Order Paper and Notice Paper
The Senate of Canada
Order Paper and Notice Paper
Issue 125, Tuesday, September 17, 2002
Daily Routine of Business
1. Senators' Statements.2. Tabling of Documents.
3. Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees.
4. Government Notices of Motions.
5. Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills.
6. Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills.
7. First Reading of Commons Public Bills.
8. Reading of Petitions for Private Bills.
9. Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills.
10. Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations.
11. Notices of Motions.
12. Notices of Inquiries.
13. Presentation of Petitions.
14. Question Period.
15. Delayed Answers.
16. Orders of the Day.
17. Inquiries.
18. Motions.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
No. 1.
June 13, 2002-Second reading of Bill C-53, An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests.
Inquiries
Nil
Motions
Nil
Reports of Committees
No. 1.
June 11, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robertson, for the adoption of the Seventeenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance (Estimates 2002-2003 (Treasury Board Vote 5) -Third Interim Report) presented in the Senate on June 6, 2002;
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Watt, that the Report be not now adopted, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for further study.
OTHER BUSINESS
Rule 27(3) states:
Unless previously ordered, any item under "Other Business'', "Inquiries'' and "Motions'' that has not been proceeded with during fifteen sittings shall be dropped from the Order Paper.
Consequently, the number appearing in parenthesis indicates the number of sittings since the item was last proceeded with.
Senate Public Bills
No. 1.
April 24, 2001-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wiebe, for the second reading of Bill S-9, An Act to remove certain doubts regarding the meaning of marriage. -(Honourable Senator Jaffer).
No. 2. (one)
February 21, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bolduc, for the second reading of Bill S-36, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship.-(Subject- matter referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on April 16, 2002).
No. 3. (one)
June 11, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, for the second reading of Bill S-44, An Act to amend the National Capital Act.-(Honourable Senator Kinsella).
No. 4. (two)
May 28, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Forrestall, seconded by the Honourable Senator Callbeck, for the second reading of Bill S-43, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses.-(Honourable Senator Callbeck).
No. 5. (five)
February 21, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Poy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill S-39, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act to include all Canadians.-(Honourable Senator Adams).
No. 6. (eight)
December 12, 2001-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill, for the second reading of Bill S-35, An Act to honour Louis Riel and the Metis People.-(Honourable Senator LeBreton).
No. 7. (eleven)
March 20, 2001-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Stratton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cohen, for the second reading of Bill S-20, An Act to provide for increased transparency and objectivity in the selection of suitable individuals to be named to certain high public positions.-(Honourable Senator Tkachuk).
No. 8. (twelve)
February 19, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator St. Germain, P.C, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, for the second reading of Bill S-38, An Act declaring the Crown's recognition of self- government for the First Nations of Canada.-(Honourable Senator Chalifoux).
No. 9. (fourteen)
April 25, 2002- Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Taylor, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, for the second reading of Bill S-42, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (householder mailings).-(Honourable Senator Chalifoux).
Commons Public Bills
Nil
Private Bills
Nil
Reports of Committees
No. 1.
June 4, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bryden, for the adoption of the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (time allotted to tributes in the Senate), presented in the Senate on May 2, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Sparrow).
No. 2.
June 13, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Atkins, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, for the adoption of the Fifth Report (Final) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence entitled: Canadian Security and Military Preparedness, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on February 28, 2002. -(Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.).
No. 3.
March 26, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the adoption of the Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled: Modernizing the Senate from Within: Updating the Senate Committee Structure, presented in the Senate on March 20, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Di Nino).
No. 4.
June 13, 2002-Consideration of the Fifteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (mandates and names of committees), presented in the Senate on June 13, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Austin, P.C.).
No. 5.
June 13, 2002-Consideration of the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance (2002-03 Estimates-National Capital Commission) presented in the Senate on June 13, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Murray, P.C).
No. 6.
June 13, 2002-Consideration of the Tenth Report (Interim), of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled: Canadian Farmers at Risk, tabled in the Senate on June 13, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Gustafson).
