raw form, or analysis relating to the cost for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved (not emitted) has been provided to the Minister of Natural Resources by (i) the Department of Natural Resources, (ii) the Department of Finance, (iii) Environment Canada; and (b) what analysis was provided to the Minister of Natural Resources comparing a tax credit, to cover the cost of monthly transit passes, with the benefits of providing capital investments, to be shared with provinces and municipalities, in public transit infrastructure?

Q-73² — June 19, 2006 — — With respect to the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in Robbinston, Maine: (a) would the constant intense light canopies at the proposed LNG terminals influence fisheries and aquaculture experiments involving photoperiod or other light related research being conducted now or in the future; (b) would vibration and noise from the regassification plant, the ships, or the tugs have any impact on the areas currently used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Huntsman Marine Science Centre or universities for research and education, or on the St. Andrews Biological Station itself; (c) what will these impacts be; (d) if seawater is used in the regassification process, would the resultant temperature change (reputed to be 10 degrees Celsius) and the resultant reduction of plankton populations influence the fish and invertebrate populations currently being studied in Passamaquoddy Bay or the anadromous fish runs using the St. Croix watershed; and (e) will physiological barriers be established that will interfere with the migration of important migratory species such as smelt, alewives and salmon?

Q-74² — June 19, 2006 — — With respect to the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in Robbinston, Maine: (a) what impact will increased passage of ships, tankers and tugs have on marine mammal populations, such as fin, minke, right whale and harbour porpoise, that depend on Head Harbour Passage, Friar’s Bay and Western Passage; (b) what impact will the vibration and noise have on echolocation in listed species such as the northern right whale and harbour porpoise as well as species of concern like the finback whale; (c) what impact will the vibration and noise have on communications between mother harbour porpoise and their calves at the entrance to Head Harbour; (d) will increased ship traffic influence the summer population known to frequent the right whale sanctuary off Grand Manan; (e) what is the legal role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in protecting these species as it relates to the passage of foreign vessels; (f) what assurances can DFO give that the interests of Head Harbour Passage, Friar’s Bay and Western Passage aquaculture operations and fishermen throughout the area; particularly handliners, weed gatherers, urchin fishermen, scallopers, longliners, draggers, herring fishermen, lobster fishermen, and others will be protected; (g) what laws will keep fishing activities such as lobster fishing from being banned if LNG terminals are built in the Passamaquoddy Bay region; (h) what assurances will fishermen and aquaculture operations on Grand Manan have that the ferry route between the island and the mainland will not be disrupted by the passage or layover of LNG tankers; (i) if LNG tankers lay over off Head Harbour Passage, in Friar’s Bay or in Passamaquoddy Bay, what efforts will DFO make to insure that these waters are open to Canadian fishermen and citizens in pursuit of their livelihood and recreational interests; and (j) are these above-mentioned rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Q-75² — June 20, 2006 — — With regard to the use of weapons in Afghanistan: (a) do Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan use depleted uranium (DU) in their weapons or armour; (b) do Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in Afghaniston use DU weapons or armour; (c) do American or allied forces in Afghanistan use DU weapons or armour; (d) does Canada supply any other country with DU and, if so, what are the quantities; (e) does Canada supply any company, foreign or domestic, with DU and, if so, what are the quantities; (f) if Canada does supply DU to American companies who manufacture DU weapons, what proportion of DU weapons manufactured in the United States of America use Canadian-created DU; (g) does the government believe that DU is a weapon with indiscriminate effect; (h) does the government believe that DU poses any long term health effects in areas where it is used; (i) if DU is being used, does the government think that there is any possibility of future liability against Canada; (j) do CF in Afghanistan use White Phosphorus (WP) as an antipersonnel weapon; (k) do Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan use WP as an antipersonnel weapon; (l) do American or allied forces in Afghanistan use WP as an antipersonnel weapon; (m) have Canadian troops trained to use WP as an antipersonnel weapon in Afghanistan; (n) does the government consider WP to be a chemical weapon under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention; and (o) does the government consider that WP is banned under Protocol II of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons?

Q-76² — June 20, 2006 — — With regard to government spending in Afghanistan: (a) what are the total expenditures of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan from 2001 to present; (b) what are the expected expenditures from now until February 2009; (c) what are the top 20 contracts by value; and (d) which United States-based companies are receiving contracts?

Q-77² — June 20, 2006 — — With respect to the Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund for the whole of Canada and the Capital Regional District of British Columbia: (a) how many applications for projects have been received and are awaiting approval; (b) how many projects have been approved and are awaiting the first instalment of funding; (c) how many projects have been completed and are awaiting the final instalment of funding; (d) how many applications have been submitted and withdrawn, by fiscal year, since the inception of this Fund; (e) what is the shortest, longest, and average period of time between submission and withdrawal of applications in section (d), for each respective fiscal year; (f) does Parks Canada recognize any unusual or undue delays in the approval of projects or the release of funds to approved projects; (g) what explanation can Parks Canada give for any public perception of unusual or undue delays in the approval of projects or the release of funds to approved projects; (h) what is the average period of time between application and approval of projects; (i) what is the average period of time between approval and the first instalment of funding; (j) what is the average period of time between application and the first instalment of funding; (k) what is the average period of time between project completion and the final instalment of funding; (l) when was the last call for proposals or applications; (m) when will the next call for proposals or applications be; and (n) what are the minimum, maximum, and average amounts awarded to projects from this Fund?

