Debates of Jan. 28th, 2008

Question No. 109

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

With respect to the creation and implementation of a national, searchable DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank: (a) what is the government’s position on a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank; (b) does the government have a timeline to implement a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank and, if so, when; (c) does the government plan to bring the issue before Parliament or any of its committees and, (i) if so, when, and to which committees, (ii) if not, why not; (d) what studies and evaluations about a DNA Human Remains Index and a DNA Missing Persons databank have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government; and (e) if studies have been undertaken, (i) what individuals, departments or organizations undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies and (iii) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada supports in principle the creation of a searchable DNA human remains index and a DNA missing persons data bank or index, MPI. The government response to the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security states, “the Government is committed to a successful outcome for the ongoing federal-provincial-territorial process, led by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Ministers Responsible for Justice. It is working to reach consensus on the solutions to the legal, jurisdictional and cost challenges that are at play with regard to the establishment of a DNA-based missing persons index (MPI).”

In response to (b),in addition to the comprehensive work being done through the FPT process, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice have asked the Standing Committee on Public Safety to undertake a review of the DNA data bank as mandated in legislation. Pending the outcome of the FPT process and the work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, no timeline has been set for implementation of a DNA MPI.

In response to (c), the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice have asked the Standing Committee on Public Safety to undertake a review of the DNA data bank as mandated in legislation. The committee may choose to include DNA MPI in its review and recommendations. With regard to subparagraph (i), the Standing Committee on Public Safety sets its own agenda.

In response to (d), three subgroups reporting to an FPT MPI working group have considered issues related to the definition of a missing person, the costs of operating an MPI, and interlinked legal, jurisdictional and privacy questions. The three subgroups have produced reports for consideration by the working group. In addition, a workshop was organized to design a model for the MPI that would be acceptable to all parties; to examine costing for such a model; and to provide a map of the working process that would operationalize the system to implement the proposed model. A final report was prepared by the consultants for consideration by the working group.

In response to (e), subparagraph (i), the three subgroups that have undertaken studies had representation from provincial and territorial jurisdictions and the federal government. The workshop involved a select group of individuals representing policy, legal, scientific, managerial, program and enforcement disciplines from the following organizations: Public Safety Canada; Royal Canadian Mounted Police RCMP; RCMP Forensic Science and Identification; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Lab; British Columbia Public Safety and Regulatory/Coroners Service; Toronto Centre of Forensic Sciences; New Brunswick Regional Crown Prosecutors Office; Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale du Québec; and Bureau des Enquêtes criminelles, Sûreté du Québec. The only international representation in the workshop was the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation ,FBI, Lab. The consultant hired to lead the workshop was Baintree Group.

In response to subparagraph (ii), the Baintree Group contract was for $25,000.

In response to subparagraph (iii), the findings of the reports prepared by the FPT DNA MPI subgroups dealt with complex legal, jurisdictional and cost issues for the consideration of the working group with respect to the issues related to the implementation of a MPI. The report prepared by Baintree as a result of the workshop concluded that it would be possible and desirable to build a national missing persons index for Canada that would assist coroners, law enforcement and possibly others to identify missing persons for both humanitarian and criminal law enforcement reasons.

The subgroup reports also concluded that the MPI could be created with a dedicated processing centre that could be integrated with existing processing centres and that the analysis and investigative leads generated could be integrated into the existing infrastructure in Canada, non-disruptively, and would bring added value to the current provincial and regional missing persons programs. Finally, the subgroup reports concluded that a broader missing persons program for Canada should be examined for the feasibility of integrating missing persons services that currently exist in provincial and territorial programs across Canada with the information derived from the processing of DNA profiles from a MPI.

