House of Commons Hansard #125 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was oil.

Topics

Question No. 169
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Toronto Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, based on a thorough search of available information, Agent orange was neither tested nor used on the Tracadie Range, when it belonged to the government.

Question No. 170
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse Windsor West, ON

How much of the federal money committed to the Phase 1 Memorandum of Understanding signed on September 25, 2002, between the Ontario provincial government and the government has actually been transferred to the City of Windsor, the Province of Ontario or private contractor(s), or spent for projects agreed to in that document?

Question No. 170
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Don Valley West
Ontario

Liberal

John Godfrey Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)

Mr. Speaker, Infrastructure has not yet transferred any money committed to the phase 1 memorandum of understanding signed on September 25, 2002, to the city of Windsor, the Province of Ontario or private contractor(s), or spent for projects agreed to in that document because the contribution agreement for phase 1 projects has not yet been signed.

Question No. 173
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Randy White Abbotsford, BC

With regard to Correctional Services Canada, ( a ) has the department identified any problems or inconsistencies with laboratory testing procedures and laboratory test results conducted by Maxxam Analytics Inc., and specifically its Human Toxicology Department and Genetic Identification Division; ( b ) between June 20, 2003, and June 20, 2005, how many federally-sentenced offenders, who have been paroled or released on statutory release, have changed their names; and ( c ) between June 20, 2003, and June 20, 2005, how many Correctional Services Canada inmates have had gender re-assignment surgery, also known as a sex change, or its reversal?

Question No. 173
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:

(a) MAXXAM Analytics Inc. of Mississauga, Ontario has provided forensic drug testing in its human toxicology department for Correctional Services Canada, CSC, for several years. The laboratory is assessed by two forensic toxicologists on a contractual basis annually.

Regular contact is maintained by CSC personnel and the two toxicologists with the laboratory to discuss any challenges that may arise. the laboratory is also evaluated by the substance abuse and mental health services administration, SAMHSA, forensic drug testing accreditation program. The SAMHSA program also has two on-site inspections annually and is considered the most rigorous laboratory drug testing certification worldwide since started in 1987-1988.

MAXXAM Analytics has always responded appropriately to any concerns from CSC on any aspect of the forensic drug testing program. CSC does not have any concerns about the quality of service provided by MAXXAM Analytics to CSC's urinalysis program.

The genetic identification division of MAXXAM Analytics does not provide analytical testing services for the urinalysis program.

(b) If an offender changes his or her name legally then the offender management system, OMS, tombstone information will be modified to reflect the new name. The old name will be moved into the alias field in OMS, which may also reflect other aliases that the offender has used.

This being said there is no flag in OMS that would allow identification of which inmates have legally had their name changed, in order to differentiate this from the aliases an offender might have recorded against him/her.

(c) Our records indicate that no inmate has had gender re-assignment surgery, also know as a sex change, or its reversal.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Beauséjour
New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 122, supplementary answer, and Question No. 123, supplementary answer, and Questions Nos. 151, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 165, 166, 168, 171 and 172 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 122
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Since October 23, 1993, did Ekos or its principals receive any: ( a ) grants, contributions or loan guarantees and, if so, (i) what was the source (i.e., department, agency, crown corporation, special operating agency or foundation), value, date made and reasons for providing the funding in each case, (ii) what is their present status, whether paid, repaid, or unpaid, including the value of the repayment, (iii) what was the total amount received; and ( b ) contracts and, if so, (i) were the contracts fulfilled, (ii) what were their contract number, source, value, date made, reasons for providing the funding, (iii) were these contracts tendered and if the tendering was limited what would be the reason for the limitation, (iv) what was the total amount of contracts obtained, and what was the total amount of all the funds provided to Ekos or its principals, (v) was it a standing offer, and, if so, what was the number and type of standing offer?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 123
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Since October 23, 1993, did Earnscliffe or Veraxis or their principals receive any: ( a ) grants, contributions or loan guarantees and, if so, (i) what was the source (i.e., department, agency, crown corporation, special operating agency or foundation), value, date made and reasons for providing the funding in each case, (ii) what is their present status, whether paid, repaid, or unpaid, including the value of the repayment, (iii) what was the total amount each company received; and ( b ) contracts and, if so, (i) were the contracts fulfilled, (ii) what were their contract number, source, value, date made, reasons for providing the funding, (iii) were these contracts tendered and if the tendering was limited what would be the reason for the limitation, (iv) what was the total amount of contracts each company obtained, and what was the total amount of all the funds provided to these companies, (v) was it a standing offer, and, if so, what was the number and type of standing offer?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 151
Routine Proceedings

