Order Paper and Notice Paper
The Senate of Canada
Order Paper and Notice Paper
Issue 100
Monday, March 28, 2011
2:00 p.m.
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is a document that guides the deliberations of the Senate and lists items of business currently before it. These items are listed in several different categories and in a priority according to an arrangement adopted by the Senate as stipulated in the rules. The majority of these items constitute the Orders of the Day which are called following the daily Routine of Business. These items are themselves divided into two principal categories - government business and other business. Within each of these two categories are items for bills, motions, inquiries and reports of committees.
The Notice Paper contains the text of motions and inquiries not yet called for debate.
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is prepared every day in advance of the actual sitting.
Order of Business
(The following is an outline of a typical sitting day in the Senate. Variations are possible subject to the Rules and to the decisions of the Senate.)
Senators' Statements (15 minutes)
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS (30 minutes)
1. Tabling of Documents
2. Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
3. Government Notices of Motions
4. Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
5. Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
6. First Reading of Commons Public Bills
7. Reading of Petitions for Private Bills
8. Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills
9. Tabling of Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations
10. Notices of Motions
11. Notices of Inquiries
12. Presentation of Petitions
Question Period (30 minutes)
Delayed Answers
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Government Business
Bills
Inquiries
Motions
Reports of Committees
Other Business
Senate Public Bills
Commons Public Bills
Private Bills
Reports of Committees
Other
NOTICE PAPER
Inquiries
Motions
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
No. 1.
March 25, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Runciman, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, for the third reading of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children);
STANDING VOTE DEFERRED TO 5:30 P.M., PURSUANT TO RULE 67(2), AND THE BELLS TO SOUND AT 5:15 P.M. FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES (Rule 66(3))
On the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif, that the bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration and report.
No. 2.
April 29, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Brown, seconded by the Honourable Senator Runciman, for the second reading of Bill S-8, An Act respecting the selection of senators.
Inquiries
No. 2.
By the Honourable Senator Comeau:
March 23, 2011-That he will call the attention of the Senate to the budget entitled, A Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth, tabled in the House of Commons on March 22, 2011, by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable James M. Flaherty, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on March 23, 2011.
No. 3.
By the Honourable Senator Comeau:
March 23, 2011-That he will call the attention of the Senate to the deplorable use of violence by the Libyan regime against the Libyan people as well as the actions the Canadian Government is undertaking alongside our allies, partners and the United Nations, in order to promote and support United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
Motions
Nil
Reports of Committees
Nil
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. (one)
March 23, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-227, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses). -(Honourable Senator Mercer)
No. 2. (one)
June 15, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Chaput, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).-(Honourable Senator Mockler)
No. 3. (one)
March 23, 2011-Second reading of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of money). -(Honourable Senator Murray, P.C.)
No. 4. (four)
April 28, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif, for the second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children). -(Honourable Senator Comeau)
No. 5. (eight)
March 3, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hubley, seconded by the Honourable Senator MacDonald, for the second reading of Bill S-226, An Act to recognize the Maple Leaf Tartan as the national tartan of Canada.-(Honourable Senator MacDonald)
No. 6. (nine)
December 8, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harb, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-224, An Act to establish a national volunteer emergency response service. -(Honourable Senator Comeau)
No. 7. (twelve)
April 29, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif, for the second reading of Bill S-205, An Act to provide the means to rationalize the governance of Canadian businesses during the period of national emergency resulting from the global financial crisis that is undermining Canada's economic stability.-(Honourable Senator Gerstein)
No. 8. (fourteen)
February 10, 2011-Second reading of Bill S-228, An Act respecting Giovanni Caboto Day.-(Honourable Senator Di Nino)
Commons Public Bills
No. 1. (one)
March 21, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.-(Honourable Senator Smith (Saurel))
No. 2. (one)
March 24, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, for the second reading of Bill C-509, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials). -(Honourable Senator Tardif)
No. 3. (two)
March 23, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lang, seconded by the Honourable Senator Braley, for the second reading of Bill C-473, An Act to protect insignia of military orders and military decorations and medals that are of cultural significance for future generations. -(Honourable Senator Lang)
No. 4. (five)
March 9, 2011-Second reading of Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (disclosure of compensation - registered charities).-(Honourable Senator Tardif)
No. 5. (fourteen)
February 10, 2011-Second reading of Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression).-(Honourable Senator Comeau)
Private Bills
Nil
Reports of Committees
No. 1.
March 25, 2011-Resuming debate on the consideration of the third report (interim) of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism, entitled: Security, Freedom and the Complex Terrorist Threat: Positive Steps Ahead, tabled in the Senate on March 23, 2011.-(Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.)
No. 2.
March 24, 2011-Consideration of the seventh report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled: The Implementation of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, tabled in the Senate on March 24, 2011.-(Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C.)
No. 3. (one)
March 23, 2011-Resuming debate on the consideration of the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled: Training in Afghanistan: Include Women, tabled in the Senate on December 15, 2010.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 4. (two)
December 14, 2010-Consideration of the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled: Seizing Opportunities for Canadians: India's Growth and Canada's Future Prosperity, tabled in the Senate on December 14, 2010.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 5. (two)
March 22, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Smith, P.C. (Cobourg), seconded by the Honourable Senator Merchant, for the adoption of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (Restructuring of Senate Standing Committees), presented in the Senate on March 9, 2011. -(Honourable Senator De Bané, P.C.)
