This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #71 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Question No. 113Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry

Statistics Canada does not have the data to support the calculation of a reliable estimate of the number of firearms in Canada today. In particular, business and trade statistics on imports and exports and manufacturing from Statistics Canada cannot be used to produce a reliable estimate of the current stock of firearms in Canada.

In August 1976, Statistics Canada conducted a survey of Canadians regarding their ownership and use of firearms. This survey was sponsored by the federal ministry of the solicitor general. Results indicated that there were almost 2.5 million gun owners aged 15 and over and more than 5 million guns owned by individuals in 1976 (Statistics of Estimated Gun Ownership and Use in Canada, Special Bulletin, Justice Statistics Division, Statistics Canada, May 1977).

The report notes that the results underestimated the total number of firearms in Canada due to the exclusion of guns owned or held by police and military personnel, prisons and penitentiaries, firearm importers and exporters, and manufacturers and retailers. Also excluded were residents of the territories and persons living on Indian reserves. The report notes that the estimate of firearms could have ranged between 6 and 10 million in 1976. The survey was not repeated.

Question No. 114Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB

Do the health warnings and health information mandated by the Minister of Health pursuant to subsection 3(2) of the Tobacco Products Information Regulations of June 2000 (JUS-601413) constitute the official view of the government?

Question No. 114Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health

The information contained in the tobacco products information regulations represents the official view of the government. In fact, section 42.1(1) of the Tobacco Act requires that all proposed regulations must first be laid before the House of Commons.

Subsection 3(2) of the tobacco products information regulations includes the health warning messages and health information messages contained in the health warnings and information for tobacco products.

The health warning messages help ensure that Canadians are much better informed about the many serious health hazards associated with tobacco products. The regulations also require that smokers receive cessation information or information on tobacco-related diseases on the inside of the tobacco package.

The current labels are the result of approximately two years of intensive study and evaluation. Each health warning and health information message has been reviewed and approved by a scientific panel.

Question No. 116Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Since 1993, what is the value in dollars of all Canadian aid and assistance (money, services, personnel) to St. Lucia?

Question No. 116Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Liberal

Susan Whelan LiberalMinister for International Cooperation

Canadian official development assistance disbursements to St. Lucia from fiscal year 1993-94 to fiscal year 2001-02 were approximately $36.3 million.

Question No. 117Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Can the Minister responsible for Agriculture and Agri-Food provide an estimate of the impact on net farm income of the Country of Origin labelling regime contained within the U.S. Farm Bill on: ( a ) the beef industry; ( b ) the pork industry; ( c ) the lamb industry; ( d ) the seafood and shellfish industry; ( e ) the poultry industry; ( f ) vegetable growers; ( g ) fruit growers; and ( h ) peanut producers?

Question No. 117Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Prince Edward—Hastings Ontario

Liberal

Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

The answer is as follows:

(i) The comment period provided in the official U.S. federal register notice for the interim voluntary country-of-origin labelling, COL, program ends on April 9, 2003. Upon completion of the comment period, drafting of mandatory regulations will begin through the normal U.S. rule-making process, which will include a proposal and an opportunity for public comment. Mandatory COL is scheduled to be implemented by September 30, 2004. Until this date, COL is a voluntary program in the U.S. As a result of the complexity of the provision and U.S. industry opposition to the measure, widespread implementation of the interim voluntary COL guidelines is not anticipated.

(ii) Poultry is not a covered commodity under the COL law.

(iii) Preliminary analysis of the COL provision indicated that it would have a serious adverse trade effect on Canadian exports of covered commodities to the U.S., for those items that are currently co-mingled at retail with U.S. product, and which now carry no distinction as to country-of-origin. While attempts have been made, it is very difficult to accurately measure the impact on farm income because of the complexity and sheer size of the U.S. agri-food industry, a great deal of uncertainty as to the possible response of the U.S. industry to mandatory COL, the high level of market integration among the U.S., Canada and Mexico, as well as the fact that the U.S. has not yet published regulations for the mandatory implementation of COL. Attempts that have been made to assess the impact of mandatory COL implementation, such as a congressionally mandated USDA study, as well as a study published by the George Morris Center, and most recently a report commissioned by the U.S. national pork producers council, confirm our decision to oppose mandatory COL.

Prior to U.S. farm bill being passed into law, Canada's opposition to COL was articulated at the highest levels. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food raised the issue with cabinet-level officials (Agriculture Secretary Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick) as early as September 2001. Deputy Prime Minister Manley raised farm bill issues with Vice-President Cheney during their meeting on March 8, 2002, and the Prime Minister raised these same issues with President Bush during their meeting on March 14, 2002.