Question No. 110

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

With regard to the core service review at the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the government's decision last winter to expand fully paid customs services to the Halifax International Airport and the Yarmouth Ferry Terminal: (a) how did the government arrive at the decision to select those two facilities; (b) what other airports and facilities across the country were recommended for these additional resources by CBSA; and (c) why did the government not grant expanded, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week customs service to those venues?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Canada Border Services Agency conducted an internal review to determine if there were sites which qualified for immediate conversion to be provided with core services. As a result, three sites were identified for conversion, Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport, Yarmouth Ferry Terminal and Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport.

In reviewing sites for conversion, the criteria included the current levels of service and the demand for additional services.

The sites that were recommended for conversion to core services were recommended on the basis thatthey supported equity of service to industry;they did not create a precedent; and they were based on a proven track record.

Other sites were looked at but not recommended for immediate conversion.

In response to (b), other than those mentioned in (a), there are no other sites that qualified for immediate conversion.

The CBSA has conducted a core service review to establish a service delivery approach that is fair, transparent and flexible. Developing an effective and efficient CBSA core services delivery framework will maintain national security and support economic prosperity. Decisions to provide CBSA services are always carefully considered and take into account security service to the public and the government's fiscal responsibilities.

In response to (c), the government granted expanded, 24 hours a day, seven days a week customs service to Macdonald-Cartier International Airport and to the Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport. CBSA provides core hours of service at the Yarmouth Ferry Terminal from 08:00 to 17:00, seven days a week during the peak ferry season. Extended hours of service up to 21:00 were provided to the Yarmouth Ferry Terminal during the ferry season following the results of the conversion to core exercise. CBSA did not grant 24 hours a day, seven days a week service to the Yarmouth Ferry Terminal as it was not required by the ferry operators schedule.

Question No. 112

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

With regard to the ongoing investigation by Mexican authorities into the murders of Dominic and Nancy Ianeiro in February 2006: (a) has the government of Canada formally asked the government of Mexico if Dr. Cheryl Everall and Ms. Kimberley Kim remain persons of interest to either federal or State of Quintana Roo authorities conducting the investigation; (b) if Dr. Cheryl Everall and Ms. Kimberley Kim remain persons of interest to either federal or State of Quintana Roo authorities, has the government of Mexico provided the government of Canada with information as to what the interest is in these two Canadian citizens; and (c) if there is no further interest, has the Canadian government formally requested that Mexican authorities provide written confirmation that these two women are no longer considered people of interest?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in repsonse to (a), with respect to Dr. Cheryl Everall and Ms. Kimberley Kim and whether they remain persons of interest in the Mexican investigation into the murders of Dominic and Annunziata Ianiero, the department confirms that this issue has been formally raised with the Mexican government. The previous minister of foreign affairs raised the issue in a telephone conversation with Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa on May 8, 2007. He noted that Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim had been named persons of interest by Mexican authorities when, to the best of the Government of Canada’s knowledge, there was no evidence to support this claim. He also expressed concern that Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim were living under the shadow of potentially unfounded suspicions. He asked Secretary Espinosa to speak with the appropriate Mexican authorities and advise the Government of Canada if there existed any reason why Mexican authorities could not issue a statement indicating that these women were no longer suspects in Ianieros’ murder. The previous minister sent a letter to Secretary Espinosa on May 9, 2007 to summarize their discussions and to reiterate his concerns.

In response to (b),on May 16, 2007, Secretary Espinosa responded to that letter. She stated that the Quintana Roo State Attorney General informed her that as the Ianiero murder investigation remained open, he could not eliminate any persons of interest, including Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim, from the investigation. Secretary Espinosa also noted that Mexico had made requests for information under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between Canada and Mexico. As these requests are confidential and related to an ongoing police investigation, we cannot comment on their contents.

In resonse to (c), senior officials from Ottawa and our embassy in Mexico raised the situation of Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim with the Secretariat des Relaciones Exteriores Estivill and the Mexican Deputy Head of Embassy in Ottawa during a meeting on November 27, 2007.

In response to (d), as noted, Mexican authorities have not yet indicated that Dr. Everall and Ms. Kim are no longer persons of interest. Canada continues to press for a swift, transparent and thorough investigation at every opportunity.