No. 6. (five)
April 29, 2010-Resuming debate on the consideration of the first report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled: Canada and Russia: Building on today's successes for tomorrow's potential, tabled in the Senate on March 31, 2010.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 7. (twelve)
April 29, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Smith, P.C., (Cobourg) seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser, for the adoption of the second report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (study on questions of privilege), presented in the Senate on April 27, 2010;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser, that the report be not now adopted, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for further study and debate.-(Honourable Senator Cools)
No. 8. (thirteen)
February 8, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Meighen, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson, for the adoption of the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce (Bill S-206, An Act to establish gender parity on the board of directors of certain corporations, financial institutions and parent Crown corporations, with a recommendation), presented in the Senate on February 3, 2011.-(Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C.)
No. 9. (fifteen)
October 28, 2010-Resuming debate on the consideration of the seventh report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled: A Workplan for Canada in the New Global Economy: Responding to the Rise of Russia, India and China, tabled in the Senate on June 28, 2010. -(Honourable Senator Tardif)
No. 10. (fifteen)
November 16, 2010-Resuming debate on the consideration of the eighth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources entitled: Facts Do Not Justify Banning Canada's Current Offshore Drilling Operations: A Senate Review In the Wake of BP's Deepwater Horizon Incident, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on August 18, 2010.-(Honourable Senator Lang)
No. 11. (six)
December 9, 2010-Resuming debate on the consideration of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled: Canada and the United Nations Human Rights Council: Charting a New Course, tabled in the Senate on June 22, 2010.-(Honourable Senator Jaffer)
Other
No. 84. (motion)
December 8, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Di Nino, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen:
That the Senate of Canada call upon the Chinese Government to release from prison, Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner;
And, on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Day, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, that the motion be amended by replacing all the words after "call upon'' with the words:
"the Government of Canada to discuss with the Chinese Government the welfare of Mr. Liu Xiaobo.''. -(Honourable Senator Di Nino)
No. 11. (inquiry)
June 1, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell calling the attention of the Senate to the online presence and website of the Senate.-(Honourable Senator Banks)
No. 23. (inquiry)
October 27, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Eaton calling the attention of the Senate to the benefits of Canada's oil sands.-(Honourable Senator Comeau)
No. 72. (motion)
December 14, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley:
That the Senate, recognizing that the National Long Form Census is an irreplaceable tool for governments and organizations that develop policies to improve the well-being of all Canadians, urge the Government of Canada to reverse its decision to replace the long form census with a more costly and less useful national household survey.-(Honourable Senator Di Nino)
No. 14. (inquiry)
June 29, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, calling the attention of the Senate to the need to adequately support new mothers and fathers by eliminating the Employment Insurance two-week waiting period for maternity and parental benefits. -(Honourable Senator Wallin)
No. 8. (inquiry)
March 30, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Finley calling the attention of the Senate to the issue of the erosion of Freedom of Speech in our country. -(Honourable Senator Comeau)
No. 31. (inquiry)
March 24, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck calling the attention of the Senate to the inequities of the Old Age Security Allowance for unattached, low-income seniors aged 60-64 years.-(Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.)
No. 37. (inquiry)
March 24, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mercer calling the attention of the Senate to Canada's current level of volunteerism, the impact it has on society, and the future of volunteerism in Canada.-(Honourable Senator Jaffer)
No. 99. (motion)
March 24, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dallaire, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:
That the Senate of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to increase its support for the United Nations in resolving the ongoing political conflict in the Ivory Coast and that the Government also recognize and implement the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect in order to mitigate the potential for a catastrophic humanitarian disaster in that country.-(Honourable Senator Dallaire)
No. 33. (one) (inquiry)
February 15, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cowan calling the attention of the Senate to the litany of broken promises by the Harper administration, beginning with the broken promise on income trusts, which devastated the retirement savings of so many Canadian seniors. -(Honourable Senator Comeau)
No. 29. (one) (inquiry)
December 15, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell calling the attention of the Senate to issues related to women in prisons in Canada.-(Honourable Senator Banks)
No. 83. (one) (motion)
December 9, 2010-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercer:
That the Senate of Canada recognize the 10th of December of each year as Human Rights Day as has been established by the United Nations General Assembly on the 4th of December, 1950. -(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 10. (one) (inquiry)
May 12, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Brazeau calling the attention of the Senate to the issue of accountability, transparency and responsibility in Canada's Aboriginal Affairs.-(Honourable Senator Finley)
No. 30. (one) (inquiry)
March 23, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Jaffer calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of developing a national language strategy. -(Honourable Senator Tardif)
No. 39. (one) (inquiry)
March 23, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cordy calling the attention of the Senate to those Canadians living with multiple sclerosis (MS) and chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), who lack access to the "liberation'' procedure.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 24. (two) (inquiry)
December 9, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of Sustainable Development Technology Canada.-(Honourable Senator Day)
No. 36. (two) (inquiry)
March 22, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool calling the attention of the Senate to the need for the Canadian federal government to adopt a gender-based approach to its budgetary and fiscal processes. -(Honourable Senator Wallin)
No. 38. (two) (inquiry)
March 22, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Moore calling the attention of the Senate to the Canada Border Services Agency, its operation and oversight. -(Honourable Senator Plett)
No. 3. (three) (inquiry)
March 11, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cowan calling the attention of the Senate to the issues relating to realistic and effective parliamentary reform. -(Honourable Senator Hubley)
No. 17. (nine) (inquiry)