No. 7. (one)
June 11, 2002-Consideration of the Fourteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled: Modernizing the Senate from Within: Updating the Senate Committee Structure-Issues Raised by Individual Senators, presented in the Senate on June 11, 2002. -(Honourable Senator Austin, P.C.).
No. 8. (two)
April 25, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poulin, for the adoption of the Seventeenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology entitled: Volume Five: Principles and Recommendations for Reform - Part 1, tabled in the Senate on April 18, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Pépin).
No. 9. (four)
April 23, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Comeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson, for the adoption of the Fifth Report of Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries entitled: Selected Themes on Canada's Freshwater and Northern Fisheries, tabled in the Senate on February 19, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Robertson).
No. 10. (four)
June 4, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, for the adoption of the Tenth Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages (funding for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages), tabled in the Senate on April 25, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Comeau).
No. 11. (four)
June 4, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Graham, P.C., for the adoption of the Eleventh Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages (awareness campaign concerning the Official Languages Act), tabled in the Senate on April 25, 2002.-(Honourable Senator Comeau).
Other
No. 40. (inquiry)
March 21, 2002-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cordy calling the attention of the Senate to the status of palliative care in Canada.-(Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C.).
No. 51. (inquiry)
June 13, 2002- Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Pearson calling the attention of the Senate to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children that took place in New York on May 8- 10, 2002. -(Honourable Senator Andreychuk).
No. 128. (one) (motion)
June 11, 2002- Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Adams:
That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed to examine the questions of crime and violence in Canada, and their prevention, including the processes of criminal charges, plea agreements, sentencing, imprisonment and parole, with special emphasis on the societal and behavioural causes and origins of crime, and on the current developments, pathologies, patterns and trends of crime, and on the consequences of crime and violence for society, for Canadians, their families, and for peace and justice itself;
That the Special Committee have the power to consult broadly, to examine the relevant research studies, the case law and the literature;
That the Special Committee shall be composed of five senators, 3 of whom shall constitute a quorum;
That the Special Committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Special Committee have the power to sit during the adjournment of the Senate;
That the Special Committee have the power to retain the services of professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;
That the Special Committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the Special Committee have the power to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings; and
That the Special Committee shall make its final report no later than two years from the date of the committee's organization meeting.-(Honourable Senator Cools).
No. 53. (two) (inquiry)
June 6, 2002-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Gill calling the attention of the Senate to the consultation process by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs regarding self-government and governance. -(Honourable Senator Watt).
No. 52. (three) (inquiry)
June 5, 2002-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Tunney calling the attention of the Senate to corporate governance in Canada and the impact it has on ordinary individual Canadians, including shareholders, pensions, employees and suppliers.-(Honourable Senator Day).
No. 49. (four) (inquiry)
April 23, 2002-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools calling the attention of the Senate to:
(a) to the public's need for the Senate and the Parliament of Canada to take into their cognizance the current conflict between Ottawa residents with their Ottawa City Council and the National Capital Commission regarding the National Capital Commission's proposal to re-zone a riverfront parkland to build a 244 dwelling housing development on that riverfront parkland, a matter well reported in the media;
(b) to the national capital parkland known as the Moffatt Farm, a riverfront parkland on the heritage waterway, the Rideau River, at Mooney's Bay, near the entrance to the Hog's Back Locks, all of which form a part of the ancient and historic Rideau Canal and the Rideau Canal Waterway System, a parkland which for decades has been held by the National Capital Commission as a commissioned public trust for its protection for the public good and for the public use;
(c) to the meaning in law of a commission, being that a commission is a public body with a public purpose, authorized by letters patent, an act of parliament, or other lawful warrant to execute and perform a public office, and further, that the National Capital Commission is no ordinary entity, or no simple arms length crown corporation but is a commission a peculiar constitutional entity, intended to perform a public duty;