Question No. 114

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

With respect to the 17 million dollar cuts to literacy programs announced in September 2006: (a) which programs or efficiencies were affected and what is the evaluation of said programs; and (b) which programs not mandated by statute have been cancelled since January 2006 and what are the reasons for their cancellation?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the government’s effective spending measures with literacy affected the adult learning, literacy and essential skills program, ALLESP.

In implementing these measures, the Government of Canada honoured all signed agreements and commitments with respect to the local and regional priorities agreed upon between the ALLESP and the provinces and territories in 2006-07. In addition, all project proposals submitted through the ALLESP calls for proposals, CFP, that concluded on or before September 15, 2006 were reviewed and considered for funding, including those received for local and regional activities through the provincial-territorial stream. All applicants were informed in writing of the outcome of their applications.

No literacy programs have been cancelled. ALLESP was created in April 2006, and brought together the Office of Learning Technologies, OLT, the national literacy program, NLP, and the learning initiatives program, LIP, under a single set of terms and conditions. The program is delivered by the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills, OLES. The ALLESP, and the effects of the expenditure review on this program, have not yet been evaluated. An implementation evaluation of the program is, however, scheduled for the 2008-09 fiscal year.

Question No. 115

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

With respect to emergency and contingency funds: (a) which funds were set up by the government in the previous fiscal year; (b) what was the size of each fund; (c) what amount of each fund was spent; and (d) what were the rules and purposes for accessing these funds?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board has not established any new discrete funds to offset emergencies in the past year.At the same time, Treasury Board does maintain its vote 5 to supplement other appropriations in order to provide the government with the flexibility to meet unforeseen expenditures until parliamentary approval can be obtained. Parliamentarians are asked to approve vote 5 funding annually, as part of the main estimates. In 2007-08, Parliament has established this vote in the amount of $750 million.

Treasury Board evaluates departmental access to the government contingencies vote 5 using the following four criteria:

1. All advances from the government contingencies vote should be considered temporary advances to be covered by items included in subsequent supplementary estimates and reimbursed when the associated appropriation act is passed;

2. An organization’s existing appropriation must be insufficient to cover existing requirements and the new initiative until the next supply period. To that end, an organization must support any request with a valid cash flow analysis;

3. A valid and compelling reason exists, particularly as it relates to the payment of grants, as to why the payment needs to be made before the next supply period. If not, the payment should be deferred and access to Treasury Board vote 5 denied; and,

4. For grants, the transfer payment policy must be consulted and followed to ensure that a valid, legally incorporated recipient exists and that the organization clearly demonstrates that it needs to make a payment before the next supply period.

Among vote 5’s uses so far this fiscal year is: $14.1 million to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for payments to farmers affected by flooding; $7.9 million to Fisheries and Oceans Canada for compensation related to the east coast commercial fishers program; and, $39 million to Transport Canada to provide funding for the ecoauto rebate program which encourages Canadians to buy fuel efficient vehicles.

Question No. 117

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency’s attempt to introduce a new cost recovery regime to address the current system: (a) what is the current status of this initiative, including details of any activity in relation to this in the last 20 months; and (b) what are the details of any direction on this file from the Minister of Public Safety, his staff or senior departmental officials in the last 20 months?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, does not have a separate departmental cost recovery policy. The agency currently follows the Treasury Board policy and the User Fees Act, 2004.

With respect to core services review, the Canada Border Services Agency faces increasing demand to provide additional services beyond its current A-Base funding capacity.

The objectives of the core services review are to establish a service delivery state that is fair and transparent, and allows for adjustments to core services in response to changing demands and conditions.

The concept of “core services” was introduced in 1987 when the services in place at the time were grandfathered as core services, i.e., the hours of operation, the location and specific services provided were automatically accepted as core services and have been publicly funded. Since then, requests for services from stakeholders have generally been subject to cost recovery if the CBSA was not able to provide the service through A-Base funding. If the CBSA does not have the capacity to provide the service, e.g., lack of border services officers, the request may be declined.

