Debates of Jan. 31st, 2005

Lawrence O'Brien

[The Speaker]

On behalf of all hon. members, I want to thank the members who expressed their tributes to our departed friend and colleague. Perhaps the House would like to rise and observe a moment of silence in honour of Lawrence O'Brien.

[A moment of silence observed]

Points of Order

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, during question period today, in response to questions from the official opposition, a government member responded that there was an agreement reached between government lawyers and Mr. Justice Gomery, indicating that all documents would be tabled as requested.

Would the government agree to table that agreement in the House?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement was reached minutes ago. Justice Gomery has agreed with the government counsel, after discussions between our counsel this morning, that the information provided in the previous documents is appropriate. Justice Gomery is completely satisfied with the full disclosure that the government has provided.

Justice Gomery is satisfied. The opposition still is not, but we should not expect that it would be satisfied.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that, as usual, was a non-response. That is not my question. I asked if the government would agree to table the agreement to which the minister is referring, if he would provide that information to the House. The issue is about full disclosure, not blacked out documents or partial documents. This has been a tactic that has been used.

We are asking if that agreement would be tabled in the House of Commons so there would be full disclosure. All Canadians could bear witness to the fact that this is a transparent full disclosure on the part of the government.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, once again, Justice Gomery has said that the issue is settled for him. Obviously discussions and agreements between counsel at a judicial inquiry are achieved between counsel and settled to the satisfaction of the inquiry and within the auspices of the inquiry. I am surprised that the hon. member, as a lawyer, would not understand that it is basic principle.

We know opposition members do not understand the Charter of Rights. We know they do not understand the Constitution. Now we know they do not understand the independence of a judicial inquiry. No wonder they are not qualified to run a government if they do not know the laws of the land.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Industry during question period about a review that he has promised, that the previous industry minister promised, with Technology Partnerships Canada. He did indicate that the final report was not completed, but I believe he indicated that the results were completed. I would like him in the interests of openness, transparency and respect for taxpayer dollars that he table those results in the House for all parliamentarians and taxpayers to see.

Second, would he table the report that was mentioned in the article by Jack Aubry in the Ottawa Citizen today? According to sources, much of this document has been blacked out. Again in the interest of openness, transparency and respect for taxpayer dollars, I would ask the government to table that report as well, not blacked out, so all taxpayers and parliamentarians can see how their money is being spent.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry made it very clear in his response that once the review was complete, he was prepared to deal with it in a way that he saw fit. I want to assure the hon. member that I am sure the Minister of Industry in everything that he does, does so in a very transparent and effective manner, and he will deal with this report in the same manner.

Report of Ethics Commissioner

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to section 15(3) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, it is my duty to lay upon the table the list of all sponsored travel by members for the period of October 4 to December 31, 2004, as provided by the Ethics Commissioner.

Government Response to Petitions

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 52 petitions.

Petitions

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to table a petition with thousands of signatures. It has been signed by thousands of Quebeckers who are calling upon the federal government to ban the production, use, marketing and importing of GMOs and products containing GMOs.

It is my hope that the tabling this petition will convince the government to ban the production and use of GMOs as promptly as possible.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 11, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 59).

Question No. 11

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

What expenditures, including a complete itemized list of such expenditures, did Canada Post Corporation incur for promotional activities, marketing and advertising expenses from 1996 until 2003?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has spent an average of $32 million per year in advertising and marketing during the period 1996 to 2004. This amount is comprised of approximately 9,000 transactions annually including different types of expenses such as newspaper ads, television and radio airtime, promotional material, et cetera. Although Canada Post’s accounting and information management system can generate listings of these individual transactions, the data that they contain is a series of accounting codes that by themselves are meaningless.

In order to produce a detailed listing of transactions that have the relevant information, Canada Post would need to take each transaction, return to the source document and manually convert the “accounting data” into readable and understandable information. This represents a massive and expensive effort. For each transaction, Canada Post estimates that it would take an equivalent of thirty person-minutes to identify the source data, obtain the documentation and type in details into listings. For all 80,000 transactions, it would take over 5,300 days of work for an estimated cost of $1.4 million.

