Debates of Sept. 14th, 2009

Question No. 296

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

With regard to the Agriculture Minister’s 2008 request for his then-Parliamentary Secretary Guy Lauzon to conduct a study on the future of agriculture, trends in agriculture and how to attract youth to agriculture: (a) what were the findings of this report; (b) when was the report completed and presented to the Minister; (c) what communities were visited by the Parliamentary Secretary as part of the research, (i) who did he meet with in compiling his information, including their names, positions, associations represented and stakeholders in the agriculture industry, (ii) what documents were submitted for this report; (d) what were the dates, times and locations of town hall meetings held in researching this paper; (e) what were the costs associated with producing this report, including travel, meals, hospitality, meeting venues, support staff, and accomodation; (f) why has the study not been tabled in Parliament; and (g) what are the government's plans for acting on this report?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), (b), (f) and (g), no report was produced as the 40th General Election occurred ending the activities of the 39th Parliament.

In response to (c), the parliamentary secretary visited Chilliwack, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Ridgetown, Ontario; Vineland, Ontario; St. John’s, Newfoundland.

In response to (i), the parliamentary secretary met with a select group of young farmers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario (two sessions), and Newfoundland and Labrador. The sessions averaged between 8 and 12 participants.

The young farmers were chosen as individuals based on the recommendations of regional representatives from the following four organizations: Canadian 4-H Council, 4-H; Canadian Farm Business Management Council, CFMBC; Canada’s Outstanding Young Farmers’ Program, COYFP; and Canadian Young Farmers’ Forum, CYFF.

Neither the parliamentary secretary nor his office was involved in suggesting or choosing participants.

The participants were chosen for their ability to engage in a frank and open discussion on issues and concerns that most directly affect young and new farmers. Participants were not chosen as representatives of any association or stakeholder organization, or in any other official capacity.

Sections 19(1) and 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act preclude us from sharing the names of the participants.

In response to (ii), no documents were submitted as no report was produced due to the 40th general election occurring ending the activities of the 39th Parliament.

In response to (d), the dates, times and locations of town hall meetings held in researching this paper are: Chilliwack, British Columbia, Best Western Rainbow Country Inn, July 7, 2008, 09:00 to 11:00; Calgary, Alberta, Ramada Hotel, Downtown Calgary, July 9, 2008, 09:30 to 11:00; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, University of Saskatchewan, July 10, 2008, 09:00 to 11:00; Ridgetown, Ontario, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, August 19, 2008, 09:00 to 11:00; Vineland, Ontario, Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre, August 21, 2008, 09:00 to 11:00; and St. John's, Newfoundland, Quality Hotel Harbourview, August 28, 2008, 14:00 to 16:00.

In response to (e), the costs associated with producing this report, including travel, meals, hospitality, meeting venues, support staff, and accommodation were $15,931.22

Question No. 302

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

With respect to political meetings held at Blatchford Lake Lodge, Northwest Territories, on the weekend of February 27 to March 1, 2009, which led to the creation of a political declaration for the Northwest Territories (NWT Declaration): (a) was the Manager, Indian and Northern Affairs Aboriginal Economic Development, Northwest Territories (Mr. Altaf Lakhani), in attendance at these meetings and, if so, why was a senior civil servant in attendance at a political meeting; (b) what, if any, role did Mr. Lakhani play in organizing these meetings; (c) what, if any, role did Mr. Lakhani play at the meetings; (d) what, if any, activities did Mr. Lakhani take part in following the meetings which were connected to the meeting or the NWT Declaration; (e) was Mr. Lakhani involved in any follow-up meetings or activities either flowing from these meetings or in connection with the NWT Declaration and, if so, when and where were these meetings held; (f) if Mr. Lakhani took part in any activities following the Blatchford Lake meetings what were these activities; (g) were government funds provided either directly or through another person or organization to organize, conduct or carry out follow-up activities related to this or other meetings or the NWT Declaration; (h) if government funds were dispersed, what were the amounts; (i) which persons or organizations received these funds; (j) under which government programs were such funds dispersed; and (k) if any government funds were dispersed, who authorized the release of these funds?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Mr. Altaf Lakhani was in attendance as a private citizen, not in his capacity as a public servant.