During the 20 month period from March 2005 to November 2006, the core services review team researched and consulted with other Canadian government departments, e.g., Parks Canada, Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Natural Resources Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and foreign administrations, e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, on their approach and application of cost recovery and user fees policies in the delivery of government services. In the case of foreign administrations, the core services review team focused on the application of cost recovery and user fees as they apply to border services.

Consultation sessions with both internal, e.g., CBSA's executive management and regional directors, and external stakeholders in the air mode were held in February and April 2007. A wide range of air industry stakeholders, including airport authorities, aviation associations, and pilots associations were consulted on proposed policy and funding options for CBSA services. Stakeholders’ perceptions are that the CBSA's current service delivery and cost recovery practices are inconsistent and create a barrier to regional economic development. Stakeholders disagree with broad-based user fees and expressed their view that border services are a public good that should be publicly funded.

In July 2005, the CBSA conducted a comprehensive data collection exercise for service sites in the air and marine modes. The core services review team recently completed the data analysis for the air mode providing the agency with valuable information such as passenger volumes and average processing cost per passenger for airports with passenger clearance services. The marine mode review is currently underway.

The agency provides regular briefings and status updates to various industry stakeholders,e.g., the Air Transport Association of Canada and Transport Canada's aviation standing committee, on key developments and on the progress of the core services review.

In response to (b), during the 20 month period, the Minister of Public Safety has directed the agency to develop options to address existing service level issues. A Government of Canada announcement on this issue is anticipated in 2008, following consideration of options. In the meantime, CBSA’s current service delivery framework remains in effect.

Developing an effective and efficient CBSA core services delivery framework will maintain national security and support economic prosperity.

Decisions to provide CBSA services are always considered and take into account security service to the public and the government's fiscal responsibilities.

Question No. 118

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency’s Fairness Initiative: (a) what is the current status of this initiative, including details of any activity in relation to this project in the last 20 months; and (b) what are the details of any direction on this file from the Minister of Public Safety, his staff or senior departmental officials in the last 20 months?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in July 2005 the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, announced the launch of consultations on a new fairness initiative that included a series of proposed commitments on how people should expect to be treated at the border. The CBSA also announced that it would be working on an improved complaint and compliment mechanism.

Between July 2005 and June 2007, the CBSA received comments on CBSA’s commitment to fairness through a web address on CBSA’s Internet site specifically designated to receive comments on the fairness initiative.

During the last 20 months, the CBSA has pursued a number of activities to further develop this initiative to bring it to the point where it is ready for implementation. These activities have included the following:

review of the service pledges of other modern border administrations to adopt the best practices of those organizations which have resulted in the expansion of the original initiative to include the responsibilities of the client, as well as identifying a detailed proposal for an enhanced mechanism to manage complaints;

development of draft preliminary procedures for a singlewindow complaint process;

and creation of a client feedback form and a prototype for a national complaint reporting system, which would allow for a more nationally consistent mechanism to analyze, respond, track and report on complaints received by the CBSA.

Given that the initiative evolved into the three distinct components of service commitments, client responsibilities, and a complaint mechanism, the “fairness” banner did not appropriately capture the full essence of the broadened initiative, and the expanded initiative became “CBSA’s client rights and responsibilities”.

During this period, a consultative document entitled “A Guide to CBSA’s Client Rights and Responsibilities” was developed. In addition, in anticipation of the implementation of this initiative, a full communications plan and supporting communication products publicizing the initiative and the enhanced complaints process were developed.

Throughout this period, feedback on the expanded initiative was sought internally, as well as from the Canada Border Services Advisory Committee, CBSAC, whose membership is drawn from a cross-section of academia, businesses and associations that would be affected by broad border management decisions. In all cases, the proposed commitments, client responsibilities, and the anticipated complaint mechanism received significant support.

