Debates of Jan. 31st, 2011

Question No. 563

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), individual Canadians have demonstrated their generosity and concern for the people of Pakistan by donating more than $46.8 million to registered Canadian charities for flood relief. The Government of Canada will place an equivalent amount to the eligible donations in the Pakistan flood relief fund.

In response to (b), as of November 16, 2010, the following organizations have received financial support from the Pakistan flood relief fund: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, $6 million; United Nations World Food Programme, $4.5 million; Canadian Red Cross Society, $2 million; Save the Children Canada, $3.5 million; Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, $2 million; CANADEM, $590,000; GlobalMedic, $410,000; The total as November 16, 2010 is $19 million.

In response to (c), within the context of the 2010 monsoon floods, the Government of Canada has provided $16.42 million--$410,000 to GlobalMedic under the Pakistan flood relief fund,plus an additional $16.01 million outside of the Pakistan flood relief fund to United Nations organizations, Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and Canadian NGOs--toward the prevention of disease in Pakistan through initiatives aimed at providing emergency health care, clean water and sanitation, and hygiene promotion to the flood-affected population.

In response to (d), as of November 16, 2010, the Government of Canada has not supported any reconstruction activities in Pakistan within the context of the 2010 monsoon floods. The Government of Canada was recently presented with the Government of Pakistan’s federal and provincial reconstruction strategies at a multinational Pakistan Development Forum in Islamabad. The Government of Canada is currently reviewing these strategies. To date, the Canadian International Development Agency’s response to floods in Pakistan totals $44 million, including $19 million from the Pakistan flood relief fund.

In response to (e), the Government of Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency, will continue to focus development assistance programs on education and women’s economic empowerment. When it is available, the Government of Canada will review the Government of Pakistan’s reconstruction plan. The Government of Canada will also continue to monitor the humanitarian situation in Pakistan.

Question No. 565

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

With respect to persons who have accompanied the Prime Minister on foreign and domestic trips, for the period January 1, 2006 to October 11, 2010: (a) in what capacity does image consultant Michelle Muntean travel on transportation provided by the government; (b) does Ms. Muntean receive any remuneration from the government; (c) on what trips did Ms. Muntean travel with the Prime Minister; (d) what was the total cost associated with Ms. Muntean’s travel, broken down by the amount spent on (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (e) which government department or agency paid for expenses incurred as a result of Ms. Muntean’s travel; (f) have any outside individuals, groups or organizations paid for any of Ms. Muntean’s travel expenses; (g) what bills have been sent to individuals, groups or organizations for Ms. Muntean’s travel expenses; (h) what are the names of the individuals, other than Ms. Muntean, not employed by the government, excluding the Prime Minister’s spouse and children, who have accompanied the Prime Minister on domestic or foreign travel; (i) in what capacity did the individuals in (h) travel on transportation provided by the government; (j) on what trips have the individuals in (h) traveled with the Prime Minister; (k) for the individuals in (h), what was the total cost associated with their travel, broken down by the amount spent on (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (l) which government department or agency paid for the expenses in (k); (m) have any outside individuals, groups or organizations paid for any of the travel expenses in (k); and (n) what bills have been sent to the individuals, groups or organizations in (m)?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office has no records or information on travel expenses for non-government individuals between January 1, 2006 and October 11, 2010.

Question No. 574

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

With regard to federal regulation of the lands in the Northwest Territories, in detail: (a) what was the rationale for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's recommendation that the subsurface interim land withdrawal for Edehzhie Candidate National Wildlife Area not be renewed; (b) prior to making the recommendation, did the department consult with the Dehcho First Nations and, if so, (i) when were the consultations conducted, (ii) how were they conducted, (iii) where were they conducted, (iv) what was their outcome; and (c) if no consultations were conducted with the Dehcho First Nations, what were the reasons?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), a national wildlife area designation does not preclude development. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is of the view that well-managed resource development can co-exist with protected areas. For this reason, the minister felt that the process to establish the Edéhzhie Candidate National Wildlife Area did not require an interim land withdrawal removing from disposition the subsurface rights.

The response to (b), is no.

In response to (c), consultations were not deemed to be required.