Question No. 29

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Regarding the fisheries license buyout program whereby the Department of Fisheries and Oceans purchases fishing licences, boats, gear and training from non-aboriginals in the Fundy region, for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, up to and including September 30: ( a ) did the government hire consultants to facilitate this program; ( b ) what are the names of the individual consultants, their firms and the amounts they were paid?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker the answer is as follows: (a) In the Bay of Fundy area, the government hired a consultant to work in the Maritimes Region to facilitate the provision of licenses, vessels, and gear to the first nation communities. (b) Mr. Bruce Churchill, of the firm East Coast Marine Brokers, was selected through the government tendering process on a contract basis. The following table indicates, by fiscal year beginning in 2000-2001 and ending in 2004-2005, the amounts paid to East Coast Marine Brokers for services provided to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

AMOUNT PAID BY FISCAL YEAR

• To September 30, 2004

Question No. 30

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Regarding the wooden structure to the north of the Justice Building: ( a ) is this building the last of the “temporary buildings” constructed during World War II; ( b ) does the government consider this building to be of architectural or historical significance; and ( c ) does the government plan to preserve the building and, if so, what actions does it intend to take to save this structure?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: (a) The Justice annex was built in 1942-43 as a variant of standard designs created by the office of the Department of Public Works' Chief Architect D.C. Sutherland. Constructed to provide additional space for the RCMP during wartime, the building is now under the custodianship of Public Works and Government Services Canada. The annex was one of a number of buildings designed and constructed in haste to meet the government's wartime accommodation needs. One of the last temporaries to be built by Public Works, it stands as the sole survivor of its type in Ottawa, and is a reminder of the role of the Department of Public Works in solving the critical problem of wartime accommodation.

(b) In 1994, the Justice annex was designated Recognized (second highest designation) by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, FHBRO, for its architectural significance, its environmental qualities, and its historical associations.

(c) The annex must be removed in order to implement the long term vision and plan, LTVP, for the parliamentary precinct as currently defined.

PWGSC has made the best efforts required under TB Heritage Building Policy to protect the heritage character of the building by relocating it, without success. These efforts consisted of: a circulation for interest among other federal departments; Exploration of the possibility of moving the building to the Cumberland Heritage Village Museum, including: July 22, 2002, letter from the minister indicating that the Crown would be responsible for the moving costs, about $3.1 million, although no specific amount was offered; and discussions with the City of Gatineau.

None of these efforts resulted in an offer to take the building. On January 28, 2004, FHBRO concurred that these represented the best efforts that PWGSC is required to make under the TB Heritage Building Policy, although FHBRO cannot endorse the demolition of a recognized heritage building.

Currently, the building is temporarily being used for storage of furniture. No schedule has been set for the removal of the building. Good heritage practice dictates that a building scheduled for removal be left in situ until there is an immediate need to remove it. In the meantime, the building is receiving minimum maintenance to ensure that damage from neglect does not occur.

Question No. 31

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Does the government have a policy or guidelines regarding security clearances for contractors and companies performing work in government buildings or under NAFTA trade agreements and, if so: ( a ) who conducts and approves the security clearances; ( b ) what is the average turn-around time for these clearances; ( c ) are the security clearances valid for all departments and all government occupied space and if not, why; and ( d ) are the clearances valid for a certain number of years?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has policies and operational standards in place that provide direction and guidance regarding the processing of security clearances for contractors and companies performing work in government buildings, or under NAFTA. They are contained in the government security policy, promulgated by the Treasury Board and its associated personnel screening and security in contracting standards. Their practical application is amplified in the industrial security manual produced and maintained by Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC. These documents have been made available to the public electronically at the following sites: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/gospubs/TBM_12A/gsp-psg_e.asp and http://www.ciisd.gc.ca/ism/text/prefac-e.asp

In response to a) for contracts let through PWGSC that have security considerations inherent in them, security clearances are conducted and approved by PWGSC.