June 8, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the state of Palliative Care in Canada.-(Honourable Senator Pépin)
No. 25. (ten) (inquiry)
November 23, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell calling the attention of the Senate to the state of women's equality in Canada.-(Honourable Senator Wallin)
No. 26. (ten) (inquiry)
November 23, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Wallin calling the attention of the Senate to the efforts and accomplishments of Canadian military members, diplomats and aid workers in Afghanistan over the past ten years, which has included significant milestones in security, basic services, economic development, diplomacy and humanitarian assistance;
The Government of Canada's plans for continued assistance to that country to build on this progress through a new non-combat role for Canada's engagement in Afghanistan until 2014 by training Afghan security forces so that Afghanistan can progressively take control of its own security and future; and
The fact that the Canadian Government will persist with its successful education and health initiatives for children, promotion of regional diplomacy and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.-(Honourable Senator Stratton)
No. 21. (eleven) (inquiry)
October 19, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Oliver calling the attention of the Senate to the state of Pluralism, Diversity and Racism in Canada and, in particular, to how we can develop new tools to meet the challenges of the 21st century to fight hatred and racism; to reduce the number of hate crimes; and to increase Canadians' tolerance in matters of race and religion.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)
No. 5. (eleven) (inquiry)
March 11, 2010-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the Impact of Dementia on the Canadian Society. -(Honourable Senator Cowan)
No. 28. (thirteen) (inquiry)
February 2, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Oliver, calling the attention of the Senate to the "Chiapas Declaration'' which was adopted by consensus at the International Parliamentary Conference on "Parliaments, Minorities and Indigenous Peoples: Effective participation in politics'' in Mexico on November 3rd, which urges every parliament to:
Hold a special debate on the situation of minorities and indigenous peoples in their country;
Recognize the diversity in society; and
Adopt a Plan of Action to make the right to equal participation and non-discrimination a reality for minorities and indigenous peoples.-(Honourable Senator Di Nino)
No. 85. (fourteen) (motion)
February 1, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C.:
Whereas the Senate of Canada recognizes that brain conditions, including developmental, neurological and psychiatric diseases, disorders, conditions and injuries, are a priority health, social and economic issue threatening the well-being and productivity of Canadians;
Whereas 5.5 million Canadians are living with a neurological disease, disorder, or injury and an estimated one in three Canadians will be affected by a neurological or psychiatric disease, disorder or injury at some point in their life;
Whereas the federal government has a leadership and coordination role with regards to health care in Canada; and
Whereas a targeted, coordinated National Brain Strategy developed in collaboration with government, non-profit and private sector stakeholders and focusing on innovative approaches to address research, prevention, integrated care and support, caregiver support, income security, genetic discrimination and public education and awareness would minimize the impact of brain conditions in Canada;
Be it resolved that the Senate of Canada urge the Government to provide funding for the development of a National Brain Strategy for Canada; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons requesting that House to unite with the Senate for the above purpose. -(Honourable Senator Comeau)
No. 34. (nine) (inquiry)
February 16, 2011-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell calling the attention of the Senate to issues related to the 5th anniversary of the Government. -(Honourable Senator Finley)
No. 88. (ten) (motion)
February 3, 2011-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tardif, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley:
That, at the end of Question Period and Delayed Answers on the sitting following the adoption of this motion, the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive the Commissioner of Official Languages; and
That the Committee of the Whole report to the Senate no later than one hour after it begins.-(Honourable Senator Comeau)
NOTICE PAPER
INQUIRIES
No. 35. (ten)
By the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
February 10, 2011-That he will call the attention of the Senate to the current state of climate change policy in Canada.
No. 40. (two)
By the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C.:
March 21, 2011-That she will call the attention of the Senate to the alarming number of aboriginal children in care in the Province of Manitoba and my concerns that the group think that brought about the residential schools and the sixties scoop may be at play again.
No. 41. (one)
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
March 22, 2011-That she will call the attention of the Senate to the importance of literacy, given that more than ever Canada requires increased knowledge and skills in order to maintain its global competiveness and to increase its ability to respond to changing labour markets.
MOTIONS
No. 101. (four)
By the Honourable Senator Harb:
March 10, 2011-That the Senate request that the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans investigate specific measures to support the Inuit/Aboriginal sealers given their designated exemption included in the EU ban on commercial seal products.
WRITTEN QUESTIONS
No. 7.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
March 3, 2010-With respect to Trade Agreements:
Canada and the European Union are undertaking negotiations to complete a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The discussion includes provisions for trade in goods and services, investment, government procurement, regulatory cooperation, intellectual property, temporary entry of business persons, competition policy and other related matters, labour, and the environment.
However, as negotiators begin their work, Canadians are concerned about the Conservative Government's ability to obtain a strong and effective deal for Canada, as other free trade agreements recently negotiated and signed by this Government have included many flaws. For example, despite the clear willingness on the part of Peru to complete trade negotiations with as many countries as possible, Canadian negotiators were unable to obtain a strong and effective trade agreement for Canada. As a result, Canadian beef, pork and potato producers have been left at a competitive disadvantage with other countries, specifically the United States.
The Conservative Government failed to negotiate meaningful provisions to protect the intellectual property rights of Canadians, and further failed to obtain a clause similar to that in the United States-Peru trade agreement that allows United States agricultural exporters to automatically obtain trade benefits included in any future trade negotiations Peru makes with other countries.
The results of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement lead to broader questions about Canada's ability to negotiate effective agreements. Although the prosperity of Canada does not depend on the signing of a free trade agreement with Peru, the results of Canada's negotiations reflect the Conservative Government's inability to obtain strong trade agreements.
A. Could the Government of Canada provide a copy of all documents and analysis comparing the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement with trade agreements Peru negotiated with other countries?