While CBSA senior officials have acknowledged the importance of this initiative, and significant progress has been made on this file, no final decision can be made with respect to implementation of this initiative until a source of ongoing funding is identified to support this initiative. Once final decisions have been made with respect to A Base and Core Service recommendations, CBSA will be in a better position to determine if there is a source of funds for this initiative.

In response to (b), no direction has been required from the minister or his staff on this initiative in the last 20 months.

Question No. 120

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With regards to the Lower Churchill hydro-electric project: (a) has the government received any request or submission in respect of a loan guarantee for the construction of this project or its associated transmission lines; and (b) has the government made any budgetary provision for such a loan guarantee and, if so, (i) what is the value of that loan guarantee, (ii) who has requested it, (iii) which departmental budget is this loan guarantee booked against?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the federal government has not received a formal request for a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project or its associated transmission lines.

In response to (b), the federal government has not made any budgetary provisions for such a loan guarantee.

Question No. 125

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

With respect to Canada's international development commitments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): (a) what funding has been allocated to assist the land distribution commission in North Kivu; (b) what assistance has the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) provided to state agencies in their capacity to collect tax revenue; (c) what contributions has CIDA made to projects preventing and eradicating smuggling from the DRC; (d) which international agencies and non-governmental organizations are involved with CIDA's project number A032983-001 (Project Against Sexual Violence (DRC)), and which provinces are the principal beneficiaries of the project; (e) what measures have been taken in order to provide women with civilian justice; and (f) what socio-economic reintegration policies does the project support?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), CIDA has not allocated any funding to land distribution commissions in the North Kivu.

In response to (b), CIDA has not provided any assistance to state agencies in their capacity to collect tax revenue.

In response to (c), CIDA has not made any contributions to any projects aiming to prevent or eradicate smuggling from the DRC.

In response to (d), CIDA's project A-032983-001, project against sexual violence, is a grant to a multilateral initiative led by three United Nations agencies: UNFPA, UNICEF and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Other UN system agencies affiliated with this project include the UNDP, UNHCR, UNIFEM, the WHO and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Activities, OCHA. International non-governmental organizations involved with the project include Caritas International, Médecins sans frontières France, Médecins sans frontières Holland and Heal Africa.

The provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu are the two beneficiaries of the project.

In response to (e), CIDA supports a project led by the UN office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The project plans to provide 30% of victims and their families with improved access to civilian justice. Any judicial remedies themselves are not actually delivered by the project as that is the responsibility of the state. The project aims to: sensitize and train officials within the justice system on the issue of sexual violence; engage traditional customary leaders on how to use the law to protect victims; organize outreach campaigns on human rights and; provide legal aid to victims. This major component of the project is led by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and is currently commencing its activities.

In response to (f), family, social and community reintegration is a major component of the project. The intended result is that 30% of victims return to their family and/or community of origin. This involves the creation of welcome and orientation structures, facilitation mechanisms and confidentiality safeguards. Victim reintegration profiles are developed to determine assistance packages. Socio-economic studies are conducted to identify reintegration opportunities. Examples of socio-economic reintegration to date include small-scale farming and livestock herding, culinary arts, dressmaking and weaving, soap making and small-scale retail trade. Many victims also receive parallel literacy and general education courses.

Question No. 136

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With respect to the northern section of the Spadina subway line to York University and to the Vaughan Corporate Centre: (a) what is the exact dollar amount that the government will commit to this project; (b) when will the funding begin to flow into this project; (c) will the funding flow on time for the expected project start date; (d) has the government signed off on the funding-dependent federal environmental assessment; and (e) has the government completed the funding-dependent due diligence review and the negotiation of the contribution agreement?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the federal government proposes to fund up to one-third of the eligible costs associated with the Toronto-York subway extension project, up to a maximum funding level of $697 million.

In response to (b), $75 million from the public transit capital trust has been disbursed to the province and is immediately available for use. The remaining amount will be funded through the building Canada fund. This program works on an invoice basis; as costs are incurred, the proponent will be reimbursed on eligible costs pursuant to the terms of the contribution agreement. Accordingly, this funding will flow to the recipient once eligible expenses have been incurred and have been submitted to the federal government.

