Debates of Sept. 18th, 2006

Question No. 36

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

With regard to the agreement with the government of the United States of America concerning the handling of detainees in Afghanistan: (a) is there a Canada-USA detainee transfer agreement and, if so, (i) does that agreement remain in force notwithstanding the existence of the Canada-Afghanistan agreement and (ii) how do the two agreements relate to each other, especially in a situation where an individual detainee is specifically requested by the USA; and (b) have any detainees been transferred to USA custody since the Canada-Afghanistan arrangement was signed

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), prior to the signing of the arrangement between the Canadian Forces, on behalf of the Government of Canada, with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on 18 December 2005, Canadian Forces transferred detainees to U.S. authorities. There is no written arrangement on transfer of detainees between Canada and the United States of America. The United States has provided public assurances that the detainees in its custody are being treated humanely and in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions, and Canada was satisfied with such assurances and is confident that the detainees who have been transferred to U.S. authorities have been, and will be, treated in accordance with international law. These assurances have been reinforced by the comments made by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States complies with its treaty obligations in the treatment of detainees and neither permits nor condones torture under any circumstances. The United States Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 is another positive development which confirms the public assurances by the United States government that detainees in the custody of the United States will be treated humanely. This act establishes uniform standards for the interrogation of people detained by United States military personnel and also prohibits “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” of persons in custody or under the physical control of the United States Government.

Item (i) is not applicable.

Item (ii) is not applicable.

In response to (b), no. Individuals detained by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan have been transferred to Afghan authorities since the signing of the arrangement on 18 December 2005.

Question No. 44

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

With regard to the lease-purchase agreement between Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Minto Developments for the property at 3000 Merivale Road: (a) what financial details have gone to Treasury Board to support this agreement in principle; (b) was the search for a lease agreement publicly tendered; (c) what are the details of the tendering process for the relocation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters from 1200 Vanier Parkway; (d) what are the details of the analysis for all of the options considered by PWGSC prior to the agreement in principle with Minto Developments; and (e) was the City of Ottawa’s 2001 policy of stimulating growth by encouraging the location of “future federal workplaces near Transitway Stations and give particular consideration to the east-end part of the City” considered in this decision and, if so, how?

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), all of the financial details required to obtain Treasury Board approval, including a detailed business case, were submitted. The financial details submitted to Treasury Board cannot be disclosed.

In response to (b), 3000 Merivale Road, the former headquarteres of JDS Uniphase, became available and was offered to the Government as a result of the downturn in the high tech business. Minto purchased the complex from JDS and offered this unique facililty to the government at rental rates subvstantially less than those reflecting its replacement cost. PWGSC posted an Advance Contract Award Notice, ACAN, to provide an opportunity for other potential suppliers to submit bids. No suppliers came forward. The results demonstrate that the proposal from Minto Development Inc. to lease-purchase 3000 Merivale Road was the best accommodation option, since it provides the least disruptive, most cost-effective solution to meet the long term needs of the RCMP.

In response to (c), as in (b) above, there was no tender process, but the lease-purchase was subject to an Advance Contract Aware Notice.

In response to (d), before issuing the Advance Contract Award Notice, the government did a comprehensive 25-year present value cost analysis of different options, ranging from partial renovation of the current buildings, demolition and development of new buildings on the 1200 Vanier site, to complete replacement with a new building on an undeveloped site. After analysis, all these other options proved to be more costly by at least $70 million.

In response to (e), the proposed acquisition arose from an unsolicited proposal for an existing building, not for future development. Municipal growth strategies will be considered in situations involving new development. 3000 Merivale is near an existing transit node, and has a bus stop on the site. It is in close proximity to the proposed future light rail route. Both the RCMP and PWGSC have committed to work with OC Transpo to enhance public transit service to suit the increased population. This is consistent with the city's goal to intensify development and thus limit urban sprawl. In addition, the backfill of the 1200 Vanier campus with regional RCMP functions will help to maintain the RCMP's strong presence in the eastern part of the city, as well as provide opportunities for other federal government clients.