B. Could the Government of Canada provide the number of negotiators, if any, that have been retained from outside of the federal government to represent Canada in current trade negotiations?
C. Could the Government of Canada indicate whether it has considered and/or implemented plans to undertake a review of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement in 2014 to evaluate the trade implications for Canada?
No. 10.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
March 3, 2010-With respect to government decentralization:
A. Could the Government of Canada provide information on proposals prepared since 2006 on the relocation of government departments (or parts thereof), agencies and Crown corporations from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?
B. Could the Government of Canada provide information on assessments, completed since 2006, on which government departments (or parts thereof), agencies or Crown corporations could be relocated from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?
No. 13.
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
March 11, 2010-1. What were the total net assets of the Canada Pension Plan fund at the end of the most recent fiscal year? Of the previous fiscal year? What portion of these assets was in the form of cash for each year?
2. What was the total amount of benefits paid out during the most recent fiscal year? During the previous fiscal year?
3. Would you provide the latest actuarial assessment of the Canada Pension Plan fund with respect to its capacity to meet anticipated demand for benefits?
(a) When was this assessment performed?
(b) When is the next assessment planned?
4. In the past 5 years, have officials at Canada Pension Plan, Finance Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat or Human Resources and Social Development Canada performed any assessment or estimate of the cost of making changes to the limitation on benefits paid retroactive from the date of application?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
5. Has any assessment or estimate been made of the cost of matching the Quebec Pension Plan's policy of making retroactive payments for up to 60 months?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
6. Has any assessment or estimate been made of the cost of removing the limit altogether, and allowing applicants to receive payment for all retroactive benefits?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling these questions.
No. 14.
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
March 11, 2010-1. In 2007, the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills (OLES) posted a call for proposals for the funding of literacy projects. Each project was screened against three sets of mandatory criteria: the eligibility criteria of the program, priorities and merit criteria.
(a) What, in detail, were the eligibility criteria of the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program (ALLESP)?
(b) What, in detail, were the priorities in place at the time of the 2007 call for proposals?
(c) What, in detail, were the merit criteria for the 2007 call for proposal?
2. PEI Volunteers for Literacy submitted a proposal to improve family literacy in 2007. This organization had long received federal funding, but in the 2007 call for proposals, received a letter stating that its project was not eligible for funding.
(a) In what way, if any, did the PEI Volunteers for Literacy proposal not meet the eligibility criteria of the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program (ALLESP)?
(b) In what way, if any, did the PEI Volunteers for Literacy proposal not meet the priorities in place at the time of the 2007 call for proposals?
(c) In what way, if any, did the PEI Volunteers for Literacy proposal not meet the merit criteria for the 2007 call for proposal?
3. Holland College and the Institute of Adult and Community Education submitted a proposal in 2007. This organization had long received federal funding, but in the 2007 call for proposals, received a letter stating that its project was not eligible for funding.
(a) In what way, if any, did the Holland College and the Institute of Adult and Community Education proposal not meet the eligibility criteria of the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program (ALLESP)?
(b) In what way, if any, did the Holland College and the Institute of Adult and Community Education proposal not meet the priorities in place at the time of the 2007 call for proposals?
(c) In what way, if any, did the Holland College and the Institute of Adult and Community Education proposal not meet the merit criteria for the 2007 call for proposal?
4. La société éducative de l'Î.-P.-É. submitted a proposal in 2007. This organization had long received federal funding, but in the 2007 call for proposals, received a letter stating that its project was not eligible for funding.
(a) In what way, if any, did La société éducative de l'Î.-P.-É. proposal not meet the eligibility criteria of the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program (ALLESP)?
(b) In what way, if any, did La société éducative de l'Î.-P.-É. proposal not meet the priorities in place at the time of the 2007 call for proposals?
(c) In what way, if any, did La société éducative de l'Î.-P.-É. proposal not meet the merit criteria for the 2007 call for proposal?
5. With regard to the OLES' 2007 Call for Proposals,
(a) How much funding was allocated overall?
(b) How much was actually dispersed nationwide?
(c) How much funding was allocated to each province?
(d) How much was actually dispersed to each province?
(e) How many proposals were received in the OLES' 2007 Call for Proposals nationwide?
(f) How many were not recommended by the internal review committee?
6. With regard to the OLES' 2008 Call for Proposals,
(a) How much funding was allocated overall?
(b) How much was actually dispersed nationwide?
(c) How much funding was allocated to each province?
(d) How much was actually dispersed to each province?
(e) How many proposals were received nationwide?
(f) How many were not recommended by the internal review committee?
7. With regard to the OLES' 2009 Call for Proposals,
(a) How much funding was allocated overall?
(b) How much was actually dispersed nationwide?
(c) How much funding was allocated to each province?
(d) How much was actually dispersed to each province?
(e) How many proposals were received nationwide?
(f) How many were not recommended by the internal review committee?
8. How much funding was allocated and dispersed in the National Literacy Secretariat's 2005 call for proposals for provincial literacy grants? In the 2004 call for proposals for provincial literacy grants?
No. 21.
By the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
April 28, 2010-With respect to the Government of Canada's 2020 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels -
1. Could the government provide its assessment on how Canada will meet the 2020 target?
2. Could the government provide its estimated emission levels for each year in the period 2010-2020 (in megatonnes); specifically noting which year Canadian emissions will peak?
3. Could the government indicate how many emission credits will need to be purchased to meet the 2020 target, and where the government intends to purchase them from?