In response to (c), Infrastructure Canada officials are working diligently with officials from the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission in order to ensure that due diligence is completed, and the necessary agreements are signed as quickly as possible. At this time, federal officials are waiting on several pieces of information from the city that are material to conclude due diligence. Once due diligence is completed, formal approval by Treasury Board of the project can follow, as can the signature of a contribution agreement on the project.

In response to (d), on November 7, 2007, a draft screening report, submitted by the proponent, was received by members of the federal environmental assessment, EA, review team. Once the draft document has been reviewed and comments from federal reviewers are adequately addressed, the EA documentation will be finalized and federal EA decision(s) will be made. Assuming that no substantial issues arise during the review period and current timelines are met, federal officials anticipate that EA decision(s) will be made prior to the end of this fiscal year.

In response to (e), please refer to the response to (c).

Question No. 141

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

With regard to budgetary freeze and cuts affecting the Canadian Wildlife Service, what plans has the Ministry of Environment developed and implemented to enforce the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Wildlife Act to: (a) monitor the health of migratory birds, waterfowl and songbirds; (b) identify plant and wildlife species at risk; (c) run recovery programs; (d) protect 144 national wildlife reserves across Canada; (e) enforce environmental and pollution laws affecting birds, wildlife and their habitats; and (f) reassure Canadians that recent budgetary freeze and cuts will not jeopardize scientific projects that may have human health ramifications?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the important role that conservation plays in protecting species at risk and ensuring healthy ecosystems, and is committed to conserving Canada’s landscape and wildlife. These goals are supported by new investments of $375 million in current and multi-year funding for conservation programs, the largest investment in conservation in Environment Canada’s history.

Environment Canada will continue to carry out programs and initiatives to protect and conserve wildlife and the habitat where they live. This fiscal year, the overall budget for Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service is $84.5 million, an increase of 13% from last year. This is the largest budget that the Canadian Wildlife Service has ever had, and includes salary for staff, operating funding and money for partners.

In September, temporarily, budget commitment approvals were moved up a higher level while a review of spending for the remainder of the fiscal year was undertaken. Budget allocations were adjusted and work is well under way in all priority areas. Good financial management and stewardship of resources continues to be followed.

In response to (a), Environment Canada remains committed to the migratory bird program. The majority of expenditures occurred in the spring and summer due to the field season nature of the program. Work on assessing data collected and developing regulations and conservation plans is ongoing. Bird surveys in high priority areas are also continuing. The department will continue to support key work to conserve wetland habitat and migratory birds through the North American waterfowl management plan.

The department is undertaking a review of its various monitoring activities to ensure they are efficient and necessary. A limited number of monitoring coordination activities have been put on hold while this review is underway. Environment Canada will continue to carry out programs and initiatives to protect and conserve wildlife and the habitat where they live.

In response to (b), Environment Canada continues to deliver on its commitment for species at risk. This includes support for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada, the independent scientific body responsible under the Species at Risk Act for assessing the status of species which may be at risk in Canada. The committee is continuing to meet in order to conduct status reports and species assessments, to help inform the Minister of the Environment’s listing recommendations under the Species at Risk Act.

The department continues to support advisory committees which provide important advice on issues related to species at risk, including the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk and the Species at Risk Advisory Committee. The Council is composed of representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and is mandated under the Species at Risk Act to advise the minister on the administration of the act. The Species at Risk Advisory Committee is composed of representatives from non-government organizations, industry, and other stakeholders, and provides advice to the department on the conservation of species at risk.

In response to (c), Environment Canada is continuing to work with provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal organizations and other stakeholders to develop recovery strategies for species listed under the Species at Risk Act. Recovery strategies are advice to government which set population goals, objectives and broad approaches to respond to the known threats to the survival of the species, identify critical habitat to the extent possible, and set time lines for the preparation of action plans. As of October 15, 2007, the federal government had finalized 42 recovery strategies addressing 69 species, one action plan and two management plans. An additional 25 draft recovery strategies addressing 28 species have been posted for public comment. Critical habitat had been identified for 15 species and proposed for four others.