Question No. 575

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With regard to the May 2010 changes to the Functional Guidance and Procedures for Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) withdrawals and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) adjustments: (a) what was the rationale behind changing the guidelines, such that seniors who voluntarily withdraw funds from their RRIFs may no longer be eligible for GIS, Allowance, or Allowance for survivors benefits; (b) why is there a distinction such that seniors who withdraw funds from a RRIF are penalized, while it is possible to withdraw the same amount from a savings account without impacting GIS eligibility and payment amounts; (c) who was responsible for the decision to make these changes; and (d) in light of the recommendation from The Honourable Justice E.A. Bowie and The Honourable Justice J.E. Hershfield of the Tax Court of Canada that this policy should be reviewed, what has the government done to examine the effects of these procedures and ensure that they are in the best interest of Canadian citizens?

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

Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, is intended for old age security. OAS, pensioners who have little or no income other than their basic OAS pension. Accordingly, the determination of the entitlement to the GIS benefit is based on income and marital status. The GIS is targeted towards low-income seniors. It is income-tested to ensure that the highest benefits are provided to the lowest-income seniors.

In response to (a), the administrative policy changes introduced in May 2010 were small and technical in nature. In general, an individual’s GIS benefit is re-calculated every year in July, based on their previous year’s income. Under the Old Age Security Act, there exists an “option” provision that allows pensioners to have their GIS benefit based on an estimate of their current income, in very limited circumstances when there is a drop in income as a result of: a cessation of employment income; or a reduction or termination of pension income, for example, , liquidation of a RRIF, or the insolvency of a pension fund. Its purpose is not to exclude income from the calculation of the GIS benefit. The change that the May 2010 policy introduced was intended to better clarify under which circumstances the "option" provision could be used in relation to RRIF.

In response to (b), since its inception in 1967, GIS benefits have been calculated on the basis of income as defined under the Income Tax Act, ITA. This includes, among others, Canada pension plan, CPP, benefits, employer and private pensions, as well as registered retirement savings plan, RRSP, and RRIF withdrawals. Amounts from a savings account are not considered as income under the ITA. Therefore, given that the GIS is an income-tested program, withdrawals from a RRIF are considered as an income in the calculation of GIS benefits while withdrawals from personal savings accounts are not.

In response to (c), the decision was made by officials at the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada without the knowledge of the minister or minister’s office staff.

In response to (d), departmental officials regularly review all policies and programs to ensure that they are in the best interest of Canadian citizens.

In this particular instance, the minister cancelled the change once it was discovered that the change had been made and that it could have unintended consequences.

Question No. 580

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

With regard to the $1.5 billion dedicated to the Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change in Budget 2007, for each of the fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011: (a) what is the total amount of funding that was allotted; (b) what were the major environmental projects funded; (c) who were the beneficiaries of the funding allotted; (d) in which provinces or territories were the beneficiaries of funding located; (e) how many jobs were maintained as a result of the funding allotted; and (f) how many jobs were created as a result of the funding?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in February 2007, the $1.5 billion clean air and climate change trust fund was established to support those provinces and territories that identify major projects that will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants.

In response to (b), while the Government of Canada transferred the funding to provincial and territorial governments through the trust, it is provincial and territorial responsibility to report directly to their residents, to their legislative assemblies, and their auditors on how they spend public funds, including reporting on how they used funding through the clean air and climate change trust fund.

Two types of approaches are apparent. First, some provinces and territories are using trust fund resources to directly finance specific projects. For example, Nova Scotia used its funds to establish ecoNova Scotia to support projects to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution. Through 69 funded projects and programs in 2009, the initiative is projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 172 kilotonnes, Kt, a year. Alberta directed approximately $80 million of the fund towards 10 projects focusing on, among other goals, technology advancement and leveraging further investments. These projects are projected to provide three megatonnes, Mt, of reductions by 2015.

Yukon directed its funds towards the installation of a third hydro turbine at the Aishihik hydro electric plant in south western Yukon. The Aishihik third turbine will be operational by the end of 2010 and will produce 3.8 Kt of emission reductions annually. New Brunswick dedicated resources towards landfill gas recovery projects, with three of these projects using the captured methane gas for power generation. This will result in 165 Kt of GHG emission reductions.

Second, other provinces have used the trust fund to help finance their overall climate change strategies. For example, Trust Fund resources have been used in Ontario to help finance a broad range of initiatives under its climate change action plan, including improving access to energy efficient technologies, increasing use of renewable energy sources, deploying new technologies to abate emissions, and public transit. Ontario has also committed to eliminate coal-fired generation by the end of 2014.

