Debates of June 16th, 2006

Statement by Member for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the House appreciates the clarification offered by the hon. member, but I would urge her to do another Standing Order 31 on the subject, perhaps next week.

I also have notice of a point of order from the hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Oral Questions

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, with all the excitement in the House when I was responding to my colleague from the Bloc about the outcome of the discussions this summer, I should have said that there will be proposals coming forward from the government in the fall. There may or may not be legislation, but “proposals” was the word I should have used. I want to clarify that for the House.

Order in Council Appointments

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made by the government.

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

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

Inuvialuit Final Agreement Implementation Coordinating Committee

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2003-04 annual report of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement Implementation Coordinating Committee.

Legislative Committee on Bill C-2

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2. In accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, April 27, your committee has considered Bill C-2, an act for providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability, and agreed on Wednesday, June 14 to report it with amendments.

Public Accounts

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the fourth report considering the government's response to the 10th report of the first session of the 38th Parliament, and the fifth report on the 2006-07 estimates and the performance of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. The committee is requesting a government response for both reports.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-324, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Welland.

Mr. Speaker, I move for leave to introduce this private member's bill that would change the name of my electoral district from Welland to Niagara South Centre. The name of Welland is a little confusing because the city of Welland is just one of five municipalities within the riding. I believe it is inequitable to name a riding after one community.

I am going back to a generic name similar to the name of the riding prior to redistribution. I submit that the name Niagara South Centre is a good compromise. At the same time, it does not infringe upon any current provincial riding names in the area.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Child Care

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today a petition signed by a number of residents of the riding of Fredericton and surrounding area who are calling upon Parliament to honour the promise of a national child care program by protecting the early learning and child care agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces.

Taxation

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with thousands of signatures from individuals not only in my riding of Simcoe--Grey but across Ontario. They are asking the House of Commons to allow senior couples the option to split all their individual retirement income in a manner that would equalize the taxes assessed to each spouse, otherwise known as income splitting. I support this petition.

Child Care

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House today to present a petition on the subject of child care, an issue that is important to many Canadians. This petition comes from the people of the riding of Vancouver Kingsway.

Fisheries

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to present a petition concerning the crisis in the fishing industry in Labrador. It is signed by numerous constituents in West St. Modeste, Capstan Island, Red Bay and L'Anse au Loup, which are fishing communities in the Labrador Straits. They petition the federal government to immediately bring in adjusted measures to deal with the crisis in the fishery, including retraining, early retirement and economic diversification. I fully support their position.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to present a petition on the aboriginal affairs file from my constituents. They are residents of Black Tickle, Cartwright, Sheshatshiu, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mary's Harbour, Williams Harbour, Port Hope Simpson, Red Bay, Charlottetown, St. Lewis, North West River, Forteau and Lodge Bay. They call upon the Conservative government to honour the November 2005 Kelowna accord. I fully endorse their stance on this matter.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would remind hon. members that expressing their views in respect of a petition is not in order. They are to table the petition. They are not permitted in the course of presentation to say whether they agree or disagree with it. I have chastised without words one hon. member already today. I hope I will not have to do it again. I would encourage the hon. member for Labrador to comply with the rules in this regard in every respect.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 26, 29, 34, and 38.

Question No. 26

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

With regard to Exercise Trident Fury: (a) how many United States troops and military hardware are part of the exercise; (b) how many troops and military hardware from countries other than Canada and the United States are part of the exercise, broken down by country; (c) is the government aware of the presence of any nuclear-arms capable aircraft participating in the exercise; (d) did the government seek assurances that there would be no nuclear weapons present; (e) does the government consider that there may be any heightened risk of a terrorist attack as a result of the exercise; (f) did the government communicate the nature of the mission to city councils and citizens in the greater Victoria area; (g) will the government guarantee the citizens of the area that there will be no health or environment risks; (h) has there been an environmental assessment of the potential impacts on the environment; and (i) has the government considered cancelling the exercise if there are environmental and security risks?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:

(a) Approximately 1000 service personnel from the United States participated in this exercise. Units involved from the United States Navy were the Frigate USS Ingraham and the Fast Combat Stores Support Ship USS Bridge, both from the US Navy’s 3rd Fleet. Units from the United States Air Force included a number of F-15 Fighters, F-16 Fighters, B-52 Bombers, KC-135 Air Refueling Tankers, EA6B Electronic Warfare aircraft and E2C Airborne Early Warning aircraft. Units from the US Air National Guard included a number of F-15 Fighters. During the exercise, 20 US aircraft operated in Canadian airspace from American bases.