Environment Canada is also allocating over $16 million to external partners to take action through its funding programs, including the habitat stewardship program, the interdepartmental recovery fund, the aboriginal funds for species at risk and the endangered species recovery fund, to support recovery for species at risk.

In response to (d), support for the ongoing management of Canada’s network of protected areas continues. Environment Canada has recently realigned priorities in order to ensure the protection of its 143 national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries.

In addition to this ongoing investment, budget 2007 includes significant new investments in Environment Canada's protected areas, including $10 million over two years for the establishment of national wildlife areas in the Northwest Territories, and $3.25 million over five years for marine protected areas under the health of the oceans initiative.

In response to (e), last February, the 2007 budget provided $67 million over five years to increase enforcement officers by 50%. This signals the government’s desire to break with the past and pursue an approach to environmental protection and conservation more grounded in regulation and enforcement. Environment Canada is currently working to hire these new officers and have them in place in 2008.

In response to (f), the mandate of Environment Canada wildlife programs is to conserve and protect wildlife species and habitat. In that regard, there are very few instances that necessitate conducting scientific projects that may have human health ramifications. In the case of avian influenza, Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service continues to treat this as high priority.

Question No. 145

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

With regard to the investigations into the use of a taser device on Robert Dziekanski by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP: (a) which individuals from these organizations are responsible for the investigations; (b) what time frames have been given for the investigations to be completed and when can the public and parliamentarians expect to be advised on the results of these investigations; and (c) will the RCMP reduce or place a moratorium on the use of taser devices nation-wide until after the above-noted investigations are concluded?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, in response to (a), the Integrated Homicide Investigative Team,IHIT, in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia is responsible for the investigation. This unit is led by a superintendent of the RCMP and consists of 76 investigators of which seven are from non-RCMP departments.

In response to (b), the IHIT investigation is nearing completion with a time frame of approximately mid-March 2008 for the submission of a report to Crown counsel for a legal opinion on the circumstances. This is dependent on the receipt of key material from agencies external to the RCMP, which also includes the completion of the requested travel by investigators to Poland to obtain further information.

In response to (c), following the receipt of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP ,CPC, interim report, the RCMP advised on December 14, 2007 that the RCMP policy regarding the use of a conducted energy weapon, CEW, would be amended to more clearly define use of force terminology and limit the use of CEWs to situations where a subject is displaying combative behaviors or is being actively resistant.

With respect to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, CPC, in response to (a), the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, CPC, initiated a complaint into the in-custody death of Robert Dziekanski on November 8, 2007. Under section 45.37 of the RCMP Act, a complaint initiated by the chair shall be investigated by the RCMP; it is the sole responsibility of the RCMP Commissioner to conduct this investigation.

In response to (b), when the RCMP has completed its investigation, the CPC will be in a position to prepare a report on the disposition of the complaint by the RCMP.

In response to (c), the chair of the CPC also provided the Minister of Public Safety with a report and recommendations entitled “RCMP Use of the Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW): Interim Report” on December 12, 2007. The final report will be completed by early summer 2008. In this report, the CPC did not recommend that a moratorium be placed on the use of the CEW. Rather, the commission recommended that the RCMP immediately restrict the use of the conducted energy device by classifying it as an “impact weapon” in the use of force model and allow its use only in those situations where an individual is behaving in a manner classified as being “combative” or posing a risk of “death or grievous bodily harm” to the officer, themselves or the general public.

Question No. 146

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

With regard to ongoing internal investigations of the government, following the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar: (a) how many internal investigations continue or have been concluded in regard to information leaked by individual members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to American authorities; (b) who is conducting these investigations; (c) if the investigations are still underway, when are the investigations expected to be completed; and (d) when will the results be made known to parliamentarians and the public?