Question No. 45

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

With respect to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has the CMHC had a budget surplus during the last five years and, if so, what was the surplus for each year; and how has the government spent these surpluses?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is involved in a variety of activities, ranging from housing programs aimed at Canadians in need to insurance and securitization which facilitate access to more affordable housing through the Canadian housing finance system. The activities relating to the housing programs are funded through government appropriations and are operated on a break-even basis.

Activities aimed at the efficiency of the housing finance markets are operated, as required by our mandate, in a commercially viable manner. Accordingly, none of CMHC's net income is derived from activities funded through budgetary appropriations.

CMHC's annual net income is derived solely from its activities that are not funded by annual parliamentary appropriations.

To answer the question, we have assumed that “budget surplus” meant CMHC's net income, including profits from lending activity, over the last five calendar years as set out below ($ million).

How has the government spent these surpluses? As a federal Crown corporation, CMHC's net financial results are accounted for on a fiscal year basis and consolidated with the government's financial statements, which means that CMHC's net income has been recognized in the goverment's revenues dollar for dollar.

Question No. 56

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

With regard to the comprehensive due diligence review of the role of airports in southern Ontario and future air traffic growth, which was announced by the Minister of Transport on September 9, 2005, in the context of the future of the Pickering Lands: (a) what are the terms of reference of this review; (b) when and by whom were these terms established; (c) which officials or outside organizations will be conducting this review; (d) which airport planning studies have been or will be reviewed as part of this process; (e) what criteria will be used to assess these studies; (f) when will this process be completed; and (g) when will the results of this process made public?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

In response to (a), the terms of reference have not yet been finalized.

In response to (b), the terms of reference are being developed by Transport Canada officials, and will be finalized after discussion with the Due Diligence Review Committee.

In response to (c), the due diligence review will be led by senior Transport Canada officials, using departmental and external technical experts. This will include representatives from the public who have technical expertise in the study areas. The list of members has not been finalized.

In response to (d), the review will look at all planning studies including aviation demand, airport capacity and ground transportation access that were completed as part of a potential future airport on the Pickering lands.

In response to (e), the criteria to assess the studies have not yet been finalized, and will be completed after discussion with the Due Diligence Review Committee.

In response to (f), the due diligence review will take several months to complete once it is fully initiated. As there is further study taking place at this time, it is difficult to speculate on a date.

In response to (g), once the due diligence review is completed, the department will brief stakeholders and the interested public, and Transport Canada will make its findings public.

Question No. 57

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With regard to employment at 5 Wing Goose Bay, Labrador, how many uniformed military personnel, civilian employees of the Department of National Defence and employees of Serco were stationed or employed there, as the case may be, as of November 1, 2005, and June 1, 2006?

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

On November 1, 2005, there were 25 civilian employees of the Department of National Defence, 68 regular force and 11 reserve members of the Canadian Forces stationed or employed in Goose Bay. As well, 102 other individuals were employed on the base including five with Defence Construction Canada, 28 members of the 5 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, 34 Canex employees, 20 with the personal services program, seven funded through non-public funds, and eight working in the Military Family Resource Centre.

On June 1, 2006, there were 26 civilian employees of the Department of National Defence, 68 regular force and 11 reserve members of the Canadian Forces stationed or employed in Goose Bay. As well, 101 other individuals were employed on the base including five with Defence Construction Canada, 28 members of the 5 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, 33 Canex employees, 20 with the personal services program, seven funded through non-public funds, and eight working in the Military Family Resource Centre.

Serco is a private company with whom the Department of National Defence has a contract for specific services. The number of personnel that Serco chooses to utilize to deliver these services is a business decision internal to the company. Accordingly, the Department of National Defence cannot report on the number of Serco employees stationed or employed at Goose Bay.

Question No. 59

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

With regard to leases signed by the government in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of such leases expiring in 2006 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (b) the number of such leases expiring in 2007 in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region; (c) the number of vacant premises in the Ottawa region and in the Outaouais region in 2006?