In Quebec the trust fund has been used to provide additional funding for its suite of climate change measures under its 2006-2012 action plan on climate change. These resources have been added to Quebec's green fund, to supplement funds collected through the green fund duty.

In Saskatchewan the trust fund has been used to support a wide variety of provincial investments being pursued towards the reduction of GHG emissions. These investments include the establishment of the go green fund, which provides financial support for the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, energy efficiency initiatives, renewable energy and wind power projects, and carbon capture and storage projects.

The Government of Canada has made a number of joint announcements with provinces and territories regarding the planned expenditures under this Trust, and in many cases provinces have publicly acknowledged the use of Trust Fund resources in their budget and project announcements. Details on planned expenditures for each province and territory are listed on the following Web site: http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/trust-fiducie-eng.cfm.

In response to (c), the beneficiaries of the clean air and climate change trust fund are each of the provinces and territories, and through them, their residents and municipalities. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to draw the funds over three years according to their respective schedule and priorities.

The trust fund is allocated on a per capita basis and provides a minimum of $15 million per province and $5 million per territory to support efforts to develop technology, improve energy efficiency, and undertake other projects that will result in significant environmental benefits.

In response to (d), see the response to (c). Each province and territory was allocated funding. (

In response to (e) and (f), while the Government of Canada provided funding to provincial and territorial governments through the trust, it is provincial and territorial governments themselves that are responsible for allocating the funds to specific programs. Provinces and territories are responsible for reporting directly to their residents, to their legislative assemblies, and their auditors on how they spend public funds, including reporting on how they used funding through the clean air and climate change trust fund. Provincial and territorial governments are not required to report to the federal government.

Question No. 582

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

With respect to the inspections of gas pumps and other measuring devices mandated in Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, of the present session of the 40th Parliament: (a) what is the expected cost to the owner of an average establishment in a rural community in each of the trade sectors identified in the Bill, for each aspect of a trip taken by a non-government inspector specifically for the mandatory inspection of each of the measuring devices utilized in the conduct of their trade; (b) what studies, if any, have been conducted which examine, centrally or peripherally, the cost of the examinations cited in the Bill; and (c) what are the results of the studies referred to in (b)?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the fees charged by non-government inspectors to conduct mandatory inspections would be determined by market forces rather than the government. The current fees for inspections performed by non-government inspectors are expected to decline with the introduction of mandatory inspection requirements due to efficiencies gained through the economies of scale resulting from increased demand for inspection services and competition for business among non-government inspectors.

Measurement Canada has surveyed current non-government inspection fees. These fees are typically between $50 and $200 per device inspection. This represents a minor incremental increase over service contracts that responsible device owners typically have in place for maintenance of their devices.

Many non-government inspectors are currently located in non-urban communities such as Prince George, Saguenay, Thunder Bay, Timmins and Sudbury, and it is expected that services to rural communities will increase once Bill C-14 becomes law.

For the following sample costs, based on current non-government inspection fees, the assumption is that a non-government inspector would need to travel three hours to perform the inspection. It is unlikely that travel costs such as these would be applied in this manner, as many non-government inspectors are located in non-urban centres and would schedule multiple inspection activities in a geographic region for reasons of efficiency. If the non-government inspector performs examination activities at the same time as service work, no additional travel costs would be incurred by the device owner.

Examples of costs are as follows: for a device owner in the retail petroleum sector with four gas pumps that need to be certified, the cost would be approximately $90 per pump every two years. For the owner of four small platform scales, e.g. scales capable of measuring up to 50 kg, employed in any trade sector, the cost of the inspection and certification would be approximately $125 per device every two years. For the owner of four computing scales, e.g. scales found at a grocery store checkout, used in the retail food trade sector, the cost would be approximately $125 per device every five years. If

Measurement Canada conducted these inspections and uncovered non-compliance issues, the device owner would be required to call in a service organization to repair and recalibrate the devices. This legislative proposal will allow issues to be corrected immediately upon detection by non-government inspectors, an efficiency that will reduce device owners’ costs as well as enhance consumer protection.

Inspection costs are minimal considering the value of goods purchased and sold annually, and the possible negative implications for both device owners and consumers. For example, a typical gas pump measures approximately $500,000 worth of product over a two-year period.