In response to (b), Mr. Lakhani was an invited participant and did not play any role in organizing the meetings.

In response to (c), Mr. Lakhani was invited for the exchange of ideas.

In response to (d), there was no further involvement by Mr. Lakhani following these meetings connected to the NWT declaration.

In response to (e), there was no further involvement of Mr. Lakhani in any follow-up meetings or activities.

In response to (f), there were none.

In response to (g), government funds were not provided either directly or through another person or organization to organize, conduct or carry out follow-up activities related to this or other meetings or the NWT declaration.

In response to (h), there were none provided.

In response to (i), there were none.

In response to (j), none were dispersed.

In response to (k), none were released.

Question No. 305

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With respect to phytosanitary management, what measures, if any, are in place to prevent the transmission or spread of potato wart and golden nematode: (a) from Newfoundland to Labrador; (b) within Labrador; (c) from Labrador to any other part of Canada; (d) if no such measures are in place, are any such measures being planned or otherwise under consideration; and (e) if so, what are they?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s, CFIA, mandate and priorities include preventing the spread of quarantine pests within Canada. Control of such pests is pursued primarily under provisions of the Plant Protection Act and, for potatoes, relevant provisions of the Seeds Regulations Part II. Newfoundland and Labrador is designated as a quarantine area in relation to potato wart, PW, and potato cyst nematode, PCN, with provisions in place to mitigate the spread of these pests from and within the province.

The primary control measures to prevent spread of PW and PCN within Newfoundland and Labrador have been the planting of pest-free seed potatoes combined with the use of varieties that are resistant to these pests. The CFIA, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the provincial government in Newfoundland have also implemented programs to support and encourage private gardeners to plant PW- and PCN-resistant varieties.

The mainland areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, commonly referred to as Labrador, have been surveyed for PW and PCN. PCN has not been found in mainland Labrador. PW is present but only in private gardens and is not found in any of the commercial agricultural fields that exist. Measures are in place to suppress PW and prevent its spread, including soil surveys, encouragement of the use of potato varieties resistant to PW, and agricultural extension that includes good management practices that will assist in pest suppression. These measures are pursued in partnership with the provincial government.

PCN and PW are both present on the island of Newfoundland. The movement of soil, potato wart and PCN from Newfoundland is restricted legislatively under the Plant Protection Act and its regulations. In addition, under this legislation, the CFIA has the authority to impose individual notices restricting movement of regulated articles from specific gardens or fields known to be infested with PCN or PW.

Existing CFIA plant protection activities designed to prevent the spread of PCN and PW are routinely reviewed. In addition, the CFIA monitors for any changes that may indicate an increased risk of the spread of these pests to non-infested agricultural areas of Labrador or other Canadian provinces. If an increased risk were to be identified, alternative measures could be developed and implemented to mitigate the risk appropriately.

The current PCN and PW measures have proven to be effective in mitigating the risk of spreading PCN from the island of Newfoundland to Labrador and other parts of Canada, and of PW from Newfoundland and Labrador to other Canadian provinces.

Legislative restrictions for PW and PCN are specified in schedule I and schedule II of the Plant Protection Regulations, SOR/2001-287, s. 1; SOR/2004-80, s. 18.

Schedule I, entitled “Prohibited Movement within Canada”, contains the following movement restriction intended to prevent potato varieties susceptible to PW from being produced on the island of Newfoundland:

3. Movement of potato varieties with blue or purple skin (except for the varieties: Brigus, Blue Mac, A.C. Blue Pride and A.C. Domino, and any potato variety to be used for research purposes by a government, an educational institution or a corporation) is prohibited from the rest of Canada into Newfoundland.

Schedule II, subsection 50(3) and sections 51 and 52, of the Plant Protection Regulations, SOR/2001-287, s. 1; SOR/2004-80, s. 18., is entitled “Restricted Movement within Canada”. The relevant provisions relating to PW and PCN are provided below:

29. All plants produced within Newfoundland are restricted from moving to all other areas of Canada, based on the requirement for a movement certificate.