(d) to the current land use designation zoning of Moffat Farm which is zoned as parkland, as are other Ottawa national capital parks such as Vincent Massey Park and Hog's Back Park, parklands whose maintenance and sustenance are of great importance and concern to Ottawans;
(e) to the National Capital Commission contracted agreements with private developers, including that one with DCR Phoenix, regarding the sale for development of the parkland, Moffatt Farm, to the same DCR Phoenix, a private developer currently acting as the National Capital Commission agent before Ottawa City Council and the Ontario Municipal Board in proceedings about the National Capital Commission proposed re-zoning of Moffatt Farm from parkland zoning to residential zoning so as to permit the National Capital Commission's sale of this parkland to private developers;
(f) to Ottawa City Council's unanimous decision on March 27, 2002 rejecting and soundly defeating the National Capital Commission/DCR Phoenix's proposal for re-zoning and development of the Moffatt Farm parkland, to the city government's strong objection to the proposed development, being the building of 244 expensive, luxurious high end houses on the Moffatt Farm parkland, a parkland also known for its environmentally sensitive lands;
(g) the responsible ministry's and the National Capital Commission's own protocol that holds that the National Capital Commission should defer to municipal government on planning issues and land use;
(h) to another motion overwhelmingly adopted by Ottawa City Council on April 10, 2002 expressing the City's wish to purchase the Moffatt Farm parkland, also asking the National Capital Commission to honour City Council's decision and also to withdraw its own appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board asking the Ontario Municipal Board to overturn City Council and force the re-zoning of Moffatt Farm from parkland zoning to residential zoning;
(i) to that same City Council motion of April 10, 2002, which said:
"WHEREAS the Moffatt Farm has been in public ownership for the past 50 years, since its expropriation, and has until 1999, been designated a Capital Park by the National Capital Commission;
AND WHEREAS the NCC has determined that this property is surplus to national needs and intends to sell it;
AND WHEREAS the Moffatt Farm is outside the General Urban Area, and designated as Waterfront Open Space in the Regional Official Plan, which is land in, or intended to be in, public ownership and intended for public recreation and environmental conservation uses;
AND WHEREAS the Moffatt Farm has no `right of development' at this time, being designated Major Open Space, Waterway Corridor and Environmentally Sensitive Area, zoning that offers the highest possible protection;
AND WHEREAS, in the Ottawa Official Plan, the Moffatt Farm is designated as a District/Community Park, a use identified in the 1973 Carleton Heights Secondary Plan as a means to address inadequate parkland for this area of the City;
AND WHEREAS, since 1973, the population of this community has doubled and available parkland has already decreased;
AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has a policy to acquire, where possible, waterfront properties that form the Greenway System and preserve these lands for public open space use;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa offer to purchase the entire Moffatt Farm property from the NCC, at a price which will be based on its current and future use as a District Park; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City request the local Members of Parliament (National Capital Caucus) to urge the NCC to respect Council's unanimous decision and withdraw its appeal to the OMB.''
(j) to the growing public disenchantment and disappointment of Ottawans who perceive the National Capital Commission's corporate culture as running roughshod over Ottawans with wanton disregard for local communities of which the Moffat Farm community is only one of several which include Lac Leamy, Sparks Street redevelopment and others, all of which have resulted in diminishing public respect for the National Capital Commission and its land use proposals in the national capital area;
(k) to the burgeoning public unease about the destiny of Ottawa's precious public lands as many Ottawans are anxious that the National Capital Commission is conducting its affairs in land use matters, more as a private development company and less as a public commission entrusted with Her Majesty's and the public's interest in the proper land use of unique, historical, heritage parklands and properties; and
(l) to the public need for Parliament's study and review of the National Capital Commission in its entirety, including its role, structure, organization, operations, authorizing statute, its parliamentary appropriations, finances, and its relations with Canadian citizens, especially Canadian citizens living in the Ottawa area, its land dealings, its land developments, and its agreements with private developers selected by the National Capital Commission as recipients, buyers, of treasured historic lands.-(Honourable Senator Kinsella).
No. 16. (five) (inquiry)
April 3, 2001-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck calling the attention of the Senate to the status of legal aid in Canada and the difficulties experienced by many low-income Canadians in acquiring adequate legal assistance, for both criminal and civil matters.-(Honourable Senator Pearson).