Q-78² — June 20, 2006 — — With regard to the changes in the Solvency Funding Relief Regulations of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, what is the mechanism that will be used to determine when less than one third of the members object to a move to ten-year solvency funding (6.2(a)) under the new ten-year funding rules?

Q-79² — June 20, 2006 — — With respect to eligibility for Canada Access Grants and Canada Learning Bonds in 2005 or the most recent year for which information is available: (a) how many households were eligible to receive the National Child Benefit Supplement for a child between the ages of 0 and 15 years of age; (b) how many households, with one or more dependent children between the ages of 17 and 25, which filed federal income tax returns, had net incomes low enough that they would be eligible to receive the National Child Benefit Supplement for that child or those children, if that child or those children were below the age of 18; (c) how many households, with one or more dependent children between the ages of 17 and 25, which filed federal income tax returns, had net incomes below $36,000; and (d) how many total children are included in sections (a), (b), and (c)?

Q-80² — June 20, 2006 — — With respect to government spending on skills training outside the formal post-secondary education system, in the three most recent years for which information is available: (a) what is the total amount, broken down by department, allocated to skills training programs; (b) what is the total amount transferred to the provinces and territories for skills training programs; (c) what is the total amount, broken down by program, allocated to programs to encourage private employers to provide skills training to their employees; (d) what is the total amount, broken down by program, allocated to programs to provide mid-career skills upgrading for currently employed Canadians; (e) what is the total amount, broken down by program, allocated to programs to provide skills training for Canadians to transition to a new career; and (f) what is the total amount, broken down by program, allocated to programs not listed in sections (c), (d) or (e), to provide skills training to Canadians?

Q-81² — June 20, 2006 — — With respect to the government’s financial support and incentives for post-secondary students and savings, in the most recent three years for which information is available: (a) how many students applied for the Canada Access Grant for Students from Low-Income Families and the Canada Access Grant for Students with Permanent Disabilities, respectively; (b) how many students were awarded the above two Canada Access Grants, respectively; (c) what was the average amount awarded to recipients of the above two Canada Access Grants, respectively; (d) what was the total amount awarded by the government for the above two Canada Access Grants, respectively; (e) how many students applied for (i) Millennium Bursaries, (ii) Millennium Access Bursaries, (iii) Millennium Excellence Entrance Awards, (iv) Millennium Excellence In-Course Awards, (v) World Petroleum Council Millennium Scholarships, respectively; (f) how many students were awarded the above five awards, respectively; (g) what was the average amount awarded to recipients of the above five awards, respectively; (h) what was the total amount awarded by the government for the above five awards, respectively; (i) how many persons received a Canada Education Savings Grant; (j) what was the average amount awarded to recipients of this grant; (k) what was the total amount awarded by the government for this grant; (l) how many persons received (i) an initial $500 Canada Learning Bond, and (ii) a $100 Canada Learning Bond; (m) what was the total amount awarded by the government for Canada Learning Bonds; (n) what other federal government programs exist to give direct financial support to students or families for post-secondary education that are not listed above; (o) how many individuals received assistance under these other programs; and (p) what was the total amount received by recipients of these programs?

Q-82² — June 21, 2006 — — With respect to the $11.9 million allocated by the government to the Integrated Grain Processor's Co-operative (IGPC) under the Ethanol Expansion Program, which has been frozen while the climate change envelope is under review: (a) when will the review on the climate change envelope be completed; (b) when the review is completed, will the $11.9 million previously allocated to the IGPC be released and, if so, when; and (c) how much money has already been released to the IGPC?

Q-83 — June 21, 2006 — — With regard to the gas tax rebates announced in 2005, will the government uphold the commitment to provide rebates to unincorporated areas?

Q-84² — June 21, 2006 — — Regarding the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) ending March 31, 2007: (a) will the program be renewed past that date and, if so, for how long; (b) will it be made permanent; (c) will the amounts allocated be increased; (d) will the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on May 16, 2006, be taken into account; and (e) will a strategic plan on homelessness and housing be developed?

Q-85² — June 21, 2006 — — With regard to the 1% reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST): (a) what measures have the government put in place to ensure that the vendors of products with GST included in the price pass the GST cut along to consumers; and (b) how will the government ensure that vendors do not take advantage of the GST decrease to implement a price increase and pocket the savings that were intended for consumers?

Q-86² — June 21, 2006 — — With regard to Natural Resources Canada's Biofuels Incentive Program: (a) does the government provide financial incentives for testing biofuels; (b) will the government provide those incentives for tests carried out by any qualified Canadian testing facility; (c) does the government have a preferred supplier for biofuels testing and, if so, how was the decision made to use that preferred supplier; and (d) if there is a preferred supplier, does it carry out tests at the same, lower or higher price than other qualified testing facilities in Canada?

Q-87² — June 21, 2006 — — With regard to government action in response to the fifth periodic report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: (a) is the government addressing the 23 recommendations contained in the report; (b) what action has the government taken in addressing these recommendations; and (c) will the government consult with women’s non-governmental organisations in preparing the next report?

Q-88² — September 14, 2006 — — What percentage of unemployed people in Quebec have exhausted their weeks of regular employment insurance benefits, by employment insurance economic region and by fiscal year, from 2001-2002 to 2004-2005?


¹ Requires Oral Answer ² Response requested within 45 days