38. Soil, compost material, peat moss or anything with soil, compost material or peat moss attached are restricted from moving from Newfoundland to all other areas of Canada by the requirement for a movement certificate.

43. In order to be moved from Newfoundland to other areas of Canada, used bags, boxes, containers and other articles used to move root-crops, soil, compost material or peat moss are required to be free from soil, compost material and peat moss, or to have been subjected to a treatment or process to eradicate PCN and PW.

49. Used vehicles and equipment that are or may be infested must be free from soil and must exit the island of Newfoundland through an inspection centre with washing stations at Argentia, Port aux Basques, St. John’s or Cornerbrook.

Question No. 308

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

With respect to the Algoma Tankers Limited application to the Department of Finance regarding a remission order for the recently paid import duty on the new petroleum product tankers, Algonova and AlgoCanada: (a) when will a decision be rendered on this application; (b) what are the qualifications necessary for a successful application; (c) have there been any consultations with any of the following organizations regarding this application, including, the Shipbuilders Association of Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the Canadian Shipowners Association, the Chamber of Marine Commerce and the Ontario Marine Transportation Forums and, if so, what has been the result of those consultations?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), this application for duty remission on the two tankers imported by Algoma Tankers Limited is currently under review by the Department of Finance. Once the review is completed, the department will make its recommendation to the Minister of Finance for his consideration.

In response to (b), in any remission request, the applicant is asked to provide the department with evidence supporting its request, including, inter alia, the effect the payment of the duties would have on its operations. As part of the process, the department also consults with all relevant stakeholders to seek their views on the remission request. Each application is reviewed on its own merits to determine whether duty remission is in the overall economic interest of Canada. A number of factors are taken into consideration in this review, including, inter alia, the results of consultations with all relevant stakeholders. Once the review is completed, the department makes a recommendation to the Minister of Finance for his consideration.

In response to (c), as part of broad consultations undertaken by the Department of Finance on this remission request, views were received from the following stakeholders: Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Canadian Shipowners Association, Chamber of Marine Commerce, Algoma Central Corporation, Imperial Oil, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation and the Ontario Marine Transportation Forum. The department also consulted officials at Industry Canada and Transport Canada. The views of all stakeholders will be fully considered as the department prepares its recommendation to the Minister of Finance.

Question No. 310

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

With respect to the Toronto Port Authority (TPA), will the government: (a) conduct an internal and external audit, as requested in a letter to the Minister of Transport outlined by four directors of the TPA, on the management of the Port Authority by the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) during 2008; (b) disclose the legal advice to the Board of Directors of the TPA, as obtained by the former CEO in 2008; (c) order the minutes of TPA meetings from 2008 be released from abeyance; (d) provide a justification of the $80,000 in hospital and travel expenses in 2007 and part of 2008, incurred by the CEO, while operating a deficit; (e) provide a justification for changing the constitution of the TPA by expanding two extra members onto the Board; and (f) ensure no board member has a conflict of interest, and that all board members act in an ethical manner?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), section 41 of the Canada Marine Act requires that Canada port authorities undergo a special examination every five years, to allow an examiner to report on the port authority’s practices and protocols, including those related to financial management and control. The Toronto Port Authority has indicated that it will soon undertake its second special examination under this provision, and it should be completed prior to the end of this fiscal year. These reviews are conducted by a qualified, independent auditor.

In response to (b), the legal advice provided to the board of directors of the Toronto Port Authority belongs to the authority, and the decision to disclose the advice provided rests with the board.

In response to (c), paragraph 7(2)(b) of the Port Authorities Management Regulations requires any port authority to “prepare and maintain … at its registered office or at such other place in Canada as the board of directors thinks fit, a record of the minutes of meetings and resolutions of the board of directors and committees of directors.” This requirement to keep minutes of board meetings is consistent with good governance practices. This provision does not require Canada port authorities to make minutes of meetings public. Furthermore, the minister does not hold copies of the minutes.

In response to (d), the member of Parliament for Trinity--Spadina has been provided with a listing of travel and hospitality expenses incurred by the former chief executive officer of the Toronto Port Authority in 2007 and 2008, Question No. 61, February 19, 2009.