On February 7, 2002, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food again raised Canadian concerns about COL with Secretary Veneman, and on February 12, 2002, he raised the matter with Mr. Paul Cellucci, the U.S Ambassador to Canada. On March 18, 2002, Canada's ambassador in turn wrote to the congressional conference directors, who were responsible at the time with reconciling the house and senate versions of the farm bill. He detailed our specific concerns with the proposed legislation and insured that copies of these views were also distributed to other influential voices in Washington in order to re-emphasize these same concerns. During an April 2002 trip to Washington with Canadian industry representatives, and in a bilateral meeting with Secretary Veneman on May 3, 2002, held in Ottawa, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food again expressed Canadian concerns that this legislation would disrupt bilateral trade. COL remains a priority issue for the Government of Canada, GOC.

Canada is currently focussing its efforts on marshaling the best-possible case for why U.S. stakeholders should demand the repeal of the COL law, including participation in a private U.S.-based consortium that is anticipated to produce analysis critical of COL from within the U.S. The government of Canada has been working with industry and the provinces to share information and to develop and implement a cooperative, strategic response to have the entire U.S. COL provision repealed before it becomes mandatory.

Consultations are ongoing with industry and the federal-provincial agriculture trade policy committee to share information and to gather input into strategy development. The Manitoba Pork Board, Canadian Pork Council, Canadian Meat Council, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Canadian Sheep Federation, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Fisheries Council of Canada and the Canadian Horticultural Council are among the participants in these consultations. Organized under the agricultural policy framework, the agenda of the recent beef value-chain round table that took place on January 27 and 28 in Calgary focussed on coordinating the beef industry's strategy on COL with that of the GOC. In outreach activities, government officials have made presentations on COL at a number of national industry association meetings as well as to the seafood sectorial advisory group on international trade, SAGIT, C-Trade (i.e. a federal-provincial committee of trade ministries and departments), and broader stakeholder meetings in Mississauga, Moncton and Fredericton and at a meeting in Chicago on COL.

Canada is active in the U.S. domestic debate through trade-advocacy initiatives targeted at provoking the repeal of the U.S. COL legislation. On July 9, 2002, the GOC, in consultation with industry and the provinces, submitted comments to USDA that were influential in shaping discussion in the U.S. in advance of the release of the interim voluntary COL guidelines. Similarly, on January 17, 2003, comments on the interim-voluntary guidelines were submitted to USDA on the “utility” of the measure and on January 21, 2003, comments were submitted on a USDA proposal for information-gathering related to the drafting of the mandatory regulations.

Other targeted advocacy activities in the U.S. have included Assistant Deputy Minister Mark Corey's participation in the tri-national accord meeting in May 14-17, 2002, in Nogales, Arizona, and a meeting in Chicago organized by the province-state advisory group in July 2002, which was dedicated specifically to COL. This meeting brought together U.S. states, provinces and federal government officials from both sides of the border. Canadian embassy and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, officials presented Canada's position on COL on the margins of the U.S. farm bureau convention in Tampa, Florida, January 17-19, 2003 and at “Canada Day on Capitol Hill” in Washington on February 5, 2003. Embassy officials are also participating in a U.S. industry-led coalition in Washington and are engaged in other ongoing efforts to have COL repealed.

Bilaterally, Canada made strong interventions opposing COL at the November 15, 2002, meeting of the Canada-U.S. consultative committee on agriculture, CCA. COL is a priority item on the agenda of the next meeting of the committee scheduled for April, 2003. Interventions have been made by Canada on the U.S. notification of COL in the World Trade Organization's technical barriers to trade committee, and will be pursued in future meetings of the Committee and other international forums where appropriate. Development of a formal trade challenge is ongoing as information is made available and milestones are reached on the way to the scheduled mandatory implementation of COL in 2004.

Question No. 120Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

What were the total costs incurred by the Department of Foreign Affairs for the distribution, including Federal Express postal charges, of “A Dialogue on Foreign Affairs”?

Question No. 120Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Toronto Centre—Rosedale Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

The total cost of mailing the discussion paper “A Dialogue on Foreign Policy” was $4,323.33, including Federal Express postal charges

Question No. 121Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Assad Liberal Gatineau, QC

Pertaining to the sale of land by the National Capital Commission: ( a ) for what purpose and according to what process did the National Capital Commission determine that the sale of land to the Vorlage Ski Club, between September 2, 1992 and September 2, 2002, was necessary; ( b ) on what date, or dates, in parcels of how many hectares/acres, and for what price per parcel, did the National Capital Commission sell this land to the Vorlage Ski Club; ( c ) did the National Capital Commission subject this sale to a public consultation; If not, why not; and ( d ) did the National Capital Commission inform the public about this sale; If so, on what date and by what means; If not, why not?

