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

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary 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 ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 122Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative 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. 123Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative 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. 151Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Cummins Conservative 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. 157Routine Proceedings

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

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP 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. 158Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP 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. 159Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP 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. 160Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative 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)

Question No. 162Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

With regards to Canada's annual reporting on and contribution to the Bretton Woods institutions: ( a ) how has Canada's participation in the institutions met Canada's established foreign policy goals and objectives, with reference to specific targets and measurable results; ( b ) what are the results-based indicators used by the government to measure the efficacy of the Bretton Woods institutions and why is their use not reflected in the annual report to Parliament; ( c ) how did Canada position itself on contentious issues under debate during the last year at the Bretton Woods institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) independent Evaluation Office's Argentinian crisis evaluation, the IMF and the World Bank's evaluation departments separate evaluations on Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, the Extractive Industries Review and Bretton Woods governance issues as related to the “voice and vote” debate; ( d ) how would the government characterize and compare the year-to-year changes in policies and priorities taken by Canada at these institutions; ( e ) what is the government's analysis of the financial performance of these institutions; ( f ) what role do Canada's contributions and participation in these institutions play within Canada's Official Development Assistance strategy; ( g ) what are the amounts contributed to IMF special funds or World Bank-administered trust funds particularly the African Regional Technical Assistance Center (AFRITAC) and the Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Centre (CARTAC), the IMF's Technical Subaccount for Iraq, the World Bank's Global Environment Facility, the Global Funds for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the African Capacity Building Initiative, the Consultant Trust Fund, Education in Africa and the World Bank Institute and Integrated Framework for Trade Related Technical Assistance; ( h ) what is the strategic economic benefit of Canada's participation in the Bretton Woods institutions, beyond private sector procurement opportunities; ( i ) what are the details of the 2004 US $71 million in procurement opportunities to Canadian companies and individuals and how was this information acquired; ( j ) is this total significantly down from 2003 and if so, why; ( k ) what is the comparative financial information with variances explained for each of the last five years with regard to Canadian procurement, environmentally sustainable development, health, water and education; ( l ) what do these trends indicate about the priorities of the Bretton Woods institutions and their consistency with Canadian foreign and development policy; and ( m ) could the government clarify how the objectives of finance and development are reconciled between federal departments and between donor and recipient members of Canada's constituency at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 165Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Randy White Conservative Abbotsford, BC

With regard to Correctional Services Canada during the fiscal years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005: ( a ) what was the total amount of salary bonuses paid to prison wardens in all regions; ( b ) what was the total cost in providing legal aid to inmates in each region; and ( c ) in how many instances was said legal aid utilized?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 166Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Bill Casey Conservative North Nova, NS

With regard to the December 22, 2000 announcement by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada that a new federal multi-tenant government building, to replace the Dominion Building, would be constructed in Charlottetown and ready for occupancy by fall 2005: ( a ) how much did Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) pay for the lands and building where this proposed building will be constructed; ( b ) what was the name of the company or individual who sold the lands and building to the government; ( c ) what was the original cost for the construction of this new government building, including those estimates which were based on plans that included a parking garage, and the subsequent plan with no parking garage; ( d ) what was the market value of said lands at the time of purchase; ( e ) when the government prepared the land for construction of this new building, what procedures were undertaken to clean and/or remediate the soils found on-site; ( f ) in regards to question (e) were any of the soils found to be contaminated in any way; ( g ) in regards to question (f) if the soils were found to be contaminated in any way, were any of the soils removed or taken off-site for burial, storage or remediation; ( h ) what are the final locations for any contaminated soils taken from this construction site; ( i ) if no removal occurred, were the soils left on-site; ( j ) what reasons or explanations have officials from PWGSC given to the municipal council of Charlottetown in regards to the revision of construction plans not to include a parking garage; ( k ) in regards to question (j), once the new building is complete and ready to accept tenants what is the plan to accommodate those employees who will be driving to work and will need parking; ( l ) what is the new timetable for construction for the new building, based on the difficulties experienced by PWGSC in the tendering and re-tendering process; ( m ) what is the estimate of PWGSC on how many construction workers are to be employed at this construction site and for how long; ( n ) in regards to the tendering and re-tendering processes, what are the names of the companies that submitted a bid for this project; ( o ) in regards to question (n), what were the bid amounts submitted, by company, for this project; ( p ) has the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada ever held meetings with the Members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island in regards to the construction of this new government building; and ( q ) in regards to question (p) if meetings were held, what concerns were raised by the Liberal Members of Parliament in regards to this construction project?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 168Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