In response to (e), section 8 of the Canada Marine Act stipulates that the board of directors of a Canada port authority shall consist of between seven and eleven members. In December 2008, the Toronto Port Authority’s supplementary letters patent were amended, as permitted under the act, to increase membership on the board of directors from seven directors to nine.

A significant increase in airport operations and the need to ensure adequate representation of all port stakeholders led the government to increase membership on the board of directors at the Toronto Port Authority. The operation of an airport, in addition to a working port, requires additional governance oversight. The increase in membership was taken in the interests of strengthening the authority’s governance structure and the board’s ability to deal with complex issues facing the Toronto Port Authority. The individuals added to the board need to be people that know local issues and have valuable experience to bring to the table.

In response to (f), members of the board of directors at the Toronto Port Authority have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the port. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities takes allegations of conflict of interest on the board very seriously, and will consider the findings of any reviews or investigations related to the Toronto Port Authority.

In April 2006, the then minister of transport requested that a review of the Toronto Port Authority be undertaken to ensure that the principles of accountability and good governance had been upheld in decisions and actions taken by the Toronto Port Authority. The review of the Toronto Port Authority resulted in a comprehensive report on the Toronto Port Authority and satisfied the former minister that the board and management of the Toronto Port Authority had upheld the principles of accountability and good governance.

Question No. 312

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

With respect to section 162 of the Federal Accountability Act passed on December 12, 2006, what expenses were incurred by the office of the head of each department or ministry of state in fiscal year 2006-2007 for: (a) personnel; (b) transportation and communications; (c) information services, and (d) professional and special services?

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

Mr. Speaker, this information was not centrally tracked prior to the coming into force of the Federal Accountability Act. Data gathering and reporting procedures were amended to report this information in the Public Accounts of Canada on a go forward basis commencing for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Question No. 313

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

With respect to the government's decision to increase the lowest personal income tax bracket from 15% to 15.5% in Budget 2006: (a) what was the justification for the increase; (b) what was the total revenue generated by the tax increase; and (c) why the government felt it was necessary to lower the rate back to 15%?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the lowest personal income tax rate remained at the legislated level of 16 per cent until following the budget tabled in the House of Commons on May 2, 2006.

Budget 2006 announced a permanent reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate from 16 per cent to 15.5 per cent effective July 1, 2006. Subsequently, this reduction was legislated in C-13: an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, Royal Assent given on June 22, 2006.

More information on budget 2006 is available at www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/bp/bptoc-eng.asp.

In response to part (b), as explained in part (a), only following the budget tabled in the House of Commons on May 2, 2006 was a reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate legislated. No revenue was generated by the measure. Indeed, as detailed in the budget 2006 document (see Table 3.6), reducing the lowest rate provided total tax relief of about $6.3 billion over the 2005-06 to 2007-08 period.

In response to part (c), the lowest personal income tax rate was reduced further to 15 per cent in the economic statement tabled in the House of Commons on October 30, 200, available at http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoc/2007/ec07_-eng.asp.

The motivation for this reduction was clearly stated in that document (please see page 7), “Canada’s economic and fiscal fundamentals are rock solid, yet the world economy is experiencing turbulence and increased uncertainty. Given this global economic uncertainty, now is the time to act. Our strong fiscal position provides Canada with an opportunity that few other countries have—to make broad-based tax reductions that will strengthen our economy, stimulate investment and create more and better jobs”.

Subsequently, this reduction was legislated in C-28: an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, Royal Assent given on December 14, 2007.

A vast array of public-interest groups heralded this important reduction. For instance, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation cheered that “all taxpayers are benefitting today on the personal income tax side. This is certainly a very good announcement today, and it is an amount that is going to be felt and noticed by Canadian taxpayers." The Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce also proclaimed, “Canadians are overtaxed and (the economic statement 2007) announcements take concrete measures to address the situation in an immediate and bold fashion. These measures are particularly welcome as global competitive pressures intensify and underscore the need for international tax competitiveness… the reduction in the lowest marginal personal income tax rate to 15 per cent will help stimulate work effort, saving and investment, all of which have a direct bearing on productivity, competitiveness and prosperity”.