No. 103. (six) (motion)
March 19, 2002-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gauthier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill:
That the Senate approve the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and those of its committees, on principles analogous to those regulating the publication of the official record of its deliberations; and
That a special committee, composed of five Senators, be appointed to oversee the implementation of this resolution. -(Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.).
No. 45. (seven) (inquiry)
May 28, 2002-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator De Bané, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to what he regards as the top ten foreign policy challenges facing Canada.-(Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C.).
No. 43. (nine) (inquiry)
March 12, 2002-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to certain issues related to the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons subsequent to the decennial census of the year 2001.-(Honourable Senator Stratton).
No. 11. (ten) (inquiry)
May 10, 2001-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk calling the attention of the Senate to issues surrounding rural Canada.-(Honourable Senator Tunney).
No. 73. (thirteen) (motion)
June 14, 2001-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator DeWare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella:
That the Senate endorse and support the following statements from two of its Standing Committees in relation to Bill C-4 being An Act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.
From the Fifth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources the following statement:
"The actions of the Government of Canada in creating a private sector corporation as a stand-in for the Foundation now proposed in Bill C-4, and the depositing of $100 million of taxpayer's money with that corporation, without the prior approval of Parliament, is an affront to members of both Houses of Parliament. The Committee requests that the Speaker of the Senate notify the Speaker of the House of Commons of the dismay and concern of the Senate with this circumvention of the parliamentary process.''
From the Eighth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance being its Interim Report on the 2001-2002 Estimates, the Committee's comments on Bill C-4:
"Senators wondered if this was an appropriate way to create such agencies and crown corporations. They questioned whether the government should have passed the bill before it advanced the funding. The members of the Committee condemn this process, which creates and funds a $100 million agency without prior Parliamentary approval.''
And that this Resolution be sent to the Speaker of the House of Commons so that he may acquaint the House of Commons with the Senate's views and conclusions on Bill C-4 being An Act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.-(Honourable Senator Stratton).
NOTICE PAPER
INQUIRIES
No. 48. (fourteen)
By the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C.:
April 17, 2002-That he will call the attention of the Senate to the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian Territories.
No. 50. (eleven)
By the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C.:
May 1, 2002-That he will call the attention of the Senate to the way in which, in the future, honorary Canadian citizens should be named and national days of remembrance proclaimed for individuals or events.
No. 54. (three)
By the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C.:
June 4, 2002-That he will call the attention of the Senate to
(a) the unveiling of the portraits of former Prime Ministers Senator Sir John Abbott and Senator Sir Mackenzie Bowell, on Monday, June 3;
(b) insight into current events to be gleaned therefrom, including the challenge to Prime Minister Bowell by his Finance Minister, Sir George Foster.
MOTIONS
No. 140. (nine)
By the Honourable Senator LeBreton:
May 8, 2002-That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology have the power to sit on Wednesday May 22nd Wednesday, May 29th, Wednesday, June 5th and Wednesday, June 12th 2002 at 3:30 p.m., even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that Rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
No. 146. (one)
By the Honourable Senator Kolber:
June 11, 2002-That in accordance with the provisions contained in section 216 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and in section 22 of theCompanies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report on the administration and operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and theCompanies' Creditors Arrangement Act; and
That the Committee submit its final report no later than June 5, 2003.
No. 147.
By the Honourable Senator Roche:
June 12, 2002-That the Senate recommends that the Government of Canada lead an international effort to ban the introduction of all weapons in space through a binding international agreement against the weaponization of space given
(i) the termination of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and U.S. military plans to include space-based weapons in the National Missile Defence (NMD) system; and
(ii) the weaponization of space would instigate a dangerous and costly arms race and disrupt peaceful commercial and scientific endeavours in space.
No. 150.
