Debates of Jan. 30th, 2012

Question No. 350

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

With respect to every First Nation in Canada for which the government carries a fiduciary responsibility: (a) what is the total number of members belonging to each First Nation; (b) how many of these members actually live on each First Nation; (c) how many and what type of residential dwellings are available to house those members living on each First Nation; (d) what is the number of persons per dwelling; and (e) what is the average number of persons per dwelling for all other Canadians not living on First Nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) and (b), please refer to “Registered Indian Population by Sex and Residence 2010,” found on the department’s website at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ainc-inac/R31-3-2010-eng.pdf.

In response to (c), according to first nations’ reports, there were 106,373 houses on reserve as of 2010-11. Below is a list of the total number of homes on first nations broken down by region: Atlantic: 7,132--Quebec: 10,171--Ontario: 24,404--Manitoba: 16,046--Saskatchewan: 14,180--Alberta: 14,578--Yukon: 582--British Columbia: 19,280.

The provision and management of housing on reserve lands is the responsibility of first nations, and therefore chief and council are responsible for determining which types of dwellings should be constructed to meet the needs of band members. According to data from the 2006 census, 82.2% of households lived in single-family detached homes, 2.8% lived in apartments, 6.4% lived in other multiple dwellings, and 8.6% lived in movable dwellings.

In response to (d), according to 2006 census data, the average household size on reserve was 3.67 people. Below is a list of the average number of persons per dwelling broken down by region: Newfoundland and Labrador: 3.67; Prince Edward Island: 3.03; Nova Scotia: 3.03; New Brunswick: 2.84; Quebec: 3.89; Ontario: 3.24; Manitoba: 4.09; Saskatchewan: 4.14; Alberta: 4.09; British Columbia: 3.22; Yukon: 2.34; Northwest Territories: 3.53.

According to first nations’ reports, the average number of persons per dwelling on first nations across Canada was 3.57 as of 2010-11. Below is a list of average number of persons per dwelling broken down by region: Atlantic: 2.77; Quebec: 3.40; Ontario: 2.99; Manitoba: 5.03; Saskatchewan: 4.24; Alberta: 3.95; Yukon: 1.88; British Columbia: 2.76.

In response to (e), according to Census data, the average household size in Canada was 2.5 people in 2006.

Question No. 363

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage, what is the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) location, (iv) nature of all government business conducted by Saulie Zajdel since his employment started?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Saulie Zajdel is a regional adviser to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the minister’s regional office in Montreal, and an exempt staff member. The department does not manage the day-to-day activities of an exempt staff member in a minister’s office.

Question No. 364

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

With regard to the Minister of Public Safety's Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee: (a) what is the complete membership list of this committee; (b) for every meeting held since January 1, 2008, what is the exact (i) time, (ii) date, (iii) place; and (c) how much has the committee spent on travel and hospitality since 2008?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the following is the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee membership list: 1. Ms. Linda Baggaley; 2. Mr. Steve Torino; 3. Mr. Tony Bernardo; 4. Mr. Alain Cossette; 5. Mr. Louis D’Amour; 6. Mr. Greg Farrant; 7. Mr. Gerry Gamble; 8. Mr. John Gayder; 9. Mr. Murray Grismer; 10. Mr. Kerry Higgins; 11. Professor Emeritus Gary Mauser; 12. Ms. Linda Thom.

In response to (b), the meetings held since January 1, 2008 are as follows: Meeting No. 1: i) 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.; ii) June 27, 2008; iii) Teleconference.

Meeting No. 2: i) Day 1, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Day 2, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; ii) April 29 and 30, 2009; iii) Hotel Indigo Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario.

Meeting No. 3: i) 7:15 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.; ii) June 16, 2010; iii) Teleconference.

Meeting No. 4: i) Day 1, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Day 2, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; ii) November 30 and December 1, 2010; iii) Sheraton Ottawa Hotel, Ottawa, Ontario.

In response to (c), travel costs for meetings held since January 2008 total $19,863.13 and the associated hospitality costs total $4,238.36.

Question No. 378

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

With regard to consultations with Canadians by the Minister of Natural Resources on the subject of energy since May 18, 2011: (a) who did the Minister consult with and when did these consultations occur; (b) what events did the Minister attend that involved consultations, and where did these consultations occur; (c) which consultations involved discussion of a national energy strategy; (d) when will results of the aforementioned consultations be presented publicly; and (e) what is the government’s policy on developing a national energy strategy?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has met with numerous stakeholders and Canadians regarding their energy priorities. These include industry, stakeholder, environmental and economist groups. The minister has also met frequently with his provincial counterparts.

In addition, the minister took part in the Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference, EMMC, in July 2011. The EMMC includes a formal opportunity for invited stakeholders to meet with ministers around a particular theme and focus. The primary focus of the 2011 EMMC held on July 18 and19, 2011, in Kananaskis, Alberta, was the development of a collaborative approach to energy to guide federal, provincial and territorial government energy policies. The development of a pan-Canadian approach to greater energy collaboration was discussed.