4. Could the government indicate what it estimates the carbon price (under the carbon pricing scheme that the government plans on using) will be for each year in the period 2010 - 2020?
5. The Environment Minister has indicated (October 29, 2009) that it is possible to meet the 2020 target with a carbon price that is $28 per tonne. Could the government please provide all documents and assessments that outline how the 2020 target will be met with that carbon price?
Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling this question.
No. 24.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
May 6, 2010-A parliamentary committee report entitled Shared Experiences: Comparisons of Veterans Services Offered by Members of the Commonwealth and the G8 recommended that Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) explore with Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the possibility of modifying income tax returns in order to allow veterans and their families to identify themselves so that they can receive information on all available financial benefits.
CRA has worked with other federal government departments, including Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, to improve program delivery. For example, since 2007, individuals filing income tax returns do not have to re- apply each year to receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Instead, they are identified automatically by CRA based on their reported income.
A. Please explain why the Government of Prime Minister Harper refused to include information for veterans and their families on/with tax forms.
i. What criteria were used in the decision?
ii. What was the policy rationale for the decision?
B. Is the federal government considering any other information sharing arrangements to better identify veterans and their families in order to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled?
No. 26.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
June 9, 2010-The 2009 stimulus package, Bill C-51, amended a number of pieces of legislation and included significant changes to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). One specific change that directly affects Canadians is the increase in the penalty for retiring before age 65.
If a Canadian aged 60 decides to retire this year, he or she has a penalty of 30 per cent on their CPP for retiring before age 65. But, as a result of the changes included in the budget bill, this penalty is expected to increase to 36 per cent by 2016-reducing a pension by up to $400 per month.
Under the new rules, any Canadian collecting CPP before the age of 65 who returns to work will now, for the first time, also have to pay CPP premiums while they are drawing their CPP pension.
Therefore, beyond losing 36 per cent of one's pension due to the increased penalty, Canadians retiring at the age of 60, who continue working, will now also pay CPP premiums; the rate is currently 9.9 per cent of earnings up to $2,163 annually.
A. Could the Government provide a detailed analysis of the projected financial cost for Canadians choosing to retire before age 65 resulting from changes to the Canada Pension Plan passed in Bill C-51, as well as the anticipated regulatory changes related to penalties?
No. 28.
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
June 17, 2010-In response to questioning during the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance meeting on March 23, 2010, the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Stockwell Day, undertook to provide documentation to identify departmental savings which occurred as a result of recent strategic reviews.
On May 13, 2010, Minister Day provided to the Committee a listing of each department's total savings, but the list lacked a detailed summary.
1. As a result of Strategic Review 2007, Canadian International Development Agency identified $295.8 million in savings from fiscal years 2008-09 to 2010-11.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $52.2 million in total savings for 2008-09?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $107.6 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $136 million in total savings for 2010-11?
2. As a result of Strategic Review 2007, Foreign Affairs and International Trade identified $271 million in savings from fiscal years 2008-09 to 2010-11.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $73.1 million in total savings for 2008-09?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $92.8 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $105.1 million in total savings for 2010-11?
3. As a result of Strategic Review 2007, Statistics Canada identified $50.9 million in savings from fiscal years 2008- 09 to 2010-11.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $11.5 million in total savings for 2008-09?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $17.9 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $21.5 million in total savings for 2010-11?
4. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada identified $417.004 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $130.227 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $143.172 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $143.605 million in total savings for 2011-12?
5. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Correctional Services Canada identified $131.671 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $42.048 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $46.323 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $43.3 million in total savings for 2011-12?
6. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council identified $80.76 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $13.27 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $27.07 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $40.42 million in total savings for 2011-12?
7. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council identified $20.11 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $2.57 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $7.04 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $10.5 million in total savings for 2011-12?
8. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Veterans Affairs Canada identified $35.156 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $3.866 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $7.253 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $24.037 million in total savings for 2011-12?
9. As a result of Strategic Review 2009, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation identified $299.15 million in savings from fiscal years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $97.02 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $99.93 million in total savings for 2011-12?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $102.2 million in total savings for 2012-13?
10. As a result of Strategic Review 2009, Canadian Tourism Commission identified $9.296 million in savings from fiscal years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $896,000 in total savings for 2010-11?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $4.2 million in total savings for 2011-12?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $4.2 million in total savings for 2012-13?
11. As a result of Strategic Review 2009, Environment Canada identified $53.103 million in savings from fiscal years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $13.669 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $19.714 million in total savings for 2011-12?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $19.72 million in total savings for 2012-13?
12. As a result of Strategic Review 2009, Public Safety Canada identified $35.844 million in savings from fiscal years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $7.518 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $13.402 million in total savings for 2011-12?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $14.924 million in total savings for 2012-13?
No. 32.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
October 5, 2010-With respect to the Do Not Call List:
The Government of Canada's Do Not Call List was created to reduce the number of unwanted telemarketing calls received by Canadians. Instead, many citizens have complained that since registering their telephone numbers on the Do Not Call List, they are now receiving more telephone solicitation calls than ever.
The Conservative Government is allowing anyone, including foreign telemarketers and scam artists, to purchase the Do Not Call List for $180.00 from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) website.
As of March 1, 2010, the Federal Government has imposed fines of $73,000, but has only collected $250. There are concerns that the government has taken no action to deal with this problem, and is therefore offering no protection to Canadians.
Until the problems with the availability of this list are resolved, the Conservative Government should immediately stop selling the telephone numbers and protect the privacy of Canadians who have registered their contact information on the Do No Call List under the pretense that they were going to be protected from receiving unwanted telemarketing calls.