September 26th, 2005 / 3:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Cummins Delta—Richmond East, BC

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?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 157
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais Churchill, MB

With regard to the use of federal money for aboriginal communities in the Federal Riding of Churchill: ( a ) what capital funds have been allocated to the rebuilding of the road on the Bloodvein First Nation; ( b ) what is the waiting list time for new school construction in each first nation community; ( c ) what is the waiting list time for new housing construction in each first nation community; ( d) what has been the capital funding for each First Nation community each year over the past ten years; ( e ) which capital projects have been approved in first nations communities over the past five years; ( f ) what capital projects have been approved for the next two years; ( g ) what is the amount spent by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada per status resident in the riding of Churchill; and ( h ) how many communities are under third party management?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 158
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais Churchill, MB

With regard to the governance of Crown Corporations: ( a ) is there any document dated March 15, 2004, or before, that shows that the appointment process for the heads of Crown Corporations announced on March 15, 2004, by the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister’s Office was intended to be an “interim” process that applied only to the CEOs of Crown Corporations as stated in sessional paper 8555-381-129; ( b ) what is the selection criteria for each head of each Crown Corporation provided to the government in response to the letter from the President of the Treasury Board dated April 23, 2004, which required a response by May 28, 2004; ( c ) what are the names of the members of the nominating committees for each head of each Crown Corporation provided to the government in response to the letter from the President of the Treasury Board dated April 23, 2004, which required a response by May 28, 2004; ( d ) which Crown Corporations did not respond to the letter of April 23, 2004, and has further communication been made; ( e ) what are the names of the professional recruiting firms hired by Crown Corporations in the new recruiting process; and ( f ) how many times was Renaud Foster used as a recruiting firm apart from the appointment of General Maurice Baril as Chair of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 159
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin Sault Ste. Marie, ON

According to testimony on March 8, 2005, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, by Mr. Michael Saucier (Director General, Labour Market and Official Language Minority Communities, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development), 16 Calls for Proposals (CFPs) were issued by HRSDC resulting in 62 projects: ( a ) with respect to these 62 projects, please provide the following information for each project or contract: (i) the amount awarded, (ii) the name of the winning organization, (iii) the riding in which the winning organization is headquartered, and (iv) the names of organizations unsuccessful in their bids; and ( b ) with respect to CFPs: (i) as of today, have there been more CFPs issued, (ii) how many projects have been approved for those new CFPs and, if any, please provide for each project the same information as in paragraph (a) (i) to (iv)?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 160
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

With regard to the funding of the 19 federal agricultural research stations in Canada: ( a ) for each fiscal year, between 1995 and 2005: (i) what was the total amount of research funding transferred by the government to each of the 19 agriculture research stations, (ii) what was the total level of staffing and the composition of the staffing (i.e. the numbers of scientists, researchers, support staff and other staff) at each of the 19 agricultural research stations, (iii) what specific research projects were funded at the 19 agricultural research stations in Canada, (iv) how much of the research funds were dedicated to each of the research projects, (v) what percentage of the research funding to each of the 19 agricultural research stations was dedicated to resource research, plant research, animal research, and food and value-added research; and ( b ) for each fiscal year, between 1995 and 2005, what percentage of the research funding to each of the 19 agricultural research stations was dedicated to other categories of agricultural and/or agri-food research?

(Return tabled)