In response to (b) and (c), the Birch report, a case study conducted in 2003 by the Organisation Internationale de la Métrologie Légale, used Canadian device compliance rates to estimate the "dollars at risk" for each type of device. When these figures were related to the cost of certification activities performed by government agencies, it was found that, for each dollar spent, $11 of inaccurate measurement was corrected. It was also found that, on average, total trade measurement inequity comprised 65% short measure, i.e., in favour of the device owner, and 35% over measure, i.e., in favour of the consumer.

In the same report it was stated that when the value of goods measured across trade measurement devices was determined and combined with the performance of these devices, the estimated benefit-cost ratio of the inspection system was found to be 11.4 for periodic inspection and 28.7 for targeted inspection. Periodic inspections would be equivalent to the mandatory frequencies that could be established as a result of Bill C-14 and targeted inspections are inspections of known problem areas.

Question No. 585

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

With respect to the 2010 strategic review of the Canada Student Loan Program within Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been reviewed as a part of the comprehensive strategic review process; (b) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as low-priority through strategic review; (c) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as low-performing through strategic review; (d) which programs within the Canada Student Loan Program have been identified as suitable options for funding reallocation through strategic review; (e) what is the total value of all program funding identified as suitable for reallocation through strategic review; (f) what program priorities will the funding reallocation be allotted to through strategic review; and (g) has the Canada Student Loan Program identified options for potential savings beyond the five percent required under the strategic review guidelines?

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

Mr. Speaker, as announced by the President of the Treasury Board on May 3, 2010, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is going through the strategic review process this year. As part of this process, departments and agencies review 100% of their programs, including operation costs of statutory programs such as the Canada student loans program, with a view to better focus programs and services, streamline internal operations and transform the way they do business and achieve better results for Canadians. In this way, federal organizations are better able to increase efficiencies and effectiveness, focus on core roles, and meet the priorities of Canadians.

The strategic review process is an effective tool to help control the growth of spending. It is a mechanism that allows the government to reallocate funding from low-priority, low-performing programs to higher priorities for Canadians, based on a comprehensive review of all programs. Strategic reviews are designed to ensure that government programs are efficient and effective and achieve results Canadians expect.

The results of the 2010 strategic reviews will be released in budget 2011.

Question No. 590

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

With respect to the government's negotiations to purchase F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft from the United States, has the government negotiated or obtained any concessions concerning Trade in Arms Regulations?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, given the multinational character of the JSF program and the global nature of the supply chain, the JSF partnership has been highly proactive in the development of a unique export control regime to accommodate the United States’ International Traffic in Arms Regulations, ITAR, which control the export of defence-related articles and services identified on the United States Munitions List.

First, the JSF partners have negotiated the establishment of a working group, the international matters working group, dedicated to identifying and addressing any export control issues that detract from the successful execution of the program.

Second, the partnership is making every effort to expedite export licensing with the United States government, even dedicating people to address JSF-related export licensing. This has greatly improved export licensing times, with the average JSF licence being executed in less than 30 days rather than the typical 45 to 120 days.

Finally, the partnership is also addressing export control issues related to the sustainment of the F-35, with an innovative process being developed to ensure the rapid transfer of technological items from one partner to another, including industry in partner nations. Under the current process, every transfer between industries or between industries and governments requires a separate re-transfer authorization. Given the thousands of weekly transfers anticipated in the sustainment phase of the JSF program, such an arrangement is unworkable. The JSF partnership is, therefore, working towards a revolutionary regime whereby re-transfer authorizations are eliminated for all companies and governments identified and cleared by the regime.

Question No. 592

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

With respect to the government’s stated policy of returning the budget to balance: (a) what are the summaries, item by item, of all of the government programs, services, operating costs and all other cost categories that have increased (above the rate of inflation) for the fiscal years from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011; (b) what are all budgetary items that the government will freeze or cut in order to achieve a balanced budget and in which fiscal year(s) will these freezes or cuts take place; (c) how will these savings balance against the Bank of Canada’s projected annual revenues of the government; (d) does the government plan to raise taxes to eliminate the deficit and, if so, which taxes; and (e) does the government plan to sell any of its assets in order to eliminate the deficit and, if so, which assets?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, In response to (a), details on the spending of the federal government can be found in the Public Accounts of Canada. The Public Accounts of Canada are archived in the Library and Archives Canada's electronic collection at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/electroniccollection/index-e.html. For information on planned expenses for 2010-11, please consult the main and supplementary estimates at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/index-eng.asp. The main and supplementary estimates provide a breakdown of planned spending by standard object of expenditure that can be compared to previous years Public Accounts.