1. Could the Government of Canada proved the following information with regard to the Do Not Call List as of September 30, 2010:
(a) the total number of fines that have been imposed to date;
(b) the total value of fines that have been imposed to date;
(c) the total number of fines that have been paid to date;
(d) the total value of fines that have been paid to date; and,
(e) the number of companies who have refused to pay the fine?
No. 33.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
October 6, 2010-With regard to possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein, also known as "Project Jade'':
As of June 10, 2010, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) was informed about 106 residents of Canada who have over $100 million dollars in accounts in Liechtenstein, and had reassessed 26 cases for a total of approximately $5.2 million in unpaid federal taxes, interest, fines and penalties.
1. What is the breakdown of the $5.2 million assessed from the 26 cases, specifically:
a. in unpaid taxes;
b. in interest;
c. in fines; and
d. in penalties?
2. How much of the $5.2 million has been collected?
3. How many of these cases are under appeal?
4. How many cases remain open?
5. How many of the 26 cases have been closed, i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected?
a. What is the breakdown (money collected in taxes, interest, fines and penalties) for each case?
6. How many of the account holders in the 26 cases have made partial payment?
7. Of the partial repayments made:
a. What was the largest amount?
b. What was the smallest amount?
c. What was the average amount?
8. How much does CRA anticipate it has yet to collect, in taxes, interest, fines and penalties?
9. With regard to the amount of money contained in the Liechtenstein accounts declared or discovered by the CRA:
a. What was the largest amount?
b. What was the smallest amount?
c. What was the average amount?
10. On what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein?
11. On what date did CRA begin its investigation?
12. On what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin?
13. Of the 106 original identified Canadians with bank accounts in Liechtenstein, how many Individuals have had these accounts audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?
14. How many of the 106 account holders have not been audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?
15. How many tax evasion charges were laid?
No. 36.
By the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
November 24, 2010-With respect to the Government of Canada's 2020 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels -
1. Could the government provide its assessment of the quantity of emissions that will be reduced for each (and all) of its existing climate change related programs and spending in the 2010 - 2020 time period?
2. Excluding the above reductions, how many megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions will need to be reduced to meet Canada's 2020 target?
No. 37.
By the Honourable Senator Watt:
February 1, 2011-In November 2007 the Government of Canada announced a new action plan to ensure that due diligence is followed by the entire federal government on matters where Aboriginal and Treaty rights are involved. According to the government news release, a federal interdepartmental team was to implement the action plan, ensuring the following:
Federal officials receive interim consultation guidelines and related training;
Federal officials begin monitoring and improving the coordination of consultation and accommodation practices across departments;
A repository of information is created to track the location and nature of Canada's established and potential Aboriginal and Treaty rights; and
First Nations, Metis and Inuit groups, as well as provinces, territories and industry groups are engaged in the development of a policy on consultation and accommodation beginning in winter 2008.
The expected outcomes for this initiative were: "the creation of a federal policy on consultation that addresses policy and legal challenges and that reflects the participation of First Nations, Metis and Inuit groups in its development'', and "better coordination of Canada's consultation approaches with related provincial, territorial and industry activities.''
It has been three years since the announcement of this action plan. What progress has been made to-date, and who has been consulted regarding its content? Can you please provide a clear update on the federal government's current policy on consultation and accommodation?
Could you please provide information about the repository of information on tracking treaty rights? Is this repository available to the Canadian public?
No. 38.
By the Honourable Senator Watt:
February 3, 2011-Inuit prisoners serving time in Canada's federal jails are faced with circumstances and challenges that place them at a serve disadvantage for treatment and rehabilitation compared to other inmates in the system.
They are geographically isolated from their communities, culture and language. They are faced with treatment options and services they do not understand, as they are not relevant or tangible to them. The result: rehabilitation and treatment elude them and they are released to their communities susceptible to repeat the mistakes that originally placed them in the system.
Would this government identify current programs and services provided by Corrections Canada that are culturally and linguistically relevant for Inuit? Please also include information about psychological healing and correctional programs, as well as medical treatment for physical ailments.
No. 39.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
February 10, 2011-With respect to possible tax evasion in Switzerland:
In 2009, French authorities received information about 80,000 bank accounts in Switzerland, approximately 8000 of which were opened by French citizens in order to avoid paying taxes owed to the French state. France has since reported that it has recovered millions in unpaid taxes. French authorities then advised the Government of Canada that some 1785 of these Swiss bank accounts are held by Canadians.
Would the Government of Canada provide the following information:
A. How many Canadians have been identified as having undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland?
B. Could the Government of Canada summarize what action, if any, has been taken by Canadian officials to recover unpaid taxes associated with Canadians' undeclared bank accounts in Switzerland?
C. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Switzerland have availed of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)?
D. How many identified Canadians with accounts in Switzerland have settled with the CRA?
E. How much money, including unpaid taxes, fines, etc., has the CRA assessed as a result of investigating these secret bank accounts in Switzerland?
F. Regarding Question E., what is the breakdown of the money assessed from the cases, specifically:
(a) in unpaid taxes;
(b) in interest;
(c) in fines; and
(d) in penalties?
G. How much of the money has been collected?
H. How many of these cases are under appeal?
I. How many cases remain open?
J. How many more cases does CRA anticipate will be opened?
K. How many of the cases have been closed, i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected?
L. How much money has been collected from those cases;
(a) in unpaid taxes;
(b) in interest;
(c) in fines; and
(d) in penalties?