Question No. 121Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

The National Capital Commission informs me as follows:

(a) The 1990 Gatineau Park master plan identified the need for the NCC to rationalize the legal boundary of the park to make it compatible with the various natural or geographic realities and to simplify daily management and park administration. As a result, several land parcels were severed from the park that no longer had a role in achieving the NCC’s mandate and were not essential within the context of the federal land use plan.

Following the 1993 construction of the Wakefield by-pass portion of autoroute 5, three (3) parcels of vacant land, totalling an area of approximately 50.35ha and also an improved parcel of approximately 62.5ha, which was being leased to Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Limited, were severed from Gatineau Park. Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Limited purchased the lands for the purposes of continuing the ski centre’s operations and activities.

The proposed disposals were consistent with the environmental impact assessment performed for the transaction and approval was given under the federal land use process.

The NCC has legislative authority for the disposal pursuant to subsection 15(2) of the National Capital Act and subsection 99(2) of the Financial Administration Act .

(b) On November 17, 1994, the NCC sold approximately 112.85 ha of land to the Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Limited at a price of $296,616. This land sale comprised three parcels of vacant land, totaling approximately 50.35 ha, and of an improved parcel of leased land to the club totaling approximately 62.5 ha.

During the original transfer in 1994, an inadvertent omission of a part of the Vorlage Ski Club property occurred in the legal description. As a result, on November 8, 1995, the NCC completed the sale by transferring a parcel of vacant land having an area of approximately 0.3876 ha. It was sold for a nominal consideration to the Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Limited since it was part and parcel of the original land description and the NCC had already been paid for the land.

(c) and (d) The NCC did not submit this sale to public consultation and did not inform the public about the sale since Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Limited was the adjacent owner, it was already leasing over 55 % of the Vorlage Ski Club property and it owned the improvements situated on the leased parcel. These improvements were built by different tenants for purposes of operating the ski club, as early as 1963 and with NCC approval. However, the 1990 Gatineau Park master plan, which recommended a review of the park legal boundary in the context of a rationalization of park properties, was submitted to public consultations

Question No. 123Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Assad Liberal Gatineau, QC

What are the full terms and conditions of the development agreement between the National Capital Commission and the Grand Beach Ski Corporation concerning the Camp Fortune ski facility?

Question No. 123Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

The National Capital Commission informs me as follows:

The terms and conditions for the development of the facility are as follows:

The agreement provides for an emphyteutic deed (whereby 3133591 Manitoba Ltd, o/a Ski Fortune, owns the facility for a fixed period and returns it the NCC upon expiry) for a term of 25 years commencing July 1, 1994 to June 30, 2019. An audit will be conducted by both Ski Fortune and the NCC in year 20 of the deed, and Ski Fortune must return all improvements to the NCC in the same condition as evidenced by the audit

Ski Fortune is to assume all risk and expense related to its project to construct a new chalet, an addition to the Skyline Lodge, renovations to the Alexander Lodge, maintenance of Fortune Lodge for user groups, demolition for various structures on the lands, site clean-up of old equipment and machinery, trail improvements to the Skyline, Fortune, Alexander and Meech areas, uphill lift capacity improvements as well as snowmaking system improvements, and any other improvements to the lands.

Ski Fortune shall submit an annual business plan each June 30th over the agreement period, detailing any proposed additional improvements and operation of the project for the next following deed year. Any improvements will be subject to an environmental assessment and federal land use approval, and must be in conformance to the Gatineau Park master plan, all applicable municipal, provincial and federal laws, by-laws and regulations and applicable municipal zoning. As well, any existing and additional improvements must not diminish the value of the lands. The NCC will have 45 days from receipt of the annual business plan to complete its review.

All and any improvements done to the Camp Fortune ski facility must be submitted to the NCC for approval before any work can commence and must abide by the schedule as detailed in the annual business plan.

These improvements will become the property of the NCC upon expiration of the agreement and Ski Fortune will not be entitled to any compensation as such.

Ski Fortune must obtain and pay for all of the permits required for the construction, reconstruction, modification and operation of any existing and additional improvements to the lands.

Ski Fortune must also post a performance security of $250,000 to secure the construction of the new chalet. This security will remain in place until substantial completion of the chalet. A performance security, in the amount of 25% of the value of the work, must also be posted for any construction, replacement, reconstruction, installation or modification of other additional or existing improvements to the lands approved by the NCC. The NCC may waive any performance security at its discretion.

Question No. 124Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Assad Liberal Gatineau, QC

Concerning the July 15, 2001 fire at the former residence of Roderick Percy Sparks at 420 Meech Lake Road, why did the National Capital Commission not press the authorities to conduct an investigation?

