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 #15 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was refugees.

Topics

Question No. 29Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Nickel Belt, specifying each (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 30Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

With regard to grants and contributions applications to federal economic development agencies since April 1, 2010, what funding applications were approved by departmental officials but rejected by the Minister's office?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 31Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

With regard to the operating budget freeze at federal economic development agencies: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid off as of April 1, 2011; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees have been hired since April 1, 2011; and (e) what programs will be subject to funding cuts as of April 1, 2011?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 33Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

With regard to government funding within the constituency of Guelph: (a) what was the total amount offunding originally announced, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to andincluding fiscal year 2010-2011, specifying for each announcement (i) the department or agencyresponsible for the funding, (ii) the program or initiative from which the funding came, (iii) the project name, (iv) the total value of the project; (b) for each announcement identified in (a) what was, (i) the total amount delivered, broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscal year 2010-2011, (ii) the department or agency responsible for the delivered funding, (iii) the program or initiative from whichthe delivered funding came, (iv) the project name, (v) the total value of the project; and (c) broken down by fiscal year, since fiscal year 2006-2007, up to and including fiscalyear 2010-2011, in each case where the final, total amount delivered, as specified in (b), was different from the funding amount announced, as specified in (a), what was the reason for this discrepancy?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 34Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

September 19th, 2011 / 3:25 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

With regard to infrastructure funding requests since 2006, broken down by infrastructure funding program, including but not limited to the Public Transit Fund, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, the Border Infrastructure Fund, the Infrastructure Canada Program, the Green Infrastructure Fund, and the Building Canada Fund: (a) how many applications for funding have been received; (b) how many applications have been rejected; (c) what is each application that has been rejected, including the date of application; (d) for applications identified in (c), what was the reason for rejection; (e) for applications identified in (c), what was the electoral district of the proposed project; and (f) how many applications are pending decision?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 35Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

With respect to government decentralization: (a) does the government have any information on proposals prepared since 2006 on the relocation, from the National Capital area to other regions of Canada, of (i) government departments or parts thereof, (ii) agencies, (iii) Crown corporations; and (b) does the government have any information on assessments completed since 2006 on which of the following entities could be relocated from the National Capital area to other regions of Canada, namely, (i) government departments or parts thereof, (ii) agencies, (iii) Crown corporations?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 36Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

With regard to employment in the federal public service: (a) for the period of January 1, 2005, to May 31, 2011, (i) how many people were hired by the federal public service, (ii) how many casual employees were hired by the federal public service, (iii) how many term employees were hired by the federal public service, (iv) how many indeterminate employees were hired by the federal public service, (vi) how many applications for priority employment appointments in the federal public service were submitted by qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces, (vii) how many qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces have received a priority employment appointment, (viii) how many qualified medically released members of the Canadian Forces were still on the priority employment appointment list when their eligibility period expired; (b) for the period of 2005 to the present, how many qualified medically released Canadian Forces veterans were hired by each department; and (c) what measures are being taken to extend the priority employment appointments program?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 37Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