In response to b) the average turnaround times since April 2004 are: eligibility status, simple, 2 days; reliability status, complex, 21 days; if fingerprints are required, 80 days; if out-of-country checks are required, 1 year; confidential and secret, 50 days; and top secret, 140 days.

In response to c) all contractor clearances granted by PWGSC are valid for all departments and all government occupied space on a need-to-know and need-to-access principle.

In response to d) reliability status, confidential and secret level clearances are valid for 10 years. Top secret is valid for 5 years.

Question No. 32

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

With regard to lawsuits filed against the government for the failure to fulfill security clearance requirements in a reasonable time: ( a ) how many lawsuits have been filed; ( b ) how many have been settled; ( c ) what was the total cost; and ( d ) what was the average settlement cost?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Justice Canada, there have been no lawsuits filed against the government for the failure to fulfill security clearance requirements in a reasonable time.

In response to a) none;

b) not applicable;

c) not applicable; and

d) not applicable.

With regard to Public Works and Government Services, the answer is nil.

Question No. 38

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to the government's Chlorinated Substances Action Plan, what action has the government taken or does it contemplate taking in light of the government of Ontario's expansion of the use of these substances under its Drinking Water Systems Regulation O.Reg. 170/03?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to drinking water treatment techniques, it is the Province of Ontario that has the authority to take decisions regarding the use of chlorine based drinking water treatment techniques.

Within the context of the chlorinated substances action plan, CSAP, Environment Canada continues to assess and manage the risks associated with chlorinated substances consistent with the federal toxic substances management policy and the provisions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, 1999.

The chlorinated substances action plan is part of an overall federal strategy to protect human health and the environment from the effects of toxic substances. This science-based action plan includes both regulatory and non-regulatory measures targeting chlorinated substances of concern. It is an important component of Canada’s domestic and international efforts to address those substances that threaten our health and the environment.

Question No. 41

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Under the Softwood Industry and Community Economic Adjustment Initiative administered by Western Economic Diversification Canada: ( a ) how many projects in British Columbia were allocated funding; ( b ) of these projects, how many have had their allocation rescinded and for what reasons; and ( c ) to what other projects have the monies been reallocated?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, the anwer is as follows:

a) There are 146 active projects under the softwood industry community economic adjustment initiative, SICEAI, in B.C. against which federal funding is currently committed.

b) There are an additional five projects under the SICEAI in B.C. for which federal funding has either been “withdrawn or decommitted”. The five projects that are not proceeding, and the reasons, are: first, Village of Port Clements, tourist centre, unable to secure other sources of funding required to complete project; second, Diversified Concrete Products Ltd., concrete form manufacturing, unable to address all environmental issues required for completion of a satisfactory environmental screening reports under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEAA; third, City of Nanaimo, conference centre, unable to complete the project by the March 31, 2005, deadline for termination of SICEAI program; fourth, Merritt and District Chamber of Commerce, western facade branding, unable to complete the project by the March 31, 2005, deadline for termination of SICEAI program; and fifth, Sliammon First Nation, cultural interpretive centre, the band's priorities for projects have changed and the band no longer wishes to pursue this investment.

c) SICEAI funds that have been “decommitted or withdrawn” have been reallocated to the following projects: first, Nexbuild Manufacturing, an aboriginal-led project establishing a pre-fab home construction operation; second, Midway Development Authority, development of an aviation business park in Midway; third, Central B.C. Railway & Forest Industry Museum Society, establishment of a mini-passenger rail tourist attraction in Prince George; and fourth, Prince Rupert Port Authority, design and engineering work for expansion of the Fairview container port facility in Prince Rupert.

Note: Western Economic Diversification Canada delivers the SICEAI program on behalf of Industry Canada.