M. How many of the account holders in the cases have made partial payment?
N. Of the partial payments made:
(a) What was the largest amount?
(b) What was the smallest amount?
(c) What was the average amount?
O. How much does CRA anticipate it has yet to collect, in taxes, interest, fines and penalties?
P. With regard to the amount of money contained in the Switzerland accounts declared or discovered by the CRA:
(a) What was the largest amount?
(b) What was the smallest amount?
(c) What was the average amount?
Q. On what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Switzerland?
R. On what date did CRA begin its investigation?
S. On what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin?
T. Of the original identified Canadians with bank accounts in Switzerland, how many Individuals have had these accounts audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?
U. How many of the account holders have not been audited, reassessed or been the subject of compliance action?
V. How many tax evasion charges were laid?
No. 40.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
February 15, 2011-With respect to the Do Not Call List:
Despite recent government announcements touting its success in enforcing its provisions, the Government of Canada's Do Not Call List has not lived up to initial expectations. In addition to fines, these announcements have made reference to "negotiated settlements'' whereby an offending telemarketer can simply write a cheque and walk away from the process without admitting guilt.
(a) What are the criteria for proceeding with a negotiated settlement?
(b) Who suggests a negotiated settlement: the CRTC or the firms suspected of violations?
(c) Who authorizes such a settlement on behalf of the CRTC?
(d) How many complaints have been settled in this manner?
(e) What was the total dollar value of the negotiated settlements?
(f) How much of the money assessed under negotiated settlement has been paid?
(g) What companies, if any, still have not paid the full amount under the negotiated settlement?
(i) What is the balance owed by each company?
No. 41.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
February 16, 2011-With regard to the impact of climate change on Prince Edward Island:
As Canada's only island province, Prince Edward Island is uniquely vulnerable to changes in sea levels brought about by climate change. The storms of late 2010 proved the devastating effects that even comparatively modest increases in sea levels have on coastal areas.
With the likelihood that such storms may become both more severe and more frequent as a result of climate change, Canadians look to the Federal government to provide leadership to prepare both for mitigating the impact on the environment and for undertaking the necessary adaptation measures in order to properly address the impacts of climate change and coastal erosion.
In June 2001, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada jointly released a report entitled Coastal Impacts of Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise on Prince Edward Island as part of the Climate Change Action Fund project.
(a) Have there been any updates to the study since the release of the report in June 2001?
(b) Has the Government conducted any separate studies since June 2001 on the impacts of climate change and rising sea-levels on Prince Edward Island?
(c) What programs have been implemented to deal with rising sea levels affecting Prince Edward Island?
(d) What advice and/or assistance has been provided by the Government of Canada to the Provincial Government of Prince Edward Island to deal with the impact of rising sea levels on the province?
No. 42.
By the Honourable Senator Callbeck:
March 21, 2011-1. The Canada Student Loans Program was expected to reach the legislated ceiling of $15 billion for outstanding student loans, as specified in section 13 of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (the Act), by September 2010. On August 20, 2010, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development amended regulations of the Act through an order-in-council. These amendments were published in the Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 144, No. 18.
(a) What is the Government of Canada's liability as of the end of the 2010-11 fiscal year under this new method of calculating the amount of outstanding student loans?
(b) Have Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Treasury Board, or any other department or agency generated an estimate or estimates of the Government of Canada's projected liability beyond the end of the 2010- 11 fiscal year?
(c) If an estimates or estimates have been generated, what is the Government of Canada's projected liability by September 2011? What is that liability per fiscal year, beginning with 2011-12?
(d) If an estimates or estimates have been generated, when will the Government of Canada's projected liability again reach the legislated ceiling of $15 million?
(e) Have Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Treasury Board, or any other department or agency taken steps to address the potential crisis of reaching the legislated ceiling of $15 million in the future?
2. The 2008 report on the Canada Student Loans Program was tabled on June 14, 2010. The report projected that the amount of outstanding student loans under section 13 of the Act would reach the legislated limit of $15 billion by 2014-15.
On July 31, 2010, the total amount of outstanding loans was $12.3 billion, and was projected to grow to more than $15 billion by September.
(a) Have Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Treasury Board, or any other department or agency performed an analysis of the 2008 report's projections?
(b) If so, what factors led to the inaccuracy of the 2008 report?
(c) Has the 2009 report on the Canada Student Loans Program been completed? If so, what is the anticipated date for its tabling in Parliament?
No. 43.
By the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C.:
March 22, 2011-Despite the large amount of public concern about Arctic security and sovereignty, major gaps exist in Canada's control of northern waters.
1. (a) Has the government enacted any regulations requiring foreign military vessels to notify Canadian authorities when travelling through the Northwest Passage or other Canadian Arctic waters? (Note: the question does not pertain to civilian vessels.)
(b) Has the government taken any other concrete actions towards requiring foreign military vessels travelling in Canadian Arctic waters to seek Canadian consent?
2. (a) Does any visual or electronic monitoring system exist in the Arctic that is capable of spotting and continually monitoring surface or subsurface vessels, small and large, during their time in the Northwest Passage or other Arctic waters?
(b) Is it the case that monitoring of surface vessels in the Arctic depends mainly on chance sightings by Canadian Coast Guard vessels, and if not, what other monitoring of surface or subsea vessels does take place?
(c) What concrete actions has the government taken towards an Arctic sensor system able to monitor submarines and surface vessels?
(d) When would it expect to be able to monitor submarines or surface vessels in an effective manner for all or the major part of their time present in Canadian Arctic waters?