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:

OFFICE SPACE (space acquired from private sector landlords)

Expiring leases in calendar year 2006: 72 (61 NCA Ontario and 11 NCA Quebec)

Expiring leases in calendar year 2007: 56 (51 NCA Ontario and 5 NCA Quebec)

Vacant premises in NCA for 2006: 51 (43 NCA Ontario and 8 NCA Quebec)

COMMERCIAL SPACE (Crown owned space leased to private sector tenants)

Expiring leases in calendar year 2006 : 168 (125 NCA Ontario and 43 NCA Quebec)

Expiring leases in calendar year 2007: 130 (115 NCA Ontario and 15 NCA Quebec)

Vacant premises in NCA for 2006: 24 (18 NCA Ontario and 6 NCA Quebec)

Question No. 63

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

With regard to the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund and the Prime Minister’s announcement in March 2006 of $200 million in support for highway upgrades in New Brunswick: (a) what is the status of the $7 million approved by Infrastructure Canada in November of 2004 for Phase 1 of the Nashwaak/Marysville bypass; (b) did the government receive any revised proposals or designs in 2006 from the government of New Brunswick for this project enabling Treasury Board to forward this $7 million; (c) which program will be used to deliver the $200 million that has been committed by the Prime Minister; (d) when will these monies start flowing to the province; (e) what is the order of precedence in which individual highway projects will be funded under the $200 million commitment; and (f) has the government of New Brunswick submitted a design for the Route 8 Marysville bypass to South Portage?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

In response to (a), the Marysville bypass project was the subject of a joint $14 million commitment by Canada and New Brunswick under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, CSIF. The federal funds were allocated to the project, but the seven million in expenditure remains to be negotiated since the project was pulled by the proponent from the package. We are awaiting an official request by the provincial government to renew discussions for this project.

In response to (b), Infrastructure Canada has not yet received any revised proposals or designs from the Government of New Brunswick.

In response to (c), the program to expend the $200 million has not yet been determined.

In response to (d), the federal government is consulting now with provincial and territorial governments and others to determine the next generation of infrastructure programs. Once the consultations are complete the federal government will seek approval of the program terms and conditions from the federal Treasury Board. Following Treasury Board approval, new projects will proceed under the program guidelines in place at that time.

In response to (e), it is premature to speculate until the new program is designed, approved and operational.

In response to (f), no. The Government of New Brunswick has indicated publicly that it favours a modified 36 km bypass project to supersede the original project that was announced for federal funding in November 2004.

Question No. 65

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

With regard to the decision to discontinue or cancel funding of the Métis National Council of Women (MNCW): (a) for which Canadian Heritage programs and initiatives was funding cancelled or not renewed; (b) what current statistical or empirical data, rationale and evidence supports the discontinuation or cancellation of the funding of MNCW programs and initiatives; (c) what cost-benefit analysis or financial estimates compiled for or by Canadian Heritage exist relating to these decisions; (d) what information was provided to the Minister of Canadian Heritage or her staff by way of analysis prior to these decisions; (e) what recommendations, pertinent to these decisions, were made by the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Minister; (f) what recommendations, pertinent to these decisions, were provided to or by the Corporate Review Branch of the Department concerning the internal review and decision-making procedures used in arriving at such funding decisions; and (g) what information, pertinent to these decisions, was provided to or by other departments or the Privy Council Office to the Minister?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women]

Description of the research made: Program files and correspondence related to the Métis National Council of Women were reviewed.

In response to (a), the national women's organizations, NWO, programming element of the aboriginal peoples program provides operational funding to national aboriginal women's organizations to represent the interest of aboriginal women. An eligible organization is required to submit a proposal which meets program requirements. The proposal is assessed using the same criteria for all organizations. On March 24, 2003, Canadian Heritage terminated funding to the Métis National Council of Women, MNCW, under the national women's organization programming element because it did not meet the reporting requirements of the contribution agreement;

In response to (b), since 2003, funding proposals from the MNCW have not been recommended for approval because they have not met the program requirements. The proposals submitted have not provided sufficient evidence that the organization effectively represents Métis women, nor have they demonstrated their intention to reach further into the communities. The proposals also have not demonstrated that this organization has the capacity, whether through the provision of funds or human resources, to undertake and successfully deliver the proposed activities.

