Debates of March 12th, 2009

Question No. 18

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

With regard to section 5.2 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the issuance of oil and gas licenses to Paramount Resources in the Cameron Hills region of the Northwest Territories: (a) what rationale has the Minister used to determine that a benefits agreement with local Aboriginal people is not required; (b) why has the government refused to discuss a benefits agreement with the local Aboriginal people; and (c) why has the government insisted that such discussions be carried out through the Deh Cho Land Claims negotiations?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), section 5.2(2) of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act provides the authority to the minister to approve or to waive the requirement of approval of a benefits plan in respect of any oil and gas-related work or activity in non-accord frontier areas. The minister has no authority with regard to section 5.2(2) to determine the requirement for a benefits agreement between Paramount Resources and local aboriginal people. A benefits agreement is a bilateral contractual agreement between an operator and a community.

In response to (b), a benefits agreement is a bilateral contractual agreement between an operator and a community. The minister has no authority pursuant to the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to discuss benefits agreements with local aboriginal people. The Act does provide the authority to the minister to approve or to waive the requirement of approval of a benefits plan.

In response to (c), a benefits agreement is a bilateral contractual agreement between an operator and a community. Land claims negotiations have consistently provided the basis for the consideration of agreements of this nature.

Question No. 19

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

With respect to the statement by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development in the House of Commons on November 21, 2008, what is the evidence, statistical or otherwise, based on a number of standards to measure poverty in Canada, that the cuts to the goods and services tax and the introduction of the universal child care benefit are in fact reducing poverty?

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

Mr. Speaker, this government is supporting the child care choices of all families with young children in a clear and tangible way through the universal child care benefit, UCCB.

Since July 2006 the UCCB has been providing $100 each month, that is $2.4 billion per year, for two million children under six years of age.

This direct financial support helps parents, regardless of where they live, their hours of work or the choices they make, pay for the type of care that is best for their family.

The UCCB has lifted an estimated 24,000 families with about 55,000 children out of low income. This estimate is based on the social Policy Directorate’s microsimulation model that examines the distributional impacts of changes to tax and transfer programs.

The two-point reduction in the GST rate, from 7% to 5%, provides substantial tax relief to all Canadians, including those who do not earn enough to pay income tax.

Question No. 20

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

With regard to decommissioned military bases: (a) how many homes are vacant at the Kapyong Barracks; (b) how many homes are presently vacant across the country at decommissioned military bases; (c) what is the cost to maintain the vacant homes at the Kapyong Barracks; (d) what is the cost to maintain all vacant homes across the country at decommissioned military bases; (e) what decommissioned bases across the country have been transferred to Canada Lands; (f) which decommissioned military bases are waiting to be transferred to Canada Lands; (g) what regulations are in place for decommissioned military bases with vacant housing that determines the use and occupancy of these houses; (h) when was the last time the regulations were changed with regard to the use of the houses on decommissioned military bases; and (i) is there any flexibility in the application of these regulations or the use of them?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Kapyong Barracks site does not contain homes. The adjacent Winnipeg South Housing site has 110 vacant homes and is intended for transfer to Canada Lands Company.

In response to (b), 17 homes are vacant at the decommissioned military base in Jericho Beach, British Columbia, and 430 homes are vacant at the Rockcliffe site in Ottawa, Ontario.

There are also other sites that do not fit the Department of National Defence’s definition of decommissioned military bases; however, the sites are surplus to National Defence requirements and contain vacant homes. These sites include: Winnipeg South Housing site, Winnipeg, Manitoba, (110 homes); Oakville, Ontario, (61 homes); and Shannon Park, Nova Scotia, (32 apartment buildings containing 420 apartment units).

In response to (c), Tthe Kapyong Barracks site does not contain homes; however, the operating and maintenance cost for the Winnipeg South housing site was $673,000 in fiscal year 2007-2008.

In response to (d), Tthe costs for operation and maintenance of the vacant homes at the decommissioned military bases for fiscal year 2007-2008 are as follows: Jericho Beach, British Columbia,--$65,000; and Rockcliffe site, Ottawa, Ontario,--$1,800,000.

There are also other sites that do not fit the Department of National Defence’s definition of decommissioned military bases; however, the sites are surplus to National Defence requirements and contain vacant homes. The costs associated with these sites are as follows: Winnipeg South,--$673,000; Oakville,--$200,000; and Shannon Park, Nova Scotia, has 32 apartment buildings, which are not maintained due to severe disrepair and will be demolished.

In response to (e), tThe following decommissioned bases have been transferred to Canada Lands Company: Chilliwack, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; Greisbach, Alberta; --London, Ontario, no homes were on the site; and Moncton, New Brunswick, no homes were on this site.

