This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was funding.

Topics

Question No. 346Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

With regard to the increased authorities provided to the National Energy Board through Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures: (a) will the Board provide funding to interveners for environmental reviews; (b) what standards will the Board apply to determine if an environmental review is required; (c) will the Board conduct all of its environmental hearings in public and close to the location of a project under environmental review; (d) will the Board be increasing its staff size in order to provide expertise in environmental assessments; and (e) what appeal mechanisms will be in place for environmental decisions made by the Board?

Question No. 346Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board, NEB, will establish a participant funding program, PFP, as provided by part 19 of the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, which received royal assent on July 12, 2010. The PFP will be modeled on the PFP offered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and would apply to public hearing processes for major energy projects. Detailed PFP eligibility and application guidelines will be posted on the NEB website following necessary approvals. The NEB considers environmental matters in all of its decisions regarding energy facilities. Most of those decisions also trigger a federal environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEAA, and the NEB ensures that a federal EA is conducted according to the CEAA.

All NEB hearings and environmental assessments are public; the NEB always tries to schedule public hearings in locations near affected communities, to make it as convenient as possible for interested persons to participate in the hearing. Furthermore, the NEB currently performs its own environmental assessments and has the full required expertise to do so. At the moment, the board has approximately 50 staff dedicated to environmental, socio-economic, lands and stakeholder engagement. It is important to note that Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, will not create an overload of work for the NEB. In this context, presently, the NEB does not anticipate it will be necessary to increase the number of staff working in this area.

With regard to appeal mechanisms, any decisions relating to environmental matters made by the board will be included and become part of a decision of the board made either pursuant to section 52 or 58 of the National Energy Board Act, hereinafter referred to as the act. An individual or other interested party, wishing to appeal a decision of the board may, pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the act, request that the board review the decision in question. Should the board proceed with a review and subsequently determine a change to its decision and/or certificate or order is warranted, the board has powers, under subsection 21(2) of the act, to vary these instruments on its own for section 58 orders, or subject to the approval of the Governor in Council in the case of a section 52 certificate. An individual or other interested party may also appeal a decision or order of the board, including a review decision of the board, discussed abov), to the Federal Court of Appeal on a question of law or of jurisdiction. However, the person must first obtain leave to appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal.

Question No. 347Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

With regard to the regulation of aviation, taking into consideration that airships could be operating in Canada in the near future: (a) has there been research into the need for regulation of airships; (b) has there been research into what regulations should be in place for the safe and secure construction, operation and maintenance of airships; (c) what are the regulatory requirements for the certification of airship pilots; (d) what are the regulatory requirements for the construction, operation and maintenance of airship aerodromes; (e) if there are no regulations concerning airships, will the government develop such regulations and what is the timeline for developing these regulations; and (f) if no preparatory work has been done concerning the development of regulations for airships, why not?

Question No. 347Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), while there is some industry interest in future development of airships capable of transporting more than nine passengers, no application has been made to Transport Canada for such an aircraft, nor has any specific future application been identified.

In response to (b), the existing design requirements for airships are detailed in Airworthiness Manual 541, and existing manufacturing requirements and operating rules are stipulated in Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 561. There is currently no plan to further review requirements for airship design, operation or maintenance, as the department has not been approached by the industry to do so.

In response to (c), the Canadian Aviation Regulation 421.25 details the licensing requirements for balloon pilots, which are also applicable to airship pilots. The licensing requirements stipulate a pilot’s minimum age, medical fitness, knowledge, experience and skill. The Canadian Aviation Regulation 421.40 details the licensing requirements for proof of experience and skill to obtain an airship or powered balloon endorsement.

In response (d), the Canadian Aviation Regulations provide the regulatory requirements for the construction, operation and maintenance of all aerodromes, as opposed to requirements for aerodromes that will specifically be used by airships. The Canadian Aviation Regulation subpart 301 contains the regulatory requirements for the operation of all aerodromes and the Canadian Aviation Regulation subpart 302 contains the regulatory requirements for the operation of airports, also known as certified aerodromes. Where an airship is used at an airport, or certified aerodrome, particular attention must be paid to the requirements for obstacle limitation surfaces, OLS, around the airport, as the airship itself could become an obstacle depending on its parking position. In the event that the OLS are jeopardized, operational restrictions or changes to the level of service of a particular runway may be implemented to satisfy the regulatory requirements.

In response to (e), requirements for airships are already addressed by Transport Canada’s existing regulations, as explained in parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the response.

In response to (f), requirements for airships are already addressed by Transport Canada’s existing regulations, as explained in parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the response.

Question No. 353Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

What is the status of the port promised by the Prime Minister for Iqaluit?

Question No. 353Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Nanisivik Naval Facility is to have an upgraded berthing capability with a modern fuel farm and a small administrative, services and utilities building. In November 2009, a design contract for just under $900,000 was awarded to WorleyParsons Westmar Limited from North Vancouver, British Columbia. This is the first of the project’s four design phases. The initial design phase is complete and phase two will be awarded shortly. Phase two will provide a recommended option that will lay the foundation for the remaining design phases.