By the Honourable Senator Day:
June 13, 2002-That a Special Committee of the Senate of Canada be appointed to examine and report upon:
(a) the evolving nature of the Canadian media industry, composed as it is of newspapers, magazines, radio, television, the internet and the world wide web, satellites and telephony;
(b) the patterns of ownership and control of Canadian media;
(c) the extent and nature of the competitive forces at play in the market place as they relate to Canadian media; and
(d) the trends that are likely to influence any or all of these matters in the coming years;
That the Committee further have the power to examine and report upon:
(a) freedom of the press and its role in a democracy,
(b) the public's right to diversity of information, opinions and entertainment provided by a broad array of sources;
(c) the responsibility of the Canadian media industry to the Canadian public;
(d) the role and place of public broadcasting in Canada;
(e) how Canadians are being served by new forms of electronic media, better known as the "new media'';
(f) the trends in Canada towards cross media ownership, or "convergence'', and the impact of such trends, if any, on editorial independence and the diversity of opinions and ideas in the market place of ideas;
(g) The quality of journalism training and of the employment opportunities for journalists in Canada; and
(h) the role of Parliament and government agencies, including the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Competition Bureau, in monitoring the media industry and safeguarding Canada's cultural identity and social fabric.
That the Committee have power to engage the services of legal, technical, clerical and other personnel as it may deem necessary in relation thereto;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings;
That the Committee be composed of 6 members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection; and
That the Committee present its final report no later than March 31st, 2004.
QUESTIONS
No. 21.
By the Honourable Senator Forrestall:
April 30, 2002-1. On what date did the government sign a requisition for the purchase of 2 Challenger 604 aircraft bought on 24 March, 2002?
2. On what date did the government sign a contract for the March purchase of 2 Challenger 604 aircraft with Bombardier?
3. On what date did Bombardier deliver the 2 Challenger 604 aircraft to the Canadian Forces?
4. What was the Operations and Maintenance deficit for the (a) Land component (Army), (b) Maritime component (Navy), and (c) Air component (Air Force) of the Canadian Forces on 31 March 2002?
5. How many personnel from the crew of (a) HMCS Preserver and (b) HMCS Halifax, who served in the Arabian Sea during Operation Apollo submitted their release documentation from the Canadian Forces as of 29 April 2002?
6. How many pay cheques were issued to permanent/regular force members of the Canadian Forces for the first pay period of the months of January, February, March, and April of 2002?
7. What is the estimated dollar value to fix the dent in the side of HMCS Victoria?
8. What other work must be completed to bring HMCS Victoria up to an Operational level of Capability and what is the total estimated cost of this work?
9. What is the total estimated dollar value associated with bringing all 4 Victoria class submarines up to a standard operational capability?
10. What is the current estimated life expectancy of the Tribal class destroyers, Halifax Class frigates, and Victoria class submarines?
11. How many engines were replaced in Sea King helicopters deployed on Operation Apollo from October 2001 until 31 March 2002?
12. What was the total number of Sea King tasked sorties for Operation Apollo from October 2001 until 31 March 2002?
13. What was the total number of hours Sea Kings were not available to fly tasked sorties due to technical/ mechanical problems during Operation Apollo over the period October 2001 until 31 March 2002?
14. How many Sea King tasked sorties for Operation Apollo from October 2001 until 31 March 2002 were cancelled or aborted due to mechanical difficulties?
15. What was the total number of C-130 Hercules transport aircraft tasked sorties for Operation Apollo from October 2001 until 31 March 2002?
16. How many C-130 Hercules transport aircraft tasked sorties for Operation Apollo from December 2001 until 31 March 2002 were cancelled or aborted due to technical difficulties?
17. How many personnel currently serving on Operation Apollo as of 29 April 2002 have sought release from the Canadian Forces at the end of their deployment and what is the element breakdown on these figures?
18. How many meetings have there been on the implications of the United States creation of Northern Command at the Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister, and Ministerial Levels within the Privy Council, Department of National defence, and Department of Foreign Affairs since October 2001?
19. What is the estimated Canadian portion of the costs associated with NORAD's purchase of the new experimental "Stratoship''?
20. What locations are under consideration for a ballistic missile defense tracking radar systems in Eastern Canada?
No. 22.
By the Honourable Senator LeBreton:
May 2, 2002- Concerning the use of Government Aircraft, specifically the CC150 Airbus Aircraft, dubbed the "Taj Mahal'' by then Opposition Leader Jean Chrétien on June 1, 1993:
1. What is the airframe designation for this particular reconfigured Airbus which was delivered to the Department of National Defence in July 1993?