In response to (f), Ddecommissioned military bases waiting for transfer to Canada Lands Company include Jericho, British Columbia, and the Rockcliffe site in Ottawa, Ontario.

There are also other sites that do not fit the Department of National Defence’s definition of decommissioned military bases; however, the sites are surplus to National Defence requirements and are intended for transfer to Canada Lands Company and are at various stages of the transfer process. These sites include: Kapyong Barracks, Winnipeg, Manitoba, no homes on this site; Winnipeg South Hhousing site, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Oakville, Ontario; Denison Armoury site, Toronto, Ontario, no homes on this site; Highbury, Ontario, no homes on this site; Terrebonne, Quebec, no homes on this site; and Shannon Park, Nova Scotia, contains apartment buildings.

In response to (g), there are no regulations specific to vacant housing on decommissioned military bases.

For active military bases, Treasury Board’s Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, the Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5024-0--Department of National Defence Living Accommodation and Queen’s Regulations and Orders--Appendix 4.1– Charges for Family Housing Regulations apply.

In response to (h), tThe Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive became effective 1 August 1, 2007. Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5024-0 became effective April 1, 2007. Queen’s Regulations and Orders Appendix 4.1 became effective September 1, 2001.

(In response to (i), Tthe Canadian Forces Housing Agency applies the regulations in order to meet the needs of Canadian Forces’ members and their families with respect to Department of National Defence accommodation housing. The regulations also contain a provision that allows the Canadian Forces Housing Agency to provide Department of National Defence housing to members of the RCMP, indeterminate employees of the Department of National Defence and other government departments.

Question No. 21

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

With regard to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement: (a) what steps have been taken by the government to ensure that survivors of the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School in Saskatchewan receive compensation that is set out in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement; (b) does the government have records of survivors from the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School and, if so, how many does the department have record of; and (c) what are the unresolved issues of which the Prime Minister spoke about in the House of Commons on June 12, 2008 that are preventing the government from compensating the survivors of the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School in Saskatchewan?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, in resonse to

(a), the government has received requests for compensation under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement from former students of Île-à-la-Crosse. The government referred to schedule “E”, Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The government researched and provided a decision that the proposed institution, Île-à-la-Crosse, does not meet the test set forth under article 12 of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The government has been unable to approve applications for compensation naming the Île-à-la-Crosse institution because it is does not qualify under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

In response to (b), the government has two historical records relating to the potential or possible admission of 14 students to the Île-à-la-Crosse Institution.

In response to (c), the unresolved issues of which the Prime Minister spoke about in the House of Commons on June 12, 2008 refer to the fact that Canada was not jointly or solely responsible for the operation of certain institutions and, as a result, cannot offer compensation under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Île-à-la-Crosse is one of the institutions in this category.

Question No. 32

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

Since February 2006, has the government engaged in any discussions, initiatives, proposals, or directives concerning changes to the existing military supply chain process for the Canadian Forces?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, Military supply chains are among the most complex in the world. In order to adapt to an environment of constant change, continuous improvement is an integral part of military supply chain management. Discussions are held between stakeholders on an ongoing basis to review the performance of the supply chain and its ability to respond to change in a timely manner. Risks and opportunities for improvement are identified and ongoing in areas such as inventory visibility, inventory velocity, and integration of both financial and materiel accountabilities.

Question No. 36

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

With respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments that were closed in Quebec in 2004: (a) five years later, what are the government’s plans for these nine detachments, specifically with respect to their possible reopening and to an increase in border staff; and (b) if an analysis of the positive and negative impacts of closing these detachments was done, what were the findings?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government has no current plans to review the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment closures that took place in the province of Quebec in 2004. These closures stemmed from the force’s strategic planning exercise to better align its resources with its organizational priorities. Key municipal and policing stakeholders were consulted as part of the strategic planning exercise to help maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of RCMP resources.

This government has been, and remains committed to enhancing the security of our border and helping to stem the flow of contraband and weapons entering the country that pose an important threat to the safety and security of our communities. This includes increased investments in the RCMP, as well as working closely with provincial, municipal, and U.S. partners to conduct threat assessments, identify new and emerging threats at the border and building upon successful border enforcement programs, such as Integrated border enforcement teams, to better deter, identify, and interdict organizations and individuals involved in cross-border crime. There are 24 integrated border enforcement teams strategically located along the Canada-U.S. border, including four teams operating in the province of Quebec.

