House of Commons Hansard #68 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was health.

Topics

Question No. 64
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Toronto Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, in responding to parts a) through d), the Department of National Defence applied the following definitions. First, “engaged” refers to workers employed in performing physical work on site onboard Canadian navy vessels. Second, “foreign national” refers to all non-Canadian citizens. Finally, only contractors directly contracted by the Department were solicited for information and only with respect to their own employees. National Defence contracts (as well as those contracts issued by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of National Defence) permit subcontracting. It is ultimately the prime contractor that decides whether or not to subcontract. Since the Crown is not privy to these subcontracts, no contractual relationship is created between the Crown and third party subcontractors. As a result, records are neither created nor retained by National Defence concerning contractual arrangements between a prime contractor and its subcontractors.

a) On 27 January 2005, 18 foreign nationals were working on repairing, upgrading, or refitting Canadian navy vessels on the east coast of Canada.

b) The 18 foreign nationals were working on the following ships:

a. HMCS Fredericton – 15

b. HMCS Halifax – 1

c. Two other foreign nationals are dividing their time between HMCS Fredericton and HMCS Charlottetown, half days on each ship.

c) The country of origin of the 18 foreign nationals was as follows:

a. HMCS Frederiction - 8 Portuguese, 5 French, and 2 British

b. HMCS Halifax – 1 American

c. The two other foreign nationals dividing their time between HMCS Fredericton and HMCS Charlottetown, half days on each ship, were, respectively, British and of unknown origin, the country was not specified by the employer, Canadian Maritime Engineering.

d) The following foreign-owned corporations have employees engaged in the repairing, upgrading or refitting of Canadian navy vessels on the east coast of Canada: SEMT Pielstick, and L3 Wescam. All other companies employing foreign nationals in the repairing, upgrading or refitting of Canadian navy vessels on the east coast of Canada are Canadian owned.

Question No. 65
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bill Casey North Nova, NS

With regards to the refit of HMCS Fredericton in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Halifax Shipyards): ( a ) what will the total cost of the refit be for HMCS Fredericton; ( b ) when does the Canadian Armed Forces expect HMCS Fredericton to complete her current maintenance cycle and return to full operations with the fleet; ( c ) in regards to the maintenance and improvement aboard HMCS Fredericton, are there any technicians from France involved in the overall refit process and if any, from what corporation do they originate; ( d ) should the refit for HMCS Fredericton reveal that other work or maintenance is needed, what is the expected percentage or amount of “work arising” costs?

Question No. 65
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Toronto Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:

a) The total cost of the HMCS Fredericton docking work period, 23 April to 10 September 2004, including work arisings, was $7.35 million.

b) The docking work period is complete. HMCS Fredericton is now in a “technical readiness phase” designed to bring the ship up to maximum operational readiness, that is, trials, training, and second level maintenance.

c) National Defence conducted an extensive search of the records and did not find evidence of any technicians from France involved in the docking work period for HMCS Fredericton between 23 April and 10 September 2004.

It should be noted that National Defence contracts, as well as those contracts issued by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of National Defence, permit subcontracting. It is ultimately the prime contractor that decides whether or not to subcontract. Since the Crown is not privy to these subcontracts, no contractual relationship is created between the Crown and third party subcontractors. As a result, records are neither created nor retained by National Defence concerning contractual arrangements between a prime contractor and its subcontractors.

d) The “work arisings” cost for HMCS Fredericton was approximately 23%, which is typical for Halifax class ships.

Question No. 67
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Reynolds West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Have student loans been settled for an amount less than the actual amount owing and, if so, how often did this occur?

Question No. 67
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie
Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Mr. Speaker, during fiscal year 2003-2004, the Canada student loan portfolio consisted of 250,000 accounts, of which we received 349 requests for compromise settlement. Of these, we settled only 51 accounts for the following reasons: hardship; statute-barred; medical reasons; and balance remaining following receipt of proceeds from deceased client’s estate.

Question No. 71
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

With regard to the government fuel taxes: ( a ) what formula, if any at all, does the government plan to use for sharing the fuel taxes; ( b ) if such formula is employed, how many cents per litre of fuel taxes collected would flow directly to municipalities; and ( c ) does the government plan to set aside any funds for distribution and, if any ( i ) what would be their amounts, ( ii ) how would they be allocated among Canada’s municipalities, ( iii ) when would the money be allocated?

Question No. 71
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, on February 1, 2005, the Government of Canada announced how it plans to share a portion of federal gas tax revenues with municipalities to make investments in sustainable infrastructure. Beginning in 2005-06, the funding will ramp up over five years, for a total of $5 billion. By 2009-2010 the funding flowing to municipalities will amount to $2 billion, the equivalent of 5 cents-per-litre of the federal gas tax. This represents a strategic investment in Canada’s cities and communities.

Funding will be allocated to the provinces, territories, and First Nations, on a per capita basis, with $37.5 million, equivalent to 0.75% of total funding, assured for each of Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon and Prince Edward Island. This recognizes the need for less-populated jurisdictions to have sufficient funds for significant infrastructure investments, and the increased costs associated with infrastructure in northern and remote areas.

The Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities) is presently negotiating bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories, which will further outline details of how the federal gas tax funds will be spent within each jurisdiction, including the allocation to municipalities.

The 5-year funding profile for the sharing of the gas tax revenues was announced in the budget presented to the House of Commons on February 23, 2005.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return
Routine Proceedings

March 9th, 2005 / 3:25 p.m.

Beauséjour
New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 68 and 75 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Return
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 68
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Anders Calgary West, AB

With regard to the transportation of armed forces personnel: ( a ) did the government rent Antonov planes to transport the DART Team to South Asia for disaster relief, and, if so, how much did it cost and for how long were they rented; ( b ) what type of planes were used, how much did their rental cost, and who were they were rented from, to transport Canadian Forces to Manitoba for assistance during the 1997 floods; and ( c ) what type of planes were used, how much did their rental cost, and who were they were rented from, to transport Canadian Forces to Quebec for assistance during the 1998 ice storm?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 75
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Anders Calgary West, AB

For each year since 2000, did the government use any rented aircraft to transport Canadian Forces to Afghanistan and, if so: ( a ) what type of aircraft was rented; ( b ) who were they rented from; and ( c ) how much did each rental cost the government?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 75
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

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

Question No. 75
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Question No. 75
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.