House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.

Topics

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 240

Question No. 240
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

With regard to the recent decision to discontinue the Millennium Scholarship Foundation when it expires: (a) what is the reasoning behind this decision; (b) who was consulted internally within the Deparment of Human Resources and Social Development, within other federal departments and agencies, in addition to any stakeholders, regarding this decision; (c) how does the government intend to reconcile the issue of compatibility between the Quebec student assistance program, that is based on need, and the new federal grant program, that is based on income; (d) how will this impact on the government of Quebec's practice of opting out with full compensation; (e) was this issue of compatibility contemplated prior to the announcement of the 2008 federal budget and, if so, how; and (f) on what exact date did the government decide not to renew the Millennium Scholarship Foundation?

Question No. 240
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Medicine Hat
Alberta

Conservative

Monte Solberg Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, in response to a) the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, CMSF, was mandated to improve access to post-secondary education for all Canadians, but reviews of the CMSF found little evidence that it had achieved this. A decision needed to be made on the future of the CMSF as the ten year mandate to spend its original $2.5 billion endowment was coming to end. The government has decided that federal funds would be more effectively used via an upfront grant that targets assistance to students from low and middle-income families.

The Canada student loans program, CSLP, carried out five research studies of the CMSF to assess the Foundation’s performance, effectiveness and success in achieving its mandate. Concurrent with the CSLP research studies, the Office of the Auditor General, OAG, completed an audit of the foundation and the Treasury Board Secretariat, TBS, completed an evaluation of foundations as instruments for public policy.

In response to b) HRSDC consulted internally through a task team, that included representatives from legal services, communications and strategic policy and research, and executive committees. The director general of the Canada student loans program, CSLP, briefed the Department of Finance, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office in the summer of 2007.

From the outset, the government recognized the importance of stakeholder input to the success of the CSLP review. As a result, stakeholders were involved from the beginning. An online public consultation was held to provide Canadians with a forum to contribute their views. Departmental officials worked with the national advisory group on student financial assistance to gather the views of all major interest groups, including student groups. As well, regular consultations were held with provinces and territories through the FPT policy working group on student financial assistance and the intergovernmental consultative committee on student financial assistance. Many concerns on the future of the CMSF were raised during these consultations with stakeholder groups. This input provided a wide range of issues to consider and helped shape the initiatives announced in budget 2008.

In response to c) The government will work with provinces and territories over the next year to implement these new measures and to ensure effective coordination with existing programs.

In response to d) Provinces that choose not to participate in the CSLP are entitled, under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, to receive compensation in the form of alternative payments if they operate programs which are substantially similar to the federal program. Currently, the province of Quebec, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are entitled to alternative payments.

In response to e) Interactions with provincial programs, including Quebec, are always considered through consultations and analysis when contemplating policy changes to the Canada student loans program. The Government of Canada will work with provincial jurisdictions over the next year on the implementation of budget 2008 measures so as to ensure effective coordination.

In response to f) As mentioned initially, a decision needed to be made on the future of the CMSF as the ten year mandate was coming to an end. The results of the afore-mentioned reviews, undertaken to assess the CMSF’s performance, effectiveness and success in achieving its mandate, were examined and informed this government’s decision which was announced in budget 2008 on February 26, 2008.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

May 26th, 2008 / 3:25 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 231, 233, 236, 237, 238 and 239 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 231
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

With respect to on-reserve educational facilities for First Nations in Canada: (a) what requests for capital building expenditure funding for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities have been made from April 2000 to present; (b) which of these requests have been granted by the government and why; (c) which of these requests were denied and why; (d) what funds have been committed by the government for capital building expenditure for the purposes of acquiring, building, expanding, improving or replacing educational facilities on-reserve in each fiscal year from 2000-2001 to 2008-2009; (e) what projects are currently under way; (f) in each year since 2000, what projects have been delayed or postponed, and, if any, what were the justifications for and lengths of these delays; (g) what projects are slated to begin work in the 2008-2009 fiscal year; (h) what portion of the total cost of these projects is being funded by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) through capital building infrastructure; (i) how many projects included additional money from a First Nation to complete the construction or for the equipping of an educational facility; (j) what projects are slated to begin work beyond the 2008-2009 fiscal year; (k) how many communities with projects identified by INAC as priority capital projects have had letters of approval issued to them; (l) since 2000, what amounts from the “Community Infrastructure” line item have been reallocated either within INAC or to other government departments; (m) why was $109 million removed from the line item “Community Infrastructure” in the INAC Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 2007; (n) how has this reallocation of funds affected on-reserve educational facilities; and (o) how was this $109 million otherwise spent by the government?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 233
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough Halifax, NS