2. Have further modifications been made to this particular aircraft since July 1993? If so, describe in detail.
3. Since acquiring the aircraft in July 1993 has this aircraft ever been used by: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Prime Minister's spouse, Mme Aline Chrétien; (c) any Federal Cabinet Minister; (d) any other Federal Parliamentarian? (e) If so, on what dates and for what purpose?
4. Since acquiring the aircraft in July 1993, how many times has the aircraft been used for: (a) senior level military officials; (b) senior RCMP officials; (c) senior government or departmental officials; (d) heads of government agencies and boards? (e) Provide the dates and the purpose for these trips.
5. How many times has this particular aircraft been used between July 1993 and April 30, 2002 for the purposes of transporting Canadian Forces troops to theatres of engagement? Please provide specific dates and destinations.
No. 23.
By the Honourable Senator Forrestall:
May 28 2002-1. Is it true that in 1993 the Defence budget was $12 billion?
2. Excluding incremental and contingency spending what was the base or base line of the Defence budget in 1998?
3. What was the percentage of the Defence budget spent on Capital procurement in (a) 1990 and (b) 2001?
4. Is it true that the falling Capital procurement budget is the reason for incremental programmes to upgrade or extend the life expectancy of the CF-18s or the Aurora?
5. Is it true that the amount of the budget available for Capital procurement hovers now at 19 percent or it is lower? If not what is the actual figure?
6. Is it true that according to Defence Planning Guidance 2000 that 1999 was the first increase in the Defence budget since the early 1990s?
7. Excluding incremental and contingency spending what was the base or base line of the Defence budget in (a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001, and (d) 2002?
8. Is it not true that all the Canadian Forces received in the 1999 Budget was an additional $175 million in incremental funding specifically for Quality of Life?
9. Is it not true that the Quality of Life money was a one shot deal, it was incremental spending, not money added to the base of the budget.
10. Is it not true that nothing was added to the base of the Canadian Forces budget in 1999 and that the only other monies was a restored cut of $150 million to the base of the Defence budget?
11. Is it true that the 146 million given for the Kosovo Contingency in the 2000 Budget was not enough and that another 640 million had to be put towards contingency operations in Kosovo and East Timor to cover monies that came from the base of the budget, in other words that the money was spent before it was even allocated and was never an addition to the base of the budget?
12. Is it not true that the only additional monies for the Canadian Forces in 2002 were again contingency or incremental spending? For example, some 119 million over 6 years to increase the effectiveness of JTF 2, and $210 million for Operation Apollo and $300 million for Capital procurement, so again there was no money added to the base of the Defence budget.
13. In real terms and excluding incremental and contingency spending what was the increase to the base of the Defence budget since 1998?
14. Is it true that Quality of Life Funding, Kosovo, East Timor, JTF 2 and Operation Apollo were only incremental increases in the Defence budget and not an increase to the base of the Defence budget?
15. (a) What is the estimated cost of Operation Apollo to date and are those costs covered by Contingency funds; or (b) are the costs taken from the base of the budget, and (c) or both?
16. Is it true that most of the costs for Operation Apollo are coming out of the base of the budget and that the incremental funds or one shot deals are not enough to pay for the Operation?
17. (a) Is it true that the Canadian Forces is going to join the European Union Rapid Reaction Force; (b) does this reflect a change in the Canadian government's support for NATO by joining the European Union peacekeeping force; (c) does this reflect a lack of Canadian government support for UN peacekeeping by signing on to the European Rapid Reaction Force; (d) what are the estimated costs of joining the European Union Rapid Reaction Force; and (e) what will be the source of the funding, the existing base of the Defence budget, a new base line for the Defence budget, or incremental funding?
18. What are the estimated costs of Canada taking part in Northern Command?
19. What is the estimated cost of getting the Canadian Forces back to their authorized personnel ceiling of 60,000 regular forces personnel?