With regards to the Agent Orange, which Canadian military sites were used for Agent Orange experimentation after 1945, including the exact locations by individual base where testing occurred

(Return tabled)

Question No. 171Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Were there Agent Purple experimentations conducted during the 1960's at CFB Gagetown and, if so, where are the field exercise areas that were used for these experimentations located at CFB Gagetown?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 172Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

With regard to corporate taxation: ( a ) what is the estimate by Revenue Canada of the amount of international transactions that were not reported by Canadian corporations for each year since 1991; ( b ) has the government given any loans or tax exempt status to any of the following companies over the last 25 years: General Motors, Bombardier, Noranda, Canadian Pacific, Domtar, Chrysler Canada, Baie-Comeau Co., Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, Bank of Montreal and Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Group; ( c ) if any loans or tax exempt status has been given to these companies how much money is outstanding; ( d ) what is the cap on the amount of family trust assets that can be transferred out of the country by Canadians; ( e ) what is the level of family trust assets that can be transferred out of the country by an individual without taxation; ( f ) what is the proportion of taxes collected by the government that comes from individuals, compared to the amount raised by corporate taxes; ( g ) how has this proportion changed over the past two decades; ( h ) if there has been a shift in the proportion collected from corporate tax vs. personal tax, has this been a result of any government policy; and ( i ) how does the government expect the proportion of taxation coming from corporate tax vs. personal tax to change over the next 10 years?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 172Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 172Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Question No. 172Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 172Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair has some notifications of applications for emergency debate. I will hear those now. First is the hon. member for Abbotsford.

Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Randy White Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, a matter of significant national interest has arisen that requires immediate debate in the House and, according to Standing Order 52, I so ask. The issue is that of extreme fluctuations and increases in and the unpredictability of gas prices.

The recent gas increases have seen significant profit at the pumps and in federal government coffers through taxation. Canadians are rightly alarmed that this affects the cost of goods purchased and transportation costs of all types and there is substantial worry about rising costs of home heating this winter.

The debate is necessary not just to discuss rising costs but to provide the House and Canadians with basic information on the following issues: who is profiting from such increases and by how much; forecasts and consumer protection related to increases; the proper role and action from the House of Commons; the ramifications of cutting federal tax on fuels; and the impact on various businesses and industries.

This matter is on the agenda of all Canadians, who are for the most part bewildered about the fluctuating gas prices.

I sincerely ask you, Mr. Speaker, to put this on the agenda of the House of Commons so that Canadians will believe that we too have an interest in dealing with this matter, and now.

Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC

Mr. Speaker, we agree that it is indeed important to hold an emergency debate on this issue as soon as possible this evening.

During the parliamentary recess, we experienced a sudden spike in fuel prices and noticed that astronomical profits were made, which were not and could not be explained.

Last Thursday, the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology dedicated a meeting to this issue, and agreed to summon the five responsible ministers to attend. We are facing a reality today in which prices are consistently 25% higher than they were at the beginning of the year. It is imperative that the federal government put an action plan in place.

That is why we are hoping that the members of this House will be making short-, medium- and long-term proposals to prompt the government to act and finally adopt a policy to counter these disproportionate hikes in fuel prices.

The fact is that these hikes are jeopardizing economic growth. Many people have made comments to that effect, including some of our fellow citizens, consumers, economic stakeholders and both small and large business owners. The transportation industry as a whole was in agreement.

It is important that the House of Commons debate this issue as soon as possible, to contribute to the government's consideration of the issue so that it can come up with a real action plan. This is why I feel my request is justified.

Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair has considered this matter, and while I am sure the matter is of some interest, whether it is a matter that meets the exigencies of the Standing Order at this time the Chair has some doubts. Accordingly, I am inclined to disallow the application at this time.

Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

My colleague, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, has informed his counterparts that should you find that the request for emergency debate that I submitted to you does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order, he would seek unanimous consent to hold a debate on the important issue of the price of gasoline.

Thus, I am seeking unanimous consent to pass the following motion:

That an emergency debate on gas prices be held this evening in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 52 and that during this debate no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Speaker.

Request for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?