(b) Approximately 1200 service personnel from a variety of nations participated in the exercise. Units involved included the NATO Airborne Early Warning Squadron from Geilenkirchen, Germany with a multi-national crew in the E3A Airborne Early Warning aircraft and the Royal Air Force, RAF, flying the E3D Early Warning Aircraft.

(c) Yes, some of the aircraft participating in the exercise can be reconfigured to carry nuclear weapons. However, their participation in this exercise was for training only and only training armament was used.

(d) The employment of nuclear weapons was not a component of Exercise Trident Fury and as a training event, there was no reason for any vessel or aircraft to carry them, either live or simulated. Nonetheless, the United States security policy is that the American forces will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at anytime and anywhere in the world. However, on September 27, 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced that the United States would eliminate all of its nuclear artillery shells and short-range nuclear ballistic missile warheads from surface ships, attack submarines and land-based naval aircraft and that they would not be carried in routine operations. Other, non-US participants of the exercise brought non-nuclear capable aircraft.

(e) Exercise Trident Fury 06 is the second annual Trident Fury exercise. Since this is a routine exercise, it was assessed that it posed no heightened risk of a terrorist attack.

(f) Yes, an extensive number of public and government briefings were held and the public affairs section of Maritime Forces Pacific initiated contact with all major and local news organizations to provide comprehensive and informative briefings. The objective of this plan was to raise public understanding of the requirement for conducting joint and combined exercises as they contribute to national security. The plan is based on proactive media and community relations. This was accomplished by providing media with as many opportunities as possible to witness operations first hand. Public viewing areas at the airport and flying schedules were disseminated to the public. An initial news release was published May 9, prior to the exercise and high profile or significant event news releases were issued throughout the exercise. Commander Canadian Fleet Pacific and staff made a presentation to North Saanich town council to explain the scope and importance of the exercise and speak to any potential concerns.

(g) All possible measures to mitigate the impact on the public and the environment have been carried out. The Trident Fury 06 exercise directive specifically promulgated extensive directions to all participating units regarding environmental concerns, including but not limited to the following:

--the protection of marine mammals and sea life;

--mitigation measures to be undertaken during surface to air firings and air to air firings;

--mitigation measures to be undertaken during simulated mine laying exercises;

--safe handling procedures for hydrocarbon products;

--the protection of vegetation, soils and wildlife; and,

--vehicle movement and water crossing procedures.

(h) Yes, Maritime Forces Pacific Formation Risk Management Office coordinated and conducted the necessary environmental assessments in respect of all live weapons firings and the basing and operation of participating air and ground units. The Department of National Defence carried out a series of due diligence environmental impact studies in accordance with international, federal, provincial and municipal environmental standards and regulations. Joint Task Force Pacific and the Maritime Forces Pacific are committed to both the letter and the spirit of environmental laws and regulations and are continually striving to anticipate and improve risk management practices, particularly as they relate to the preservation of the unique eco-systems and wide spectrum of marine mammals and animals that inhabit the region. The “Marine Mammal Mitigation” plan was extremely comprehensive and takes into account the wide, varied and sensitive ecosystems that make the area what it is.

(i) All possible measures to mitigate the impact on the public and the environment have been carried out. The Trident Fury 06 exercise directive specifically promulgated extensive directions to all participating units regarding environmental concerns. To this end the Department of National Defence has gone beyond the international, federal, provincial and municipal standard to ensure all aspects of our risk management processes were in place and were monitored. We believe that we have taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the environment and to ensure that our activities do not in any way compromise the environment. All foreign exercise participants were subject to the same strict rules and guidelines as Canadian participants. Since this was a routine exercise, it was assessed that it posed no heightened security risks.

Question No. 29

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

How much money has been spent on the creation of the new Government of Canada Web site?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada site is the primary Internet site for Government of Canada information and online services, serving Canadians and people all over the world who are looking for information about Canada and from its government. The Canada site was originally launched in 1995 and is now managed by Service Canada.

The Canada site’s main page design has continually evolved in response to client feedback and key Government of Canada initiatives and is funded from a periodical funding source as part of Service Canada’s annual budget.

It is sound business practice to keep such a key communications tool fresh and appealing, to attract and retain a growing number of users. Focus testing was carried out to guide and refine the latest changes, as is normal practice. The feedback was used to finalize the changes and ensure that the Canada Site remains a comprehensive and trusted source of information for Canadians.