With respect to the statements by the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment, entitled “Canada’s Green Budget 2009” and “Minister Prentice Highlights the Environment in 2010 Budget”: (a) how many applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion investment in clean energy research, development and demonstration projects, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (b) what, in detail, are all of the clean energy research development and demonstration projects awarded funds through the 2009 $1 billion investment, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iv) what were the projected outcomes, (v) what was the projected return on investment, (vi) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vii) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, etc., have resulted from the project, (viii) in what geographic area was the project located; (c) what monies of the 2009 $1 billion investment for clean energy research development and demonstration projects have been spent, (i) what monies remain available, (ii) what, if any, advertising did or does the government undertake to promote the program, (iii) what, if any, costs are associated with any advertising of the program; (d) how many project applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (e) how many projects were awarded funding through the $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iii) what were the projected outcomes in terms of reductions in emissions, waste, or other environmental payoffs, (iv) what was the projected return on investment, (v) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vi) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, or other significant results have been produced as a result of the project; (f) how many retrofits were undertaken under the 2009 $300 million eco-ENERGY Retrofit program, (i) what was the average cost of a retrofit, (ii) what was the average income of the family or individual undertaking a retrofit, (iii) what was the average household savings on energy, (iv) what was the average household savings in terms of money spent on energy annually, (v) what is the estimated savings to the environment each year, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); (g) what specific projects were undertaken to maintain federal laboratories for $250 million in 2009, (i) why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, (ii) what laboratories benefitted, and what was the investment per lab, (iii) what specific laboratories need maintenance or further maintenance; (h) what specific projects, by station, were undertaken or are being undertaken under the $85 million for key Arctic research stations, why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, and, for each project identified, (i) what was the investment, (ii) what is the life expectancy of the investment, (iii) is further work needed, (iv) what projects does the government know still require funding; (i) what progress has been made to date on the $2 million investment in a feasibility study for a world-class Arctic research station, (i) what was the mandate of the feasibility study, (ii) what was its start date, key milestones, and end date, (iii) what, if any, results are available; (j) what are all federal contaminated sites across Canada, and, for each contaminated site identified, (i) where specifically is the site located, (ii) has the site had an environmental assessment (iii) if so, what are the main contaminants at the site, what is the projected cost of remediation, (iv) if not, what is the projected cost of an environmental assessment and the time required for that assessment; (k) is there a priority list for addressing contaminated sites listed in (j), and if so, (i) in what order do the sites appear on that list, (ii) what methodology is used to establish priority, (iii) who undertakes any priority assessments, what are their expertise, and how are experts chosen; (l) how much of the $80.5 million set aside for assessment of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) how many assessments have been started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed assessment in terms of the environmental contamination, any threats to human health, and the projected cost of remediation, (iii) how many jobs have been created to date; (m) how much of the $165 million set aside for remediation of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) what remediation projects are started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed remediation in terms of reducing environmental contamination and any threats to human health, (iii) what is the cost or projected cost of all remediation projects identified in (m)(i), (iv) how many jobs have been created to date; (n) what specific national parks projects have been undertaken with the $75 million earmarked in 2009, and, for each project identified, (i) what is the park’s name, (ii) what is its location, (iii) what is the total investment, (iv) what is a description of the project; (o) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2009 $10 million investment in annual reporting of key environmental indicators such as clean air, clean water and GHG emissions, (i) what system was in place for reporting each, (ii) what, if any, system is now in place, (iii) when will the government make use of improvements in data resulting from this investment in its reports; (p) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2010 $18.4 million investment to enhance the tracking of environmental data through the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators program, (i) what specific projects does the government plan to undertake with the money and, for each project identified, (ii) how much money will be spent, (iii) how will monies spent improve environmental reporting, (iv) when will the government use improvements in its reports; (q) what, if any, action has been taken on the 2010 $100 million Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative; (r) what, if any, consultation regarding environmental assessments has taken place with Aboriginal peoples in 2010, (i) identify all projects that affect Aboriginal communities, (ii) on which of the identified projects in (r)(i) have Aboriginal peoples been consulted to date; (s) how much of the $2.8 million earmarked for consultations with Aboriginal communities has been spent and how much is still available; (t) what are all contaminated Great Lake sites and where specifically is each site located, (i) what is a ranking of these contaminated sites, (ii) what is the method used to determine levels of contamination, (iii) what is the scale used to compare levels of contamination, (iv) what is the government’s definition of “most degraded”, (v) what are all “most degraded” sites, (vi) for each site identified in (t)(v), what is a description of the contamination and what is the cost of the remediation; and (u) what specifically is the $16 million ear-marked for to clean up the “most-degraded” Great Lakes sites, what monies have been spent to date, on what specific projects, and what is the projected return on investment in terms of the environment?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 39Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

With regard to the recent changes in the way with which Service Canada community outreach offices' services will be delivered: (a) what is the rationale for changing the way in which Service Canada has been operating across Canada; (b) how much money will be saved through these changes; (c) how many Service Canada community offices will be closed because of this decision; (d) how many people will lose their jobs as a result of this decision; and (e) what are the supposed benefits of such changes?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 40Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

With regard to the way with which Service Canada will now be delivering services and the increased emphasis on accessing government services via the Internet: (a) what is the government's plan to address rural Canadians' lack of access to basic Internet; (b) what is the government's plan to ensure that rural Canadians who have no access to an Internet connection can access government programs and services in a timely manner; and (c) what is the government's plan to ensure that Canadians are technologically literate and capable of using the Internet to access essential government services?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 41Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

With respect to government spending in the constituency of Random—Burin—St. George's, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, itemized according to: (a) the date the money was received in the riding; (b) the dollar amount of the expenditure; (c) the program from which the funding came; (d) the ministry responsible; and (e) the designated recipient?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 42Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

With regard to the 2010 round of strategic reviews described and implemented in Budget 2011, specifically for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Marine Atlantic and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what changes does the government intend to implement in order to make the delivery of its programs and services more effective and efficient; (b) what is the rationale for these changes; (c) what are the projected savings; and (d) what are the projected staffing changes to full-time labour, part-time labour and contract labour as a result of the government's changes to the ways it delivers programs and services, broken down by (i) department, (ii) change?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 43Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

With regard to the departmental name change of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), announced on May 18, 2011, and effective June 13, 2011: (a) what is the government's rationale for the name change, specifically the rationale for (i) replacing “Indian Affairs” with “Aboriginal Affairs”, (ii) replacing “Northern Affairs” with “Northern Development”; (b) did a consultation process take place on the implications of the name change, and, if so, (i) with which individuals and organizations, (ii) on which dates, (iii) what recommendations resulted from these consultations; (c) what is the expected impact on First Nation inherent and treaty rights; (d) does the government plan to commit additional resources to programs for Inuit, Métis, non-status Indians and urban Aboriginals; and (e) what is the expected cost of implementing the name change?