3. (a) Does the government have any armed icebreaking vessels on Arctic duty?
(b) Will it confirm that it projects construction of six Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS), which will however be unable to break multi-year ice, work a full Arctic season (comparable with Canadian Coast Guard heavy icebreakers), or fight foreign warships?
(c) What will be the firepower of those vessels, and will they have any anti-aircraft or anti-submarine capacity?
(d) Is it the case that a chief role of these vessels will be to assist other government departments in such matters as fishery protection, environmental protection, and drug interdiction?
(e) Is it the case that, even though the Canadian Coast Guard has far more experience in northern work and in several of the activities specified on the AOPS Statement of Requirement, the government is committing funds for only one new CCG ice-breaker for an aging fleet?
(f) Will the government consider arming existing Coast Guard icebreakers, as has been recommended in Senate reports (and has long been done for certain Atlantic fishery-patrol vessels), such armament to be operated by personnel from appropriate agencies?
4. Has the government developed any concrete plans or provided any budget for a deep-water docking facility in the Iqaluit region?
5. (a) Has the government provided any new fixed wing search-and-rescue aircraft in Yellowknife?
(b) Has it budgeted money for that purpose?
6. (a) Has the government carried out any major upgrade of the Aurora aircraft used for Arctic reconnaissance, and does it plan to improve or replace the aircraft?
(b) Has the government deployed any new unmanned aerial vehicles or UAV squadrons in CFB Comox and CFB Goose Bay?
7. (a) Has the government posted a significant regular-force unit of the Canadian Army at Cambridge Bay, or does it plan to do so?
(b) Has the government increased regular-force units at any northern location, and by how many?
8. (a) Given that Arctic residents depend on Search and Rescue aircraft from Trenton, Ontario and Greenwood, Nova Scotia, how long would it take, after notification of an emergency, for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft from those locations to reach victims of an incident at Pond Inlet, Grise Fiord, or Cambridge Bay?
(b) In the event of a trans-polar passenger aircraft landing on the ice in wintertime in the High Arctic without specialized survival equipment, could Canadian Forces aircraft from Trenton or Greenwood reasonably be expected to rescue those passengers before they perished?
(c) Does the government have any plans to station fixed-wing and helicopter capability in the Arctic for the express purpose of Arctic search and rescue?
No. 44.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
March 24, 2011-With respect to the benefit provided by the Government of Canada for veterans' funerals:
According to the Veterans Ombudsman, the average cost of a funeral in 2008 was $5,892, but the benefit provided by the Government of Canada for veterans' funerals is set at $3,600, an amount unchanged since 2001.
The Government of Canada currently pays up to $12,700 for the funeral and burial expenses of serving members of the Canadian Forces.
In March 2010, the Minister of Veterans Affairs advised the Senate that the program was being reviewed.
As of today, no changes to the program have been announced. Could the Government of Canada indicate:
When does it intend to increase the Veterans Funeral and Burial Program funeral services allowable maximum to an equivalent level established for the RCMP and Canadian Forces?
No. 45.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
March 24, 2011-Would the Government of Canada provide the following information:
A. How many persons were employed by Veterans Affairs Canada at its headquarters located in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for the fiscal years between 2005 to 2010, broken down by:
(a) full-time employees;
(b) part-time employees;
(c) term contract employees; and,
(d) student contract employees?
B. What was the total remuneration for Veterans Affairs Canada employees working at the headquarters located in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for the fiscal years between 2005 to 2010?
No. 46.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
March 24, 2011-With respect to the Do Not Call List:
Despite serious issues with the Government of Canada's Do Not Call List initiative, the Conservative Government is continuing to allow anyone, including foreign telemarketers and scam artists, to purchase the Do Not Call List for $180.00 from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) website.
As of September 30, 2010, the Federal Government has imposed penalties of $176,000 on telemarketing companies who have violated the rules, but has only collected $9,129; this has led many to believe that the Government has taken no action to deal with this problem, and is therefore offering no protection to Canadians who have registered their contact information on the Do No Call List under the pretense that they were going to be protected from receiving unwanted telemarketing calls.
Could the Government of Canada provide the following information with regard to the Do Not Call List up to March 23, 2011:
(a) the total number of Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) that have been imposed;
(b) the total dollar value of AMPs that have been imposed to date;
(c) the total number of AMPs that have been paid to date;
(d) the total dollar value of AMPs that have been paid to date;
(e) the total number of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date;
(f) the total dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been reached to date;
(g) the total number of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date;
(h) the total dollar value of negotiated settlements that have been paid to date; and,
(i) the number of companies who have refused to either pay an AMP or reach a negotiated settlement?
No. 47.
By the Honourable Senator Downe:
March 24, 2011- With respect to Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange defoliant spraying at Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown:
While campaigning in the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper stated: "Our government will stand up for full compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984.''
On September 12, 2007, the Harper Government announced a disappointing compensation package for those affected by the spraying of Agent Orange, offering payment only to those who served between 1966 and 1967. In order to receive the compensation that was promised to them, and force Prime Minister Stephen Harper to honour his commitment, these deserving Canadian veterans have had to undertake a class action lawsuit against the Government of Canada.
The Government of Canada has confirmed that the Departments of Justice, Health, National Defence, and Veterans Affairs have spent a combined $7.8 million in legal costs fighting against Canadian veterans in this matter.
Would the Government of Canada provide the following information:
A. What is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to March 23, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010, and March 23, 2011?
B. What is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to March 23, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010, and March 23, 2011?
C. What is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to March 23, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010 and March 23, 2011?