On April 5, 2006 the revised Canada site design included improved layout, providing more direct access to popular services, providing more visibility to current news and government priorities, and adding a trivia section. The redesign of the Canada site was done by the existing Service Canada staff who are responsible for maintaining and updating the site.

The work was completed within the on-going budgets for the Canada site operations. Incremental costs of $56,200 were incurred for the purchase of new images, focus testing and additional hours for staff and technical support.

Question No. 34

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

What are Transport Canada's annual maintenance costs for the hopper car fleet?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada does not incur any costs for the maintenance of the federal hopper car fleet. Under the terms of the operating agreement between Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway and Transport Canada, each railway is responsible, at its expense, for all repairs, maintenance and servicing of the cars apportioned to it

Question No. 38

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With regard to the recent General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations in Geneva: (a) what bilateral, multilateral, and plurilateral proposals, requests and offers was Canada a signatory to; (b) what were the responses to and results of these proposals; (c) what proposals, requests and offers were made to Canada; (d) what were the responses to and results of these proposals; (e) what new agreements have been signed onto by Canada; (f) were changes made to Canada’s policy on the foreign ownership restrictions in telecommunications and audio-visual industries before the conference and, if so, what were they; (g) did consultations take place between the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage with respect to these policies; (h) what provisional agreements or agreements in principle were signed by Canada; and (i) when is the next formal negotiation conference planned?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: (a) Canada submitted 60 bilateral market access requests to other WTO members and is a co-sponsor of nine plurilateral requests, i.e. financial services; telecommunications services; computer and related services; environmental services; energy services; construction services; architectural, engineering and integrated engineering services; legal services; and maritime transport services.

(b) To date, 74 WTO members have submitted initial offers and 32 have also submitted revised offers. The offers from those members to which Canada made requests respond to some of the requests made, but there are gaps. Bilateral negotiations are ongoing complemented by the plurilateral negotiations. The extent to which Canada’s requests will be met will not be known until the end of the negotiations.

(c) Canada received 42 bilateral requests from other WTO members and is a direct recipient of 10 plurilateral requests: agricultural services, air transport services, audiovisual services, services provided through commercial presence, cross-border supply of services, distribution services, logistics services, most-favoured nation exemptions, postal/courier services and temporary movement of natural persons.

(d) Subsequent to the exchange of initial requests WTO members submitted initial market access offers in March 2003, and revised offers in July 2005. Canada’s offers take into account the basic negotiating parameters and objectives that were outlined in our initial negotiating proposal, as well as the various bilateral requests received from other members. The negotiations are ongoing. These offers are conditional on the overall level of liberalization produced at the end of the negotiations.

(e) In the context of the GATS, Canada has not signed on to any new agreements. Final GATS offers are to be submitted in October 2006 and the Doha round is to be completed by the end of December 2006.

(f) Canada has not changed its position on telecommunications foreign investment restrictions. Canada is not offering to eliminate or reduce its current restrictions on telecommunications foreign ownership in the context of the current GATS negotiations. Neither our initial nor revised GATS offer included any liberalization with respect to telecommunications foreign investment. With respect to the audiovisual sector, Canada's position remains that we will not take commitments that would impede our flexibility to achieve cultural policy objectives. Canada is not offering to take on commitments in the audiovisual sector in the context of the current GATS negotiations.

(g) The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade works closely with both Industry Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to the development of Canada's position in international fora regarding the telecommunications and cultural sectors, including Canada's position in the WTO negotiations on the foreign investment restrictions for telecommunications and broadcasting services.

(h) In the context of the GATS, Canada has not signed on to any new agreements. Final GATS offers are to be submitted in October 2006 while completion of the Doha round of negotiations is scheduled to be completed by the end of December 2006.

(i) The next cluster of services negotiations is scheduled for the second week in July. In the context of the GATS, Canada has not signed on to any new agreements. Final GATS offers are to be submitted in October 2006 and the Doha round is to be completed by the end of December 2006.

Starred Questions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 30. I ask that the question and answer to Question No. 30 be printed in Hansard as if read.

*Question No. 30

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

With respect to the government’s plan to compensate people who were infected with Hepatitis C tainted blood through Canada’s blood supply before 1986 and after 1990: (a) what is the timetable for compensating these victims; (b) what are the reasons why compensation for these victims was not announced between February 6 and May 8, 2006; (c) what barriers or challenges exist that might delay compensating these victims after May 8, 2006; and (d) what is the medical model intended for determining a victim’s eligibility for compensation?