Question No. 314

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

With respect to government action in the case of Mr. Muhammad Kohail, what was every official communication with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while respecting Mr. Kohail's right to privacy by not revealing the substance of the communication and, specifically, (i) who initiated the communication, (ii) who was involved on behalf of the Canadian government, (iii) who was involved on behalf of the Saudi government, (iv) what was the date of the communication, (v) what was the method of communication?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, since his arrest in Saudi Arabia in January 2007, consular officials in Ottawa and in Saudi Arabia have been actively providing assistance and support to Mohamed Kohail, his brother, Sultan, and their family. In March 2008, following the death sentence imposed by the Saudi Court, the Government of Canada announced that it would seek clemency for Mohamed Kohail.

The Government of Canada has raised Mohamed Kohail’s case at the ministerial level at every opportunity. During a trip to Saudi Arabia in March 2008, the then Minister for Public Safety raised the case with Prince Muqrin, President of the Saudi General Intelligence Service. The Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote and spoke to his Saudi counterpart, Prince Saud Al-Faisal in May 2008. The Minister for Natural Resources raised the case with the Saudi Oil Minister while in Jeddah in late June 2008.

In December 2008, the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised the case during a phone call with Prince Saud al-Faisal. During a visit to Saudi Arabia in December 2008, the Parliamentary Secretary met with senior officials at the Saudi Human Rights Commission and the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs to raise the case. The Parliamentary Secretary also met with the Saudi Minister of Justice to reiterate the Government of Canada's concerns. In February 2009, the Minister of Agriculture raised the case to his Saudi counterpart during a visit to Saudi Arabia. Finally, in June 2009, the Minister of International Trade raised the case with the Governor of Jeddah and the President of the Saudi Human Rights Commission during a visit to Saudi Arabia. The minister also met with the Kohail family to reiterate the Government of Canada’s commitment to pursuing all avenues to provide assistance to their sons.

Consular officials at the Canadian Embassy in Riyadh continue to closely monitor Mohamed Kohail’s case and remain in regular contact with Saudi authorities at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by means of diplomatic notes and meetings. They are also in regular contact with prison officials in Jeddah to ensure that concerns regarding Mr. Kohail’s welfare are promptly addressed. When allegations of mistreatment were brought to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ attention in 2007, consular officials immediately raised the matter with Saudi authorities, including by diplomatic note, to request a thorough investigation into the matter.

The former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and the current Chargé d’Affaires have raised the case with senior level Saudi authorities both in writing and in meetings, including the Saudi Minister of Justice, the Governor of Mecca, and the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Deputy Minister for Consular Affairs.

During an April 2008 trip to Saudi Arabia, the Director of the Consular Case Management Division and the Director of the Gulf and Maghreb Division met with key officials including the Director of Judiciary Affairs at the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In November 2008, at the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ instruction, the Director General of the Consular Operations Bureau and the Director General of the Middle East Bureau met with the Saudi Chargé d’Affaires in Ottawa to raise the case. The Director of Gulf and Maghreb Division met with the Head of the Legal Department at the Saudi MFA to raise the case in November 2008.

In accordance with the Access to Information Act, Section 15, detailed responses to questions (i) to (v) could be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, and will not be released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Question No. 315

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Since the government announced plans for the construction of a $720 million polar ice breaker to be named HMCS Diefenbaker: (a) what progress has been made to date on this project; (b) have design contracts been awarded and, if so, to whom; (c) has the government altered its plans on the Diefenbaker by shelving the project and, if so, (i) when was the decision made, (ii) on who’s recommendation, (iii) what is the rational for the curtailment, (iv) why was this information not made public; (d) what is the latest estimated cost for the Diefenbaker; and (e) has the government decided to reassess the plans for the Diefenbaker in favour of recapitalizing the Coast Guard fleet on a more useful basis, with the support of the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2008 providing funding of $720M to procure a Polar Icebreaker to replace Canadian Coast Guard Ship (CCGS) Louis S. St. Laurent, currently Canada’s most capable Heavy Icebreaker, at the end of her planned operational life in 2017. The Polar Icebreaker will provide Canada with an enhanced Arctic capability to operate farther North and over a longer period each year than is currently the case.