In July 2011, ministers at the EMMC approved a document, “Canada as a Global Energy Leader: Toward Greater Pan-Canadian Collaboration”, and a corresponding action plan. This information, along with the official EMMC communiqué, has been publicly posted on the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat’s website and can be accessed at the following website: www.scics.gc.ca/english/conferences.asp?x=1&a=view&id=2611&y=&m.

At the 2011 EMMC, a collaborative approach to energy was released, based on a set of common principles. These include a market-oriented approach to energy governed by effective regulatory systems, ensuring mutual respect for jurisdiction, recognizing the importance of sustainable energy development and use, and acknowledging the need for an adequate and reliable supply of energy.

The government will continue to work with provincial and territorial governments, industry stakeholders and all Canadians to further strengthen our approach and to ensure that our energy policies are coordinated and serve the best interests of Canadians.

Question No. 379

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

With regard to grants, contributions and contracts by Western Economic Diversification Canada since January 1, 2001: (a) what funding applications were approved by the Minister’s office, as identified by (i) project name, (ii) applicant name, (iii) number of times previously submitted, (iv) date approved, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount awarded, (vii) sector, (viii) federal electoral district determined by application address; (b) what funding applications were rejected by the Minister’s office, identified by (i) project name, (ii) applicant name, (iii) total amount of submitted applications, (iv) date rejected, (v) amount requested, (vi) sector, (vii) federal electoral district determined by application address; (c) for each federal electoral district, what is the total value of funding requests that were (i) approved, (ii) rejected; and (d) what untendered contracts were issued by or on behalf of the Minister?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, Western Economic Diversification Canada is unable to respond to this request in the time allotted due to the volume of information requested.

Question No. 380

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

With regard to the recommendation made by Jeremy Wallace, Deputy Director of Climate Change at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), that funding provisionally approved on April 29, 2011, by the DFAIT Planning, Advocacy, and Innovation Office, for the purpose of supporting an art exhibition by Canadian artist Franke James in Eastern Europe, be cancelled based on a determination that, “concerns that the funding proposed would not be consistent with our interests (…) and would in fact run counter to Canada’s interests more broadly”: (a) what specific criteria and evidence did the government use to determine that Ms. James’ art exhibition would constitute a threat to the interests of Canada; (b) for each correspondence, including e-mails, that relate to this determination, including those between Ministers’ exempt staff and departmental staff at DFAIT, (i) what are its details, (ii) what are the names of the sender and recipients, (iii) on what date was it sent; (c) on what evidence did DFAIT rely in order to justify the redactions, under Sections 20(1)(c), 21(1)(b), and 15(1) of the Access to Information Act, to the correspondence released to Ms. James under her Access to Information Act request on this matter on August 16, 2011; and (d) with regard to the Right to Freedom of Speech enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on what legal grounds did DFAIT base its decision to withdraw support and revoke Ms. James’ allotted funding?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), missions submit advocacy project proposals to the Planning, Advocacy and Innovation Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which are then reviewed and assessed against Government of Canada priorities. It is common practice for the officials involved and our missions to have back and forth discussions regarding these proposals, before making final eligibility decisions. The recommendation from the Climate Change and Energy Division was based on current priority areas for climate change funding, including the provision of support to assist vulnerable countries in tangible ways to adapt to climate change, and to support their substantive participation in international climate change negotiations.

In response to (b)(i), on May 2, 2011, a request was forwarded by a public affairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Rome, enclosing exchanges with a cultural affairs officer at the Canadian embassy in Zagreb. The exchange provided further background and discussion on the proposal.

In response to (b)(ii), the above-mentioned email communication was from a public affairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Rome to the Climate Change and Energy Division, enclosing exchanges with a cultural affairs officer in the Canadian embassy in Zagreb.

In response to (b)(iii), May 2 and April 21, 2011.

In response to (c), in order to redact information requested under the Access to Information Act, DFAIT relies on recommendations from subject matter experts within the program areas who provided the records, recommendations from other involved program areas, as well as the review and discretion exercised by experienced officials within the Access to Information division. Information was redacted in certain instances where its release was determined to cause a specific, current and probably injury. Paragraph 20(1)(c) was invoked to exempt sensitive financial information belonging to a third party. Paragraph 21(1)(b) was invoked to protect the frank exchange of ideas between government officers. Subsection 15(1)--International was invoked in some instances to protect Canada’s position for the purpose of international negotiations, and in others to protect Canada’s relations with foreign governments.

In response to (d), Foreign Affairs and International Trade provides operational funds to Canadian missions to promote and defend Canada’s interests abroad in line with government priorities. While funding for the mission project proposal was identified and provisionally approved by DFAIT, upon further consultations, we did not provide funds to our mission in Zagreb. Thus funding to the artist was never given, nor was it withdrawn. Any implication of political interference involving DFAIT’s decision is false.