In response to (c), there was no cost-benefit analysis done nor were financial estimates compiled. Funding was not provided to the MNCW because their proposal did not meet the program requirements;

In response to (d), the Minister of Canadian Heritage was not apprised prior to the decision to discontinue funding to the MNCW. The review and assessment of information provided by applicants and the subsequent recommendation to approve or not to approve is the responsibility of the departmental officials. The Minister of Canadian Heritage approves funding applications that meet the program requirements based on the assessment and recommendations by the departmental officials;

In response to (e), the Minister of Canadian Heritage only approves funding applications that meet the program requirements based on the assessment and recommendations by departmental officials.

In response to (f), corporate Review Branch is not responsible for the assessment of funding applications. The review of information provided by applicants as part of the project submission or reporting on funding is the responsibility of the officials in the aboriginal peoples program. These procedures are part of Treasury Board authorities including the basis for which funding is approved;

In response to (g), officials in the department have provided information on the status of funding to the MNCW to other federal departments, such as Status of Women Canada and Indian Affairs Canada, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, when requested.

Question No. 68

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

With regard to government affordable housing programs, is it the intention of the government to: (a) cease funding for the programs after March 31, 2007; (b) renew all programs that are due to expire after March 31, 2007; and (c) renew funding after March 31, 2007, for the following programs, (i) Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI), (ii) Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), (iii) Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independance (HASI), (iv) Emergency Repair Program (ERP)?

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

The member for London-Fanshawe asked, on June 13, 2006, what are the government's intentions regarding funding for the housing programs that are due to expire on March 31, 2007. Those programs are the national homelessness initiative, NHI, and the federal suite of renovation programs that is, residential rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP, the home adaptations for seniors independence, HASI, the emergency repair program, ERP, and the shelter enhancement program, SEP.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is responsible for the federal suite of renovation programs.

These federal housing programs were extended for a year, effective April 1, 2006.

During the fall of 2006, the government will examine whether to extend and enhance the suite of renovation programs that are due to expire on March 31 2007.

The national homelessness initiative and its cornerstone program, the supporting communities partnership initiative, were extended in November 2005 for a further year to March 31, 2007. This extension will ensure that essential services for homeless are maintained in urban and rural communities across Canada. Human Resources and Social Development Canada officials are developing options and considerations for a Government of Canada role in addressing homelessness beyond March 2007.

A total of $175 million in program funding is available for 2006-07. Included in this total is $109 million in standard program funding for 2006-07, $29 million in reprofiled funds, or unspent program funds, from 2004-05, and $37 million in reprofiled funds from 2005-06.

Question No. 69

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

With regard to the wind power production incentive program and its allocation in the 2005 Budget of $920 million over 15 years, which has been frozen: (a) when will these funds be released; and (b) what additional plans does the government have to support the development of the wind energy industry in Canada?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

In response to (a), the government is pursuing new directions in the area of climate change policy through the development of a made in Canada plan that is focused on ensuring future generations enjoy clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy here in Canada.

The government recognizes the important contributions that renewable energy sources, such as wind, can provide to a diversified energy supply mix for Canada. We recognize the role that the wind power production incentive, WPPI, has played in leveraging provincial and industry support for wind energy.

The 2006 federal budget committed $2 billion over the next five years to the environment, energy efficiency and clean energy technologies. This funding will be allocated to measures that are effective in achieving real results for Canada. Some of the measures funded may be those previously supported; others will be new. Decisions will be made as part of the made in Canada plan.

In response to (b), government support for wind energy development consists of a variety of measures including investment tax credits, support for innovative research, technology development and demonstration. Below are some of the initiatives supported by the Government of Canada related to wind energy.

Under class 43.1 of the federal Income Tax Act, energy investors have access to an accelerated capital cost allowance, CCA, rate of 30% on a declining basis to encourage investments in certain equipment used to either produce heat for an industrial process or to generate electricity. The equipment must use a designated renewable energy source, such as wind, or burn fossil fuel efficiently. The new class 43.2 will provide a 50% CCA writeoff for certain high efficiency co-generation equipment and the full range of renewable energy generation equipment currently included in class 43.1, such as wind generators. This increased rate will apply to equipment purchased between February 23, 2005 and December 31, 2012.