With respect to Canada's role and contributions to the United Nations (UN) and other international peace initiatives: (a) what is Canada's assessed contribution to the UN; (b) has Canada fully paid on its assessed UN contribution for the most recent financial year; (c) how much does Canada contribute in voluntary contributions to UN funds, programmes and agencies; (d) how do these voluntary contributions compare with other contributing nations; (e) is Canada a sponsor of international treaty negotiations and, if so, which ones; (f) what are Canada's current treaty priorities, in terms of support for new and ongoing treaty negotiations; (g) does the government have a formal system for monitoring its treaty compliance; (h) what contributions has Canada made to support UN humanitarian operations and peace initiatives in Somalia; (i) what new contributions did the government make to UN humanitarian operations and peace initiatives in Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Haiti in 2007; (j) what new contributions does the government intend to make to UN humanitarian operations and peace initiatives in Sudan, Somalia, DRC and Haiti in 2008; (k) what contributions did the government make to the UN Peacebuilding Commission in 2007; (l) what contributions does the government intend to make to the UN Peacebuilding Commission in 2008; (m) what formal monitoring and evaluation systems are in place in the government to assess how Canadian financial contributions through UN humanitarian and development programmes and agencies are spent; and (n) what is the government doing to ensure Canada's compliance with UN Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 236
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

With respect to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: (a) what has been the total departmental spending on citizenship courts, divided by line item, for each of the last ten fiscal years (i) nationally, (ii) in each province and territory, (iii) in each of the following cities: Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto, Ontario, Montréal, Quebec, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta and Vancouver, British Columbia; (b) how many citizenship ceremonies were performed in each of the last ten fiscal years (i) nationally, (ii) in each province and territory, (iii) in each of the following cities: Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto, Ontario, Montréal, Quebec, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta and Vancouver, British Columbia; and (c) how many people became Canadian citizens in each of the last ten fiscal years, (i) nationally, (ii) in each province and territory, (iii) in each of the following cities: Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto, Ontario, Montréal, Quebec, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta and Vancouver, British-Columbia?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 237
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

With respect to budgets at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008: (a) what amount was budgeted to be spent by each provincial and territorial department in each fiscal year; (b) what amount of the total budgeted funds were returned to Treasury Board as unspent; (c) what incentives do provincial sections within INAC have to lower their spending below budgeted amounts; (d) how many INAC personnel received financial bonuses for their work in each fiscal year; (e) what were the amounts of each of these bonuses; and (f) what was the total amount spent by INAC on bonuses in each province and territory for each fiscal year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 238
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

With respect to the impact that the government’s legislative crime initiatives will have on Canada’s correctional facilities: (a) what studies has the government done to assess the future need for increased inmate capacity; (b) according to studies and assessments done by, or on behalf of, the government, will there be a need for increased inmate capacity in Canada’s correctional system; (c) what plans are in place to have new prisons built in Canada; (d) where are new facilities to be located; (e) are there plans for future correctional facilities that do not have a location finalized at this point; (f) how does the government go about determining where correctional facilities will be located; (g) to what extent is there private sector involvement in the operations of Canada’s correctional facilities; (h) are there Canadian correctional facilities that are fully operated by the private sector and, if so, where and by whom are these facilities operated; and (i) has the government considered, done studies on, had studies commissioned on or consulted with other jurisdictions on expanding the role of the private sector in the operation of Canada’s correctional facilities?