In response to (b), budget 2010, see pages 156 to 168, implemented a number of targeted measures to bring the budget back to balance by reducing the rate of spending growth over the medium term. For more information, please visit http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/home-accueil-eng.html.

In response to (c), the Bank of Canada does not publish revenue or expenditure projections for the federal government.

In response to (d), budget 2010, see page 12, was clear: “The Government will not raise taxes and will not cut major transfers to persons and other levels of government.”

In response to (e), budget 2009 announced a review of corporate assets. No decisions have been taken to date and no savings booked. A systematic review of corporate assets is a normal part of good governance and contributes to the ongoing reallocation of financial resources from low to high priorities in order to maximize economic benefits to taxpayers.

Question No. 594

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

With regard to the government's new excise duty tobacco tax stamp, which was designed and produced by the Canadian Bank Note Company and SICPA Product Security SA and implementation of which was mandated to the government in early 2010: (a) when will tobacco manufacturers be required to implement the new tobacco tax stamp on their products; (b) how much money has the government spent, since 2005 to present, to develop and implement the new tax stamping system; and (c) what are the reasons for the delay in implementing this initiative, which was first identified as a priority by the Canada Revenue Agency in 2005?

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), on July 12, 2010, Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economics Growth Act, received royal assent. This act contained the legislative amendments required to the Excise Act 2001 to implement a new stamping regime for tobacco products. Legislative amendments included a transitional period between the implementation date and March 31, 2011, during which time tobacco products may be stamped in compliance with the current stamping regime or with the new excise stamp in compliance with the new stamping regime for tobacco products.

As of September 1, 2010, the new excise stamp can be applied to tobacco products destined for the Canadian duty-paid market.

Effective April 1, 2011, all domestically manufactured tobacco products entered into the Canadian duty paid market or imported tobacco products released under the Customs Act for entry into the duty paid market must be stamped with the new excise stamp.

In response to (b), from 2005 to November 30, 2010, $1,283,099 was spent on developing and implementing the Tobacco Stamping Regime.

In response to (c), since 2005, in order to facilitate the implementation of the tobacco stamping regime and reduce the costs to industry, the CRA has carried out extensive consultations with various stakeholders including tobacco product manufacturers, Health Canada, provincial and territorial governments, enforcement bodies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency and other interested parties.

In July 2007, the CRA conducted a competitive procurement process that resulted in the award of a contract to design, produce and distribute a tobacco stamp incorporating overt and covert security features. The contract was awarded in January 2008. Once prototype stamps were available from the stamp producer, a new round of consultations were commenced to assist industry with the acquisition of stamp application equipment and testing.

Subsequently, the CRA continued to work closely with the Department of Finance to develop the required legislative and regulatory amendments that would implement the new stamping regime. In September 2009, the Minister of National Revenue released proposals to amend the Stamping and Marking of Tobacco Products Regulations to support the proposed legislative amendments. These amendments were part of Bill C-9 that was tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010. Bill C-9 received royal assent on July 12, 2010.

The implementation date of the new stamping regime, as set out in the legislative amendments, was September 1, 2010.

Question No. 601

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

With respect to the government's commitment on June 10, 2009, to help fishers in the Atlantic lobster industry: (a) how much funding was spent in 2009; (b) how much has been spent to date; and (c) what are the government's plans for the remainder of the $65 million?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in 2009 $65 million of funding was earmarked for two programs: the short term transitional measures, STTM, lobster program, as well as the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures, ALSM, program.

Some $15 million was earmarked for the STTM lobster program which began September 22, 2009. By the end of 2009, approximately $7.1 million was spent.

Some $50 million was earmarked for the ALSM. No ALSM funds were spent in 2009.

In response to (b), the STTM program concluded March 31, 2010.

Of this, $1 million was spent on operation and management costs of the program, $8.6 million was spent on grants, and $5.4 million of unspent funding was reported at year end as lapsed funding.

Unspent funding was a result of fewer than expected lobster licence holders qualifying under the STTM due to higher revenues from lobster fishing than anticipated.

Some $6 million in funding proposals have been approved to date under ALSM and released in 2010. Additional funding proposals are under review.

