Debates of March 12th, 2009

Question No. 22

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

With regard to the National Parole Board and the Department of Public Safety: (a) what mechanisms are put in place to ensure a fair and culturally responsive approach to the parole board's administration; (b) are there specific considerations taken into account when Aboriginals appear before the parole board; (c) what mechanisms are put in place to ensure that there is suitable Aboriginal representation on the parole board; and (d) currently, what percentage of parole board members are Aboriginal?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 23

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Given that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom have recognized the security implications of climate change and have acted accordingly: (a) has the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers been briefed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Department of National Defense or Communications Security Establishment Canada on the security implications of climate change on Canada; (b) have security and government officials from the United Kingdom and the United States shared their information on this matter with the Canadian government; (c) as this is a matter of public record in the United Kingdom and the United States why has it not been disclosed in Canada; and (d) what has been the government response to the potential security issue that you have been alerted to by the British, U.S. or Canadian officials?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 24

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

With regard to the forestry industry in British Columbia (BC): (a) what specific steps has the government taken to reduce the dependency of the BC industry on the United States construction business and to facilitate and expand the sale of BC lumber to Asia; (b) for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 what is the specific breakdown of the $400 million promised in the 2006 budget to deal with the mountain pine beetle and to stimulate new economic opportunities for lumbering-dependent communities and job retraining for forest industry workers in (i) terms of exact funds to communities for economic re-adjustsments together with the names of the communities, (ii) what are the projects and funds spent on pine beetle research and alleviation, (iii) what are the specific projects and funds spent on job retraining initiatives; (c) what money was transferred to the BC government for fire prevention initiatives for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, and to pine beetle ravaged communities which are at prime risk for summer forest fires; and (d) what specific initiatives and funds has the government allocated over 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 to the at “risk for fire” aboriginal communities in BC's interior?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 25

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

With respect to grants and federal funding allocated or transferred by the Department of Canadian Heritage to arts and culture festivals in the province of British Columbia: (a) what was the total spending given to the province, broken down by festivals for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008; (b) what is the projected allocation of grants and federal funding for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; and (c) specifically to the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, what amount was given or is projected to fund, broken down by program, all cultural Olympiad programs, all bilingual initiatives and the francophone village and cultural events, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 26

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

With respect to the British Columbia salmon fisheries industry: (a) what concrete steps has the government undertaken to the development and implementation of an ocean's management strategy given that the 10 year Ocean Management Plan sunsets this year and what particular steps have been taken with regard to conservation, including a precautionary approach to management of the salmon fisheries; (b) what steps have been taken to allocate the First Nations of British Columbia a 50% share of all fisheries, and to increase treaty settlement funds to enable purchase or buy-back licenses and allow for relocation; (c) considering the devastation the mountain pine beetle has caused to the salmon industry through erosion of watersheds, what actions has the government taken to mitigate the damage to salmon spawning beds; and (d) how much money has the government given to revitalize the salmon industry, in particular the sport fishing industry in British Columbia, which contribute a large part to the salmon industry?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 27

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With respect to tax treatments offered to the fishermen from Atlantic Canada and Quebec: (a) were the fishermen who accepted the Atlantic Fisheries Groundfish Retirement Package and who permanently gave up their fishing licences in the years 1999 and 2000 advised in writing by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to report, at the time of filing their income tax, that the retirement lump-sum payment was to be counted as revenue from a capital gain and, if so, (i) why, (ii) why did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans issue this advice, (iii) how many fishermen did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans give that advice to; (b) why did Revenue Canada or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency agree to give certain other fishermen a different tax treatment than the one outlined above, for the same retirement years; (c) how many fishermen received that different tax treatment; (d) why did the Minister of National Revenue and the Federal Minister of Fisheries advise these former fishermen (or their survivors in the case of deceased former fishermen) to appeal to the Regional Director of Taxation in St. John’s for a review; (e) has the Regional Director of Taxation informed the affected individuals that he will not accept their appeals and, if so, why; and (f) did Revenue Canada or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency reach an out-of-court settlement in 2007 with a certain number of fishermen who had appealed their tax treatment and, if so, (i) why, (ii) why were the fishermen involved in that out-of-court settlement required to sign a secrecy or non-disclosure document, (iii) how many fishermen were involved in that out-of-court settlement?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 28

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With regard to the Building Canada Fund (BCF): (a) what projects have been awarded funding; (b) for each of these projects, what was (i) the dollar share of project costs funded by the government, (ii) the percentage share of project costs funded by the government, (iii) the content and specifications of the project, (iv) the location of the project; (c) what are the government's plans to accelerate infrastructure spending under the BCF; (d) how much funding has been or will be allocated for each province and territory; and (e) what is the cost-sharing formula for cost-shared projects with other orders of government?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 29