In addition to design work, detailed studies such as geotechnical investigations, wharf structural inspection, topographical and environmental assessment will be required.

It is anticipated that major construction work at the Nanisivik Naval Facility could begin in 2012, once all the necessary assessments are completed, approvals are in place and clean up of the former facility is finished or sufficiently completed in order to have access to the site. Completion of the Nanisivik Naval Facility is scheduled for 2015.

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

September 20th, 2010 / 3:20 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 331. I ask that the question and answer to Question No. 331 be printed in Hansard as if read.

*Question No. 331Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

With respect to the funding from the Canadian International Development Agency, and in follow-up to the January 21, 2010 letter from KAIROS addressed to the Prime Minister: (a) for what reasons was KAIROS recently refused funding; and (b) does either the Prime Minister or the Minister of International Cooperation intend to meet directly with this organization to discuss this issue?

*Question No. 331Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Durham Ontario

Conservative

Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, In response to (a), KAIROS was recently refused funding as it was determined that KAIROS’ 2009 program proposal did not meet the government's priorities. Unlike many other NGOs making proposals to CIDA, KAIROS is a coalition of several member organizations, some of which continue to receive separate funding from CIDA. KAIROS submitted a new proposal in April 2010, which is now undergoing CIDA’s standard evaluation process.

In response to (b), the Minister of International Cooperation met with KAIROS on December 8, 2009.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, supplementary responses to Question No. 163 originally tabled on May 11, 2010 and Question No. 175 originally answered on May 25, 2010 will be tabled today.

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278, 283, 285, 288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 309, 311, 313, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324, 325, 328, 332, 334, 335, 336, 339, 341, 342, 344, 345, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352 and 354 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 163Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

With respect to the use of the government-owned fleet of Challenger jets from January 2002 until January 2006 and for each use of the aircraft: (a) what are the names and titles of the passengers present on the flight manifest; (b) what were all the departure and arrival points of the aircraft; (c) who requested access to the fleet; (d) who authorized the flight; (e) what is the number of flying hours accumulated; and (f) what are the associated costs?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 175Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to all government advertising to promote the Government of Canada and budget initiatives, such as Canada’s Economic Action plan, from January 1, 2006 to March 30, 2010: (a) how much has been spent on an annual basis on combined advertising, by department and budgetary initiative; (b) by how much did the government’s overall advertising budget increase or decrease during that period; (c) was any completed advertising audited or rejected for not adhering to Treasury Board rules and, if so, (i) what advertising, (ii) what was the total value of rejected or audited advertising; (d) what advertising was related to tax relief and what was its total cost by year; (e) what companies received contracts to complete this advertising work and what is the total cost, by department and budgetary initiative, on an annual basis; (f) how much has been spent per province on an annual basis; and (g) what contracts were awarded without tender and what is the total amount, by department and budgetary initiative, on an annual basis?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 241Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

With regard to government spending on Google adWords since January 2006: (a) how much has each department spent; (b) what keywords were chosen; (c) what daily limits were set; (d) what was the cost of each keyword; and (e) how many clicks were made per keyword?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 242Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

With regard to government action on tuberculosis (TB) since January 2006: (a) what national and international programs are being operated by the government to combat the disease; (b) how much money has the government spent on those programs in each year since January 2006; (c) what is the rate of TB in Canada for each month since January 2006; (d) what is the mortality rate for TB in Canada for each year since January 2006; and (e) what research to combat the disease is being funded by the government?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 243Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

With regard to the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, for each year from 2006 up to and including the current year, broken down by department: (a) how many federal employees and individual contractors were subject to garnishment of salaries and other remuneration; (b) what is the total amount of money required under the Act to be garnished from the salaries and other remuneration of federal employees and individual contractors; (c) how many times has a cheque been sent to the court or the provincial enforcement agency 16 or more days following the debtor’s pay period; (d) what is the total amount of money that has been sent to the court or the provincial enforcement agency 16 or more days following the debtor’s pay period ; and (e) how many times has the Crown been held in contempt of court?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 244Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

With regard to the government’s handling of fraudulent marriages, for each month since January 2006: (a) how many permanent residency applications have been refused based on fraudulent marriages; (b) how many permanent residents have been deported because of fraudulent marriages; (c) how much has Citizenship and Immigration spent investigating fraudulent marriages; (d) how many government employees are assigned to the investigation of fraudulent marriages; (e) how many reports or “tips” has Citizenship and Immigration received regarding potentially fraudulent marriages; (f) what incentives are provided to encourage reporting of fraudulent marriages; and (g) how much has the government spent training immigration officers to identify fraudulent marriages?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 245Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

With respect to the levels of sodium in prepared foods: (a) why is Health Canada pursuing voluntary measures with the food industry to reduce sodium in prepared foods instead of introducing legislation that sets limits for sodium content; (b) is Health Canada's Working Group on Dietary Sodium Reduction adhering to its schedule, i.e., has it completed the preparatory and assessment stages, developed a strategic framework and is it currently working on the implementation of a plan; and (c) is the government planning to launch a national strategy for the reduction of sodium and, if so, when?