Geoff Regan

[Question No. 235, June 4th, 2003]

See the reply to Question No. 173 that was answered on June 2, 2003.

[Question No. 215, June 4th, 2003]

I am informed by the Solicitor General of Canada that with respect to

(a) the current investigation began in 1995 and continued to 2003.

With respect to (b) our systems do not collect this information for individual investigations. A brief manual search gave a result for investigators who were exclusively assigned to this investigation which is as follows:

This investigation includes an ongoing criminal prosecution that has been before the court since October 2002.

With respect to (c) RCMP’s systems track financial information by parent or organizational unit, and not usually for individual investigations. A financial tracking mechanism was put in place for this investigation, for fiscal year 1997-98 onwards, that allows for the capture of the majority of costs, but not all. Salary and some expense costs associated to several of the investigators were not captured. To provide more complete figures would require a manual search of financial data that would be excessively time consuming. Overall cost for investigators assigned to this investigation and for related investigational expenses, which can be tracked without a manual search, are as follows:

These costs include expenses incurred for an ongoing criminal prosecution that has been before the court since October 2002.

With respect to (d) our systems track overall travel cost, not destination. To respond to the question as asked would require a manual search of data that would be excessively time consuming.

With respect to (e) the RCMP does not confirm nor deny the existence of, or payment to, any informant. Under RCMP policy the identification of informants must be protected in accordance with decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, which grants privilege to informants that their identity will not be disclosed.

I am informed by Justice Canada that

in answer to question (e), there were no payments made to informants for information provided to the Department of Justice.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 212, 215, 216, 218 and 235.

[Petitions, June 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the member for West Nova, I am pleased to present a petition from 30 residents of West Nova who call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Government Response to Petitions, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.

[Points of Order, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of order the member has raised. I know you are familiar with this process, Mr. Speaker, and with the rules that apply, and I know there are others who have gone before me in my role as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, outstanding members who have held this role in the past, and who are familiar with the fact that the branch of the Privy Council Office that handles these matters is often overwhelmed with the number of requests for documents and the amount of paper they have to go through. In fact, I have gone there to sign written answers to written questions when the stack of paper involved is so high and sometimes requires several boxes to contain the answer, and of course numerous copies of the answer are required.

It is in fact true that sometimes there are great difficulties posed by these questions and by answering them. In fact, sometimes it is entirely impossible to answer these questions within the 45 days given and requested by the members.

I want to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 443 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states:

The guidelines that apply to the form and content of written questions are also applicable to the answers provided by the government. As such, no argument or opinion is to be given, and only the information needed to respond to the question is to be provided in an effort to maintain the process of written questions as an exchange of information rather than an opportunity for debate. It is acceptable for the government, in responding to a written question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer. On occasion, the government has supplied supplementary replies to questions already answered. The Speaker, however, has ruled that it is not in order to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred by the government in the preparation of that response.

Even though, Mr. Speaker, of course that cost and time is very, very significant.

[Government Response to Petitions, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

[Order In Council Appointments, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I obviously have not spoken to the House leader in relation to what my hon. colleague has just stated, but I want to note that he has not indicated that the House leader was aware of the circumstances regarding translation prior to the meeting taking place.

[Question No. 221, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other questions be allowed to stand.