Question No. 382

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

With regard to the current and projected impacts of anthropogenic climatic change and disruption including, but not limited to, increasing water scarcity, forest fire frequency and severity, degradation of permafrost-dependent infrastructure, frequency of extreme weather events including floods and heat waves, sea level rise, and the spread of vector-borne diseases such as Lyme Disease, for each department, what are the detailed current and projected economic costs associated with adapting to the aforementioned effects over the short, medium, and long term?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there is no relevant program area within Environment Canada that may be in a position to provide relevant information and/or documents concerning the economic costs associated with anthropogenic climate change impacts.

Question No. 386

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

With regard to the airports in Canada for which the lands or infrastructure are owned by the government: (a) what studies has Transport Canada or any entity under contract with a department undertaken regarding a review of the National Airport Policy, including the privatization of these airports and what airports are being considered for privatization in any such study; (b) what are the revenues for the government anticipated in any such study regarding the privatization of airports, (i) as a whole, (ii) listed individually by airport; (c) what advice have consultants KPMG or any other entity under contract with the government given on the privatization of airports currently owned by the government; and (d) what is the current annual revenue paid to the government by airports for rent?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Transport Canada, TC, is committed to ensuring that its policy framework for airports allows the industry to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future. While a formal review of the national airports policy is not under way, internal work is ongoing including analysis, as well as stakeholder engagement. The issues being examined include those raised by stakeholders and commentators, and focus on the state of the air industry in Canada generally, and the competitiveness of the industry. TC has not contracted with external parties for any studies concerning the possible sale of the national airport system, NAS, airports. There are no plans at present to privatize and/or sell airports.

In response to (b), as noted above, there has been no work undertaken regarding the sale or potential valuation of any NAS airport.

In response to (c), Transport Canada has not contracted with any external consultants to provide advice regarding the privatization of airports.

In response to (d), the airport rent received by the federal government in 2010 was $243 million. The amounts can be found through the main estimates at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2010-2011/inst/mot/st-ts01-eng.asp.

Question No. 401

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

What is the estimated cost of the government's response to question 385 on the Order Paper?

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

Mr. Speaker, as many responses to MPs’ written questions referred to in Question No. 385 from the member for Fort McMurray-Athabaska are scheduled for tabling in the House of Commons on January 30, 2012, the cost of producing these responses is still being compiled and will be provided in a supplementary response to Question No. 385. As a result, the government is not currently in a position to provide a costing for Question No. 385 at this time.

Question No. 406

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

With respect to the three programs supported by the Global Peace and Security Fund: (a) concerning the Global Peace and Security Program, (i) what projects have been approved in the last fiscal year and this year, (ii) what has the budget been for the last fiscal year and this year, (iii) what is the proposed budget for next year; (b) concerning the Global Peace Operation Program, (i) what projects have been approved in the last fiscal year and this year, (ii) what has the budget been for the last fiscal year and this year, (iii) what is the proposed budget for next year; and (c) concerning the Glyn Berry Program, (i) what projects have been approved in the last fiscal year and this year, (ii) what has the budget been for the last fiscal year and this year, (iii) what is the proposed budget for next year?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a)(i), a total of 85 projects were approved during fiscal year 2010-11, and a total of 23 projects approved for fiscal year 2011-12.

In response to (a)(ii), the budget for fiscal year 2010-11 was $107,256,520 and for fiscal year 2011-12 is $91,396,000.

In response to (a)(iii), the budget for fiscal year 2012-13 is $92,696,000.

In response to (b)(i), a total of 11 projects were approved during fiscal year 2010-11, and a total of 4 projects approved for fiscal year 2011-12.

In response to (b)(ii), the budget for fiscal year 2010-11 was $13,700,000 and for fiscal year 2011-12 is $13,700,000.

In response to (b)(iii), the budget for fiscal year 2012-13 is $8,000,000.

In response to (c) (i),a total of 29 projects were approved during fiscal year 2010-11, and a total of 5 projects approved for fiscal year 2011-12.

In response to (c)(ii), the budget for fiscal year 2010-11 was $5,000,000 and for fiscal year 2011-12 is $5,000,000.

In response to (c)(iii), the budget for fiscal year 2012-13 is $5,000,000.

A project is considered 'approved' if it has gone through all of the required levels of approvals and is either initiated, ongoing, or closed within a given fiscal year.

Fiscal year 2011-12 is not yet complete therefore data provided is a partial response.

For specific information on the projects approved by START with a value of more than$ 25,000, please refer to the proactive disclosure section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website: http://w03.international.gc.ca/dg-do/index_fa-ae.aspx?lang=eng&p=3&r=r.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 199-202, 204, 206, 207, 211, 213, 214, 216-218, 220, 222-231, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 241-244, 250, 252, 256, 257, 260-264, 266-272, 276-281, 283, 286, 287, 289, 290, 293-296, 298, 300-302, 304-306, 309, 311-314, 317, 319, 320, 327-329, 331-333, 335-337, 340, 342, 345-349, 351, 353-362, 365-376, 381, 383-385, 387-393, 396-400 and 402-405 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 199

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

What is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2004-2005, up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Beauport—Limoilou, identifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

(Return tabled)