House of Commons Hansard #30 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was public.

Topics

Question No. 118
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

With respect to the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative (SADI): (a) what funds have been provided by Industry Canada annually from SADI since the inception of the program; and (b) what funds have been announced but not yet allocated at this time?

Question No. 118
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka
Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative, SADI: a) Since the inception of the SADI program, the following funds have been disbursed on announced projects on an annual basis: $9.6 million was provided in 2007-2008; $32.5 million was provided in 2008-2009; As of March 18, 2010, $16.7 million has been provided in 2009-2010.

b) There is a further $375.4 million yet to be allocated on the announced multi-year SADI projects referred to in a). These funds are expected to be disbursed as companies perform their research and development and submit their claims. These funds are expected to be fully disbursed by fiscal year end 2013-14.

Question No. 125
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

With respect to the motion M-465 (Airline Passenger Bill of Rights), which was adopted unanimously by the House during the 2nd Session of the 39th Parliament on June 12, 2008, calling upon the government to bring forward a passenger bill of rights, what actions has the government taken since to bring forward an airline passenger bill of rights similar in scope and effect to legal instruments being either proposed or enacted by jurisdictions within Europe and the United States for the purpose of protecting passenger interests in a consistent and rules-based way and to provide a means of ensuring adequate compensation being offered by the airline industry to airline passengers who experience inconveniences such as flight interruptions, delays, cancellations, issues with checked baggage and other inconveniences incurred while travelling on commercial passenger airline services originating from anywhere in Canada?

Question No. 125
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, in response to Motion No. 465, the government developed Flight Rights Canada. This initiative was aimed at informing air travellers of their rights and recourse under the Canada Transportation Act, and also included a six-point code of conduct for Canada’s airlines. WestJet, Air Canada, Jazz and Air Transat recently incorporated Flight Rights Canada in their terms and conditions of carriage, making these provisions enforceable by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Flight Rights Canada’s code of conduct of Canada’s airlines prescribes that carriers should: inform passengers about changes to flight times and schedule changes, and the reasons for any delays; provide alternate transportation or a refund to passengers if a flight is cancelled or overbooked; provide meal vouchers to passengers who are delayed by more than four hours, and hotel accommodation if the delay exceeds 8 hours; and provide passengers with opportunity to disembark from the aircraft after 90 minutes if the delay has occurred while the passenger is in the aircraft, if it is safe, timely and practical to do so.

This government supports consumer protection measures for the aviation industry, and is looking to ensure a balance between protecting passengers and ensuring a competitive industry.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

April 21st, 2010 / 3:15 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 76, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 91 and 92 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 76
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

With respect to the use of the government owned fleet of Challenger jets since February 2006 and for each use of the aircraft: (a) what are the names and titles of the passengers present on the flight manifest; (b) what were all the departure and arrival points of the aircraft; (c) who requested access to the fleet; and (d) who authorized the flight?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 79
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

With regard to water efficiency and conservation programs in Canada: (a) who is working to ensure a budget will be issued specifically to water efficiency and conservation programs under the Building Canada Plan; (b) when will funds be allocated to supporting innovative municipal and federal water efficiency programs; (c) will programs be implemented to encourage the protection of freshwater resources, and to raise awareness about water efficiency and conservation; (d) what action has been taken thus far to establish goals and objectives regarding water efficiency and conservation; (e) what plans are there to include demand management programs as a funding condition for large-scale water and wastewater projects as is done for transit projects under the Building Canada plan; and (f) what consultations have taken place with federal departments, provinces and territories, and Aboriginal governments to develop strategic plans for each of Canada’s major river basins?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 83
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Gerard Kennedy Parkdale—High Park, ON

With respect to the Economic Action Plan in Budget 2009: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (c) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component top-up, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (d) under the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (e) under the Provincial/Territorial Base funding acceleration, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (f) under the Recreational Infrastructure program, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are the located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; (g) under the Green Infrastructure Fund, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects; and (h) under the National recreational trails program, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who are the partners involved, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is each partner’s contribution, (vi) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vii) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 84
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Gerard Kennedy Parkdale—High Park, ON

With respect to the Economic Action Plan in Budget 2009: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, (i) what applications for projects have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component, (i) what applications for projects have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria; (c) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component top-up, (i) what applications for projects have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria; (d) under the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component, (i) what applications for projects have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria; and (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program, (i) what applications for projects have been rejected for funding to date, (ii) where are they located and in which federal riding, (iii) who would have been the partners involved if the project had been approved, (iv) what was the requested federal contribution, (v) what was the requested contribution from each partner, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine approved projects, (vii) in what ways did the project not match the criteria?

(Return tabled)