Another tax measure provinding support for wind energy development is the Canadian renewable and conservation expense, CRCE, category, which allows certain wind exploration expenses to be deducted immediately or transferred to investors using flow through shares. Natural Resources Canada provides technical advice to investors and developers on the applicability of class 43.1, class 43.2 and CRCE on eligible energy projects.

Natural Resources Canada, through its renewable energy technology group, RET, part of the CANMET Energy Technology Centre, CETC, provides support to the Canadian renewable energy industry in its research and development efforts to develop and deploy renewable energy technologies, such as wind, biomass and micro-hydro. The RET helps industry to generate competitive and environmentally responsible alternatives to conventional energy generation through cost sharing and technical assistance in support of technology development and field trials. Examples of this work include the Canadian wind energy atlas, the development of Canadian wind turbine standards, and research into cold climate operation of wind turbines.

The government, in partnership with the Government of Prince Edward Island, P.E.I., provides funding for the Wind Energy Institute of Canada, WEICan, located at the Atlantic Wind Test Site in P.E.I.. WEICan supports the development of wind power generation in Canada and wind energy related products and services for Canadian and export markets. The institute's activities are focused on four key areas of work: testing and certification; research and innovation; industry training and public education; and technical consultation and assistance.

Question No. 72

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to the proposal by the government to give public transit riders a tax credit to cover the cost of monthly transit passes: (a) what data, in either summary or raw form, or analysis relating to the cost for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved (not emitted) has been provided to the Minister of Natural Resources by (i) the Department of Natural Resources, (ii) the Department of Finance, (iii) Environment Canada; and (b) what analysis was provided to the Minister of Natural Resources comparing a tax credit, to cover the cost of monthly transit passes, with the benefits of providing capital investments, to be shared with provinces and municipalities, in public transit infrastructure?

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

No documents were provided to the Minister of Natural Resources since the tax credit for public transit is a tax measure which is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, and due to the normal secrecy considerations associated with tax measures announced in the budget.

Question No. 73

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With respect to the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in Robbinston, Maine: (a) would the constant intense light canopies at the proposed LNG terminals influence fisheries and aquaculture experiments involving photoperiod or other light related research being conducted now or in the future; (b) would vibration and noise from the regassification plant, the ships, or the tugs have any impact on the areas currently used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Huntsman Marine Science Centre or universities for research and education, or on the St. Andrews Biological Station itself; (c) what will these impacts be; (d) if seawater is used in the regassification process, would the resultant temperature change (reputed to be 10 degrees Celsius) and the resultant reduction of plankton populations influence the fish and invertebrate populations currently being studied in Passamaquoddy Bay or the anadromous fish runs using the St. Croix watershed; and (e) will physiological barriers be established that will interfere with the migration of important migratory species such as smelt, alewives and salmon?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

The government of Canada does not currently possess the information needed to answer these questions. The specific issues raised in parts (a) to (e) of this question deal with issues related directly to the physical properties of the proposed liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals on the U.S. coast and therefore will most likely be dealt with during the U.S. Federal Energy Commission, FERC, regulatory review process. The Canadian government has brought to the attention of the U.S. FERC the concerns expressed by local Canadian communities about the potential environmental, navigational and safety risks of the proposed projects.

The Government of Canada considers the Bay of Fundy and Head Harbour Passage sovereign waters and will take every legal and diplomatic means to prevent LNG tankers from using this passage. A study 30 years ago confirmed that there would be an unacceptable level of risk to people and aquatic life in and around Head Harbour Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay associated with the use of this body of water and passage by large tankers carrying marine pollutants.

Question No. 78

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

With regard to the changes in the Solvency Funding Relief Regulations of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, what is the mechanism that will be used to determine when less than one third of the members object to a move to ten-year solvency funding (6.2(a)) under the new ten-year funding rules?