Question No. 124Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

The National Capital Commission informs me as follows:

Under the conditions of the original lease to Roderick Sparks dated 1971, and the renewals thereof, and the conditions of the lease to Robert Sparks dated April 1989, and the renewals thereof, the tenant was responsible for all maintenance and repairs.

At the request of Robert Sparks, the lease was terminated at the end of November 2000. The property remained unoccupied after November 30, 2000. Mr. Sparks remained responsible until April 15, 2001, to thoroughly clean and remove all chattels and personal property of every kind and description from the lands and premises, including all accumulated refuse, garbage or other waste material.

The property remained unoccupied after November 30, 2000, since the structures had deteriorated beyond economical repair. Given the condition of the buildings, the NCC intended to demolish these buildings and renaturalize the site. In January 2001, Minto Properties Ltd., as agent for the NCC, applied for federal land use approval, FLUA, for the demolition of all structures and renaturalization of the site. This property was reviewed by FHBRO (1989) and classified as non-heritage.

Unfortunately, the buildings were destroyed by fire on July 15, 2001. The NCC then proceeded with the necessary site clean up, restored the site to a natural setting and integrated the lands with the conservation lands of the Gatineau Park portfolio.

In cases where derelict buildings are destroyed by fire, especially when the fire is an isolated event, the NCC does not pursue investigations as to the cause of the fire. The NCC understands that both the fire and police services of the local municipality filed a report on the incident. The NCC has given permission to the municipality, upon receiving an official request, to release the police report to the requestor.

Question No. 127Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

How much does the government receive annually in civil aviation and airspace charges for the use of airspace over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Question No. 127Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Marcel Proulx LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

The setting and collection of aviation enroute terminal and overflight fees is the sole responsibility of NavCanada, the not-for-profit provider of air navigation services in Canada. The federal government is not a party to these fees, and as such, receives none of the fee revenue for use of airspace over the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Question No. 141Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

For all polling by Ekos Research or any of its affilliates and paid for by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002: ( a ) what specific questions were asked; ( b ) what was the total contract amount paid for each respective poll; ( c ) what written analysis was provided following the results of each poll and ( d ) what was the total number of people contacted for each poll?

Question No. 141Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation informs me as follows:

(a) Questions included in polls conducted by EKOS Research under contract with CBC/Radio-Canada (usually in partnership with other media organizations) and published via CBC/Radio-Canada’s services are posted on its websites or through links to the EKOS websites and are therefore readily available for scrutiny by the public.

(b) CBC/Radio-Canada is unable to release this information as prescribed by the confidentiality clauses contained in the contracts with the supplier, EKOS Research, and by confidentiality agreements with other media partners.

(c) The written analysis available to the public under the terms of contract with EKOS Research is posted on the websites of CBC/Radio-Canada and/or EKOS Research as per answer (a) above. Additional information may be obtained by contacting the supplier, EKOS Research, directly.

(d) Samples sizes for polls conducted by EKOS Research under contract to CBC/Radio-Canada vary in accordance with the parameters of each poll, but are never lower than 1000 people for national samples.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 110, 111 and 122 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it agreed that Questions Nos. 110, 111 and 122 be made orders for return?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 110Routine Proceedings

March 17th, 2003 / 3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

With respect to each of the grants and contributions made by the Canada Economic Development for Quebec since 2000-2001, can the government: ( a ) provide the name of the recipient organization; ( b ) indicate the date; ( c ) specify the amount of the grant or contribution; ( d ) indicate whether or not it was repayable; ( e ) specify the name of the program in question; ( f ) give the name of the federal constituency in which the recipient organization is located; and ( g ) provide a brief description of the purpose of the contribution or grant?

(Return tabled.)

Question No. 111Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB

With regard to performance pay for public servants in the Executive (EX) category and the Deputy Minister (DM) category in fiscal year 2001-2002: ( a ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees received performance pay, broken down by EX category (e.g. EX-1, EX-2, etc.); ( b ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees are there in each EX category; ( c ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees received performance pay, broken down by DM category (i.e. DM-1, DM-2, etc.); ( d ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees are there in each DM category; and ( e ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, what was the total amount paid out in performance pay?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 122Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Assad Liberal Gatineau, QC

Besides the land sold to the Vorlage Ski Club, the National Capital Commission sold a number of lots within Gatineau Park between September 2, 1992 and September 2, 2002: ( a ) for what purpose and according to what process did the National Capital Commission determine that the sale of that land was necessary; ( b ) on what date, or dates, in parcels of how many hectares/acres, for what price per parcel and to whom did the National Capital Commission sell this land; ( c ) did the National Capital Commission subject this sale to a public consultation; If not, why not; and ( d ) did the National Capital Commission inform the public about this sale; If so, on what date and by what means; If not, why not?

(Return tabled)