In response to (a), to date the following progress has been achieved:

(1) Establishment of positions and hiring of key project personnel;

(2) Broad consultation with internal and external project stakeholders to develop a preliminary mission profile for this new class of vessel; and with project definition phase of the project.

In response to (b), design contracts have not yet been awarded.

In response to (c), the procurement process for the acquisition of the Polar Icebreaker, to be named CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, is unfolding on schedule. The government has not altered any plans in this regard and remains fully committed to this project as a key component of Canada’s Northern Strategy initiative.

In response to (d), the total estimated cost for the project is $720 million.

In response to (e), the government has not reassessed its plans regarding the Diefenbaker. The project remains on schedule and delivery is planned for 2017. The Canadian Coast Guard’s current approach to fleet operations is that all vessels are multi-tasked as the most efficient and effective means of maintaining its assets and delivering on its mandated programs and providing support to and working closely with other government departments and agencies.

Question No. 324

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

With regards to passenger rail in Northern Ontario: (a) have there been any proposals, initiatives, reports or studies on expanding service to Thunder Bay since 1990; (b) what is the estimated cost of expanding service to Thunder Bay; (c) what would be the estimated boost in ridership with extension to Thunder Bay; (d) what is the total cost of current Via Rail operations in the region; (e) what is the total revenue from the region; (f) what capital assets are owned in the region; and (g) what is the proportion of freight traffic to passenger traffic in the region?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in August/September 2000, VIA Rail undertook a preliminary internal review of a number of train service proposals including the re-routing of “The Canadian” through the Thunder Bay/Lake Superior route on Canadian Pacific Railway infrastructure. This would also necessitate the introduction of a Capreol-Hornepayne-Winnipeg local service to maintain access for remote communities along the present route of of “The Canadian” on the Canadian National Railway line.

In response to (b), the incremental costs of introducing this combined service change, based on the 2000 estimate, would be $5.9 million annual operating costs plus capital expenditures of $17.9 million for rolling stock and stations.

In response to (c), a market assessment of the potential impact on ridership levels has not been undertaken.

In response to (d), the total annual operating cost of VIA Rail operations in the area (i.e. Sudbury – White River service) is $2.6 million.

In response to e) Total revenue from the region (i.e. Sudbury – White River service) is $183,000.

In response to (f), capital assets owned in the region include station facilities in Washago, Sudbury Junction, Capreol, and Foleyet.

In response to g) VIA does not have information with respect to the proportion of freight traffic.

Question No. 329

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

With respect to Health Canada and the Canadian Apheresis Group: (a) is the Minister of Health going to submit a Treasury Board submission that would renew the mandate for funding that was given by the Canadian Blood Committee and the Canadian Blood Agency (October 1997); and (b) since existing funding is expected to expire on March 15, 2010, will the government show a renewed commitment to this group by granting permanent funding?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the 1997 federal-provincial-territorial memorandum of understanding on the establishment of the National Blood Authority, Health Canada provides funds to the Canadian Blood Services, CBS, for research and development on blood safety and effectiveness ($5M/annum since 2000-2001). Beginning in 2008, Health Canada also provides funds to CBS to improve the delivery of organ and tissue donation and transplantation activities in Canada ($3.58M /annum between April 2008 and March 2013).

Funding to the Canadian Apheresis Group ended in 2003. There is no current funding agreement between Health Canada nor the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Apheresis Group.

Question No. 337

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

With regard to the November 2006 funding announcement made by then-Health Minister Tony Clement detailing a five-point plan for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) funding in Canada, what are the details regarding: (a) the status of the commitment to sponsor an ASD stakeholder symposium; (b) the status of the commitment to establish a chair focusing on interventions and treatment for ASD; (c) the status of the commitment to undertake a consultation process to see how an ASD surveillance program could be set up through the Public Health Agency of Canada; (d) the status of the commitment to establish a dedicated web page on the Health Canada website with ASD information and resources; (e) the status of the commitment to designate the Health Policy Branch of Health Canada as the ASD lead for actions related to ASD at the federal health portfolio level; and (f) how much federal funding these and other autism programs will receive during the fiscal year 2009-2010?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), with regard to the commitment to sponsor an ASD stakeholder symposium, in November 2007, a national symposium on autism research was hosted by Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, to share knowledge and to support dialogue on future research priorities. The report from this Symposium is now available on the CIHR web site.