In response to (c), it is the $50 million ALSM program which is in effect until March 31, 2014.

Question No. 609

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

With respect to Employment Insurance claims made by residents in the constituency of Bramalea—Gore—Malton (named Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale from 2000 to 2004): (a) how many claims have been made since October 1993, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month; (b) what is the percentage of claims that have been approved since January 2008, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month; and (c) what has been the average period of time taken to process the claims made since January 2008, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month?

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

Mr. Speaker, detailed employment insurance, EI, information specifically related to the constituency of Bramalea—Gore--Malton is unavailable as data of the type requested is not maintained at the constituency level.

Question No. 618

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

With regard to government health promotion programs: (a) what departments, agencies and commissions are responsible for administration programs promoting a healthy style of living; (b) what are the names of the programs that promote a healthy style of living; (c) how much funding was spent by departments and agencies on programs promoting a healthy style of living from fiscal year 2006-2007 to date; (d) how much funding was allocated to each province for the administration of programs promoting a healthy style of living; and (e) were programs promoting a healthy style of living audited during the past three fiscal years and, if any, what were the recommendations?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Health Canada is responsible for or contributes to the administration of a number of programs promoting a healthy style of living.

In response to (b), the names of the programs are: Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative;

Maternal and Child Health Program;

Canada Pre-Natal Nutrition Program;

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Program;

Aboriginal Head Start On Reserve Program;

Brighter Futures & Building Healthy Communities;

National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program;

National Youth Solvent Abuse Program;

National Aboriginal Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy;

National Tuberculosis Program;

Immunization Program;

HIV/AIDS-Blood-Borne and Sexually Transmitted Infection (HIV/AIDS-BBSTI) Program;

Children’s Oral Health Initiative Program;

First Nations Environmental Contaminants Program;

Northern Contaminants Program;

Chemical Safety of Traditional Food Program;

First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study;

Environmental Health Guide Program;

Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide;

Nutrition Labelling Education;

School Health;

Knowledge Transfer;

Drug Strategy Community Initiatives Fund;

Drug Treatment Funding Program;

Contribution program in support of the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy.

In response to (c), Health Canada provided $1,516,900,000 in funding from fiscal year 2006-07 to date.

In response to (d), no funding is allocated to provinces or territories for the administration of programs.

In response to (e), an internal review of the national native alcohol and drug abuse program was conducted in 2008.

The recommendations from this audit were as follows:

1. Ensure that formal risk assessments of the program continue.

2. Ensure that roles and responsibilities of the partners are clear.

3. Develop a formal performance measurement process.

4. Revisit the National Native Addictions Information Management System, NNAIMS, project and consider revalidating business requirements.

5. Consolidate documentation tracking key activities, and strengthen the quality of activity reporting from funds recipients.

All Audit Accountability Bureau internal audits are posted on the Health Canada website at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/performance/audit-verif/index-eng.php

No audits have been completed on other programs during the past three fiscal years.

In response to (a), the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, is responsible for the administration of programs promoting a healthy style of living.

In response to (b), PHAC has two programs that promote a healthy style of living. The healthy living fund is a program that makes strategic investments to address the conditions that lead to unhealthy eating, physical activity and unhealthy weights. The innovation strategy, IS, focuses on innovation in population health interventions to reduce health inequalities.

In response to (c), PHAC provided $36,091,502 in funding from fiscal year 2006-07 to date.

In response to (d), no funding is allocated to provinces and territories for the administration of programs.

In response to (e), there was an audit conducted on the Health Promotion Programs, HPP, including the Healthy Living Fund and Innovation Strategy between December 2008 and July 2009.

The audit found that many areas of the health promotion programs are adequately managed. These include the existence of results-based management accountability frameworks, program guidelines and standard operating procedures for the management of grants and contributions projects. Training provided to PHAC officers was also found to be appropriate.

The audit concluded that some areas of the health promotion programs require management attention. In September 2009, a comprehensive management response was implemented to address the processes for: setting program and funding priorities, renewing and amending ongoing projects, adequately overseeing and monitoring projects to minimize financial and non-financial risk to the agency, and measuring and reporting the results of the projects and programs that PHAC supports through its contributions. Good progress has been made on the implementation plan with the majority of deliverables completed or on track.

For more information, see the following link http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/about_apropos/audit/hpp-pps-eng.php.