In response to (b), the RCMP conducts regular border specific assessments. Based on the risks identified in those assessments and other factors such as the need for critical mass in certain locations, our resources are adequately deployed.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1, 5, 8, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 37 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

With respect to the Building Canada Fund (BCF): (a) in order of economic priority projects approved to date, (i) where are they located, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is the partners' contribution, (v) what is the total estimated cost, (vi) what were the criteria used in ranking the importance of the project, (vii) what is the benefit to Canadians, (viii) what is the number of jobs created during the construction period and number of permanent jobs created after completion of the project, (ix) what are the results of any environmental assessments and impact studies of the project; (b) what are the environmental projects approved in order of priority to date, (i) where are they located, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is the partners’ contribution, (v) what is the total estimated cost, (vi) what are the criteria used in ranking the importance of the project, (vii) what is the benefit to Canadians, (viii) what is the number of jobs created during the construction period and permanent jobs created after completion of the project, (ix) what are the results of any environmental assessments and impact studies of the project; (c) from the Public Private Partnership Fund which is a component of the BFC, (i) what are the number of projects approved, (ii) what are the locations of the projects, (iii) what is the cost per project, (iv) what is the federal contribution, (v) what is the private partner contribution, (vi) what is the benefit of the project, (vii) what is the demonstrated need for the project, (viii) what is the number of jobs created during construction, (ix) what is the number of permanent jobs to be created after completion; (d) under the Gateways and Border Crossing Fund, another component of the BCF, (i) what are the approvals to date of funding expenditures under this program, (ii) what are the criteria for the approval and anticipated outcomes, (iii) what is the priority ranking of the expenditure approval, (iv) what are the results of any environmental assessment, (v) what is its policy, (vi) what is its governance, (vii) what were the technology and marketing assessments used in determining the funding approval; and (e) under the Provincial-Territorial Base Funding component in the BCF, (i) what are the amounts given to each province and territory since the creation of this funding, (ii) what is the amount of funding used for safety-related rehabilitation of infrastructure in each province and territory, (iii) what are the projects where the improvements were made, (iv) what are the expenditures involved and the projected outcome of each improvement, (v) what is the amount of funding that has been used on non-core national highway system infrastructure and where, (vi) what is the amount of each provinces’ and territories’ matching contribution compared to the federal contribution for a total project cost?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 5

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

With respect to Canada's mission in Afghanistan and the transfer of detainees by the Canadian Forces (CF): (a) what is the total number of detainees transferred by the CF to other entities since the beginning of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, (i) on an annual basis, (ii) over the total length of the mission; (b) of the number in (a), what is the breakdown by (i) citizenship, (ii) sex, (iii) age; (c) to which entities have the detainees been transferred; (d) to which locations have the detainees been transferred; (e) what is the total number of detainees currently held by the CF; (f) of the number in (e), what is the breakdown by (i) citizenship, (ii) sex, (iii) age; (g) what is the total number of reports and allegations of abuse of prisoners captured by the CF filed by (i) the CF, (ii) Corrections Canada, (iii) RCMP since February 1, 2008; and (h) what are the titles of each report on Afghan detainees produced by Canadian officials and their publication date?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 8

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

With respect to the government’s actions to detect, prevent and treat Lyme disease in Canada: (a) by what standard is the accuracy of Lyme disease testing conducted at the National Microbiological Laboratories evaluated; (b) when was the most recent independent evaluation of the proficiency of this testing conducted, by whom and what were the results; (c) what are the current criteria for determining whether a geographical area is deemed to be endemic for Lyme-infected ticks; (d) what is the projected schedule of field study with regard to such endemic areas; (e) with respect to the recommendations of the National Conference on Lyme Disease hosted by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in March 2006, (i) have the committees to develop new guidelines on surveillance, clinical and laboratory criteria been formed and, if so, when have they met, (ii) what stakeholder groups have participated in the development of new guidelines, what form has that participation taken, and when did it occur; (f) what is the government's strategy to protect canadians from the increase in incidents of Lyme disease anticipated by PHAC; (g) what is PHAC's strategy to increase (i) physicians' and other health professionals' awareness of the symptoms of Lyme disease, (ii) the canadian public's awareness of the symptoms of Lyme disease; (h) what measures has the PHAC taken in conjunction with provincial health authorities to increase professional and public awareness; (i) what are PHAC's measurable targets for the future increase of awareness and diagnostic accuracy of Lyme disease; (j) does Health Canada recommend the screening of blood for Lyme disease or co-infections such as babesiosis, as done in the United States and, if not, why not; and (k) what research projects into lyme borelia and tick-borne co-infections, their epidemiology, their possible role in the occurence of other diseases, and their treatment are currently being funded by the government and have been government funded during the past five years?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 16

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

With respect to the distribution of jobs in the government and all federal organizations in the National Capital Region: (a) how many jobs have there been on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region each year since March 31, 2004; and (b) how many jobs have there been on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region each year since March 31, 2004?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 17

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

With respect to the square meters occupied by the federal government and all federal organisations in the National Capital Regions: (a) how many square meters have been used on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region each year since March 31, 2004; and (b) how many square meters have been used on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region wach year since March 31, 2004?

(Return tabled)