20. Is it true that our air force squadrons are manned at 60-70 per cent of their pilot requirements?
21. We were 222 pilots short according to the Government's own figures last year. What is the total pilot shortage now?
22. What are the estimated costs to Canada of NORAD's plan to purchase 12 or so new AWACs aircraft, of which 4 are supposed to be permanently based in Canada according to information exchanged at the jointly sponsored Department of National Defence and Canadian Defence Industry Association Air Force Outlook Conference held in Ottawa this year?
23. What are the estimated costs of (a) replacing the (i) CF-18 Fighter fleet, (ii) CP-140 Maritime Patrol Aircraft fleet, (iii) C-130 Hercules Tactical Transport fleet; (b) acquiring new Large Transport aircraft; (c) re-acquiring our in air strategic refuelling capability; and (d) is it more than $4 billion?
24. Have any of these aircraft fleets listed above for replacement been given Treasury Board approval, and if so how many and which ones?
25. What is estimated value of the contracts for in service support of the Canada Search Helicopter programme to IMP in Halifax over a 20-year period?
26. What is the estimated cost of the new Maritime Helicopter fleet's in service support for both aircraft and mission systems over a 20-year period?
27. Is it true that for every year that the Maritime Helicopter Project is delayed that the costs increase by $40 million per year?
28. Is it not true that the estimated maintenance costs on the Sea King fleet are over $40 million per year and that the Government has spent almost $100 million in upgrades to the Sea King to keep it flying?
29. Is it true that when added together, the Canada Search Helicopter Programme and its in service support and the Maritime Helicopter Project and its in service support over a 20-year period along with cancellation fees and costs of split procurement bring the total cost of both programmes to over $8 billion?
30. (a) Has Treasury Board approval been given to replace the (i) Leopard 1A main battle tank, (ii) our M-109 self propelled artillery; (b) if so, what is the estimated cost of these two replacement programmes?
31. (a) What is the estimated cost on the CADRE programme to replace the Tribal class air defence destroyers for the Canadian Navy; (b) has the CADRE programme received Treasury Board Approval?
32. (a) What is the estimated cost of replacing the Navy's AOR support ships with the Afloat Logistics Ship Concept; (b) is the estimated cost of the Afloat Logistics Ship Concept valued at about $2 billion?
33. (a) Is it true that the following major weapons platforms are due to be retired in the 2010-2015 time-frame such as the (i) CF-18, (ii) Sea King, (iii) Hercules tactical transport aircraft, (iv) Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, (v) Leopard A1 main battle tanks, (vi) Tribal class destroyers, and (vii) support ships; (b) if not, which systems do you foresee passing their operational life span; and (c) what is the estimated total amount of money needed to replace these capabilities?
34. Has the Government (a) completed a list of this country's strategic infrastructure; (b) estimated the costs of defending it from unconventional attack; (c) if so, what are those costs; and (d) do they have Treasury Board approval?
No. 24.
By the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton:
May 30, 2002-1. As of May 31, 2002, have any names been added to the "List of Entities'' as provided in clause 83.05 of Bill C-36? If so: (a) what are the names of each listed entity; (b) has any entity applied in writing to have its name removed as provided in subclause 83.05(2)? (c) If yes to (b), what has been the response of the Solicitor General in each case?
2. As of May 31, 2002, have any orders been issued leading to investigative hearings as provided in clause 83.28 of Bill C-36? If so: (a) how many orders have been issued; (b) where was each of these orders executed; (c) have warrants for arrest been issued as provided in clause 83.29? If so, how many, and where?
3. As of May 31, 2002, have any arrests been made as provided in clause 83.3 of Bill C-36? If so: (a) how many arrests have been made; (b) where were these arrests made; (c) how many of those arrested have been released; (d) how many are in detention and, in each case, since when and for what duration?
4. As of May 31, 2002, have any objections to the disclosure of information been made as provided in clause 37 of Bill C-36 in the context of litigation flowing from the anti-terrorism legislation.. If so: (a) how many such objections have been made; (b) before which courts, including their locations, was each of these objections made; and (c) what is the name and position of each individual who made an objection?
5. As of May 31, 2002, how many judges have been appointed pursuant to clause 95 of Bill C-36?