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With regard to 5 Wing Goose Bay, for each of the fiscal years 2004-2005 through 2008-2009 inclusive: (a) what was the total amount spent, or for the current year budgeted to be spent, by the Department of National Defence (DND) or the Canadian Armed Forces in respect of 5 Wing Goose Bay, indicating for each fiscal year the operational budget, capital budget, payroll, and other expenses; (b) what specific measures, if any, have been taken towards the establishment of a rapid reaction battalion and unmanned aerial vehicle squadron at 5 Wing Goose Bay; (c) what is the operational requirement for 5 Wing Goose Bay referred to by the former Minister of National Defence and when was it instituted; and (d) what specific marketing initiatives has DND undertaken with regards to attracting clients to 5 Wing Goose Bay, stating (i) who has undertaken this marketing for or on behalf of DND, (ii) what are the budgeted or actual expenditures for these marketing initiatives?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 30

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

—With regard to the installation of cell phone communications towers and the electro-magnetic fields and radio-frequency radiation they emit: (a) when was a federal permit awarded to install a cell phone tower at Saint-Joachim church located at 2 Saint-Anne, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, H9S 4P5; (b) who is the service provider who applied for and was awarded the permit; (c) what justification was given by the service provider for requiring a cell phone tower permit for that particular location; (d) what are the technical specifications of the cell phone tower for which a permit was awarded; (e) what limits or conditions, if any, were attached to the permit; (f) do technical specifications and other permit conditions vary according to the nature of the surrounding environment, specifically as regards to whether schools, hospitals, or residential units are located in the vicinity; (g) what requirements were placed on the City of Pointe-Claire in regards to consulting local residents before a federal permit was awarded for the Saint-Joachim cell phone tower, and were these general requirements applicable to all municipalities in Canada or were all or some conditions specific to this particular tower; (h) how many other permits have been awarded in the past for installation of cell phone towers in Pointe-Claire, where are these located, and who are the providers who operate the towers; (i) what evidence has the government used to establish that cell phone towers are not a threat to human health generally and to the health of vulnerable populations like children specifically; (j) in establishing allowable risks associated with cell phone towers does the government apply a maximum acceptable threshold of risk that incorporates the precautionary principle as laid out in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) and, if not, what other standards, if any, of precaution are reflected in the applied risk threshold; and (k) is the government aware of literature or studies, including the most recent, that suggest there is risk, especially for children, associated with the close proximity of schools, hospitals, or residential units to cell phone towers and, if so, on what basis has the government dismissed these findings?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 31

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

With regard to the two rerouted March 2008 Cubana Airlines flights flying from Havana and Varadero, Cuba to Montréal and the December 2008 Air Canada flight flying from Vancouver to Toronto that were stranded on the tarmacs of the Ottawa and Vancouver International Airports, respectively: (a) has the government investigated any or all of these incidents and, if so, what conclusions have been drawn regarding the cause of the passengers being held on a plane without enough food and water; (b) what steps or procedures were followed by the airport authority to finally deplane the passengers; (c) could any of these steps or procedures have been taken earlier and, if not, what constraints prevented these steps or procedures from being taken earlier; (d) are there currently any policies, laws, or regulations that set out a time limit for how long a plane with passengers can be held on the tarmac and, if not, has the government developed any recommendations for such policies, laws, or regulations; (e) is the government aware of any existing procedures, established voluntarily by airport authorities, to be followed in situations where a plane with passengers is left on the tarmac for a considerable period of time; (f) is there an accountability mechanism whereby tarmac delays above a reasonable threshold must be reported to the government; (g) to what extent, if any, was the RCMP involved in resolving any or all of these incidents; (h) if the RCMP was involved, what specific steps did they take to resolve any or all of these incidents; and (i) are there potential civil or criminal liabilities arising from these events?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 33

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

With regard to the HMCS Chicoutimi crew personnel who were on board during the October 2004 HMCS Chicoutimi fire: (a) what post-trauma services were offered to the personnel and following which timeline the services were offered; (b) what is the total number of hours of sick-leave taken post accident by month up to and including today's date; (c) how many individuals have applied for disability pensions or long-term disability directly related to this accident; and (d) how many were approved for disability pensions or long-term disability directly related to this accident to date?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 34

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

With regard to the anthrax vaccine administered to Canadian Forces (CF) serving in the Gulf War: (a) did the government complete independent testing on the safety of the vaccine; (b) did the government complete a study on the health of CF personnel who receive the vaccine; and (c) has the government continued to monitor or undertaken any follow up studies on the health of CF personnel who received the vaccine?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 37

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

With regard to the federal emergency preparedness funding to the provinces and territories over the last five years for firefighting equipment: (a) how much funding has the government contributed to those specific projects which involved the purchase of firefighting equipment through the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP); (b) what is the specific breakdown of the government's emergency preparedness contributions, by province and territory; and (c) other than the JEPP program, what other funding has been made available to the provinces, territories and municipalities to specifically support the purchase of firefighting equipment?