In response to (b), with regard to the commitment to establish a chair focusing on interventions and treatment for ASD, funding for an autism research chair to address issues related to treatments and interventions was announced at Simon Fraser University on October 20, 2007. This joint initiative with the Government of British Columbia is being supported with $1M in federal funding over five years. Efforts to establish a Chair are currently underway by Simon Fraser University.

In response to (c), between November 2007 and May 2008, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, undertook a consultation process to examine options for the development of an Autism Spectrum Disorders, ASD, surveillance program in Canada. This process was guided by a steering committee comprised of ASD experts, and included three components:

1. an environmental scan of the current scope of ASD surveillance activities in Canada;

2. a technical workshop on the information needs and data collection options for ASD surveillance; and

3. a broader stakeholder consultation on the information needs of ASD communities and how they would like surveillance information disseminated to them.

The results of this consultation process will be used by PHAC as it undertakes a new national surveillance system for developmental disorders such as autism. This initiative, a component of the federal government’s 2008 action plan to protect human health from environmental contaminants, will be a national sentinel surveillance program to track and assess the linkages between environmental contamination and developmental disorders such as sensory impairments, autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Using centres for surveillance expertise, data will be collected from a variety of local sources such as schools, hospitals, community paediatricians, and other health professionals.

In response to (d), with respect to the commitment to establish a dedicated web page on the Health Canada website with ASD information and resources, the website has been created. It provides facts and information on ASD, as well as links to Canadian and International autism organizations. The website can be found at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/dc-ma/autism-eng.php As well, in 2007-08 Health Canada provided $50,000 to the Offord Centre for Child Studies (a research centre dedicated to improving the life quality of children with mental health and developmental problems) to support the dissemination of the latest evidence pertaining to autism through the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network, CAIRN, via the Network’s website. The Canadian Autism Intervention Network, CAIRN, is a group of parents, clinicians and scientists working to conduct research in early intervention in autism, and is part of the Offord Centre for Child Studies. The web page on the Health Canada website links to the CAIRN website in order to direct Canadians to evidence-based information of a more clinical nature, and complement the content on the Departmental site.

In response to (e), with respect to the commitment to designate the Health Policy Branch of Health Canada as the ASD lead for actions related to ASD at the federal health portfolio level, this was done in 2007. Since then, the Health Policy Branch has become the Strategic Policy Branch, and the Chronic and Continuing Care Division within the Branch holds the lead on the ASD file.

In response to (f), with respect to federal funding for autism related initiatives during fiscal year 2009-10, the federal government has committed $200,000 to Simon Fraser University, as part of the $1M over five years for the Autism Research Chair. In addition, the federal government has a multi-year contribution agreement with the Offord Centre for Child Studies, with $25,000 in 2008-2009 and $50,000 in 2009-10, for a total of $75,000 over two years. This funding will support the development and dissemination of research priorities in Autism Spectrum Disorders, ASD, among parents, policy makers, researchers, health professionals, health educators and individuals with ASD. This work will be accomplished through a national on-line survey, a national conference in fall 2009, and by further updating the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network website, which is the primary bilingual source for disseminating evidence-based information about ASD in Canada. In fiscal year 2009-10, CIHR has currently committed approximately $3.4 million towards autism research.

Question No. 342

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Concerning the establishment of future permanent full service passport offices throughout Canada: (a) does Passport Canada have a long term plan to increase the number of permanent full service passport offices, (i) if yes, what is the break down and timeline for the establishments of these offices, (ii) if no, is Passport Canada looking at developing such a plan; (b) has Passport Canada considered opening full service passport offices utilising the infrastructure that currently exists in local Service Canada outlets; (c) has Passport Canada considered using the trained staff that are tasked as frontline customer service worker to staff new regional full service passport offices; and (d) has Passport Canada looked into regional disparities in obtainning passports in relation to their current full service offices, (i) if yes, what recommendations were presented, (ii) if not, does Passport Canada intend on conducting such a study?