House of Commons Hansard #46 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.

Topics

Question No. 43Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Lanark, ON

Further to correspondence dated August 31, 2004, with the Minister of National Defence concerning the property of Mr. Ronald Mayhew, which sits adjacent to the Dwyer Hill Training Centre: ( a ) is it the intention of the Department of National Defence (DND) to acquire this land and, if not, will they restore Mr. Mayhew’s land to its original state and compensate him for his lost business; or ( b ) if DND does want the land, will they provide Mr. Mayhew with an equivalent acreage in the same general area or purchase it at fair market value and compensate him for his lost business?

Question No. 43Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:

a) The Department of National Defence is presently reviewing and updating its master infrastructure development plan for the Dwyer Hill Training Center. The review should be completed by late winter 2005. Until the master infrastructure development plan is finalized, the Department of National Defence cannot indicate any intent towards a possible acquisition of Mr. Mayhew's property for the purpose of expanding the Dwyer Hill Training Center.

The Department of National Defence has been engaged in discussions with Mr. Mayhew in order to resolve his complaints. In the course of negotiations, the Department of National Defence offered to compensate him for his damages, including his loss of business, and to purchase his property. The government negotiations were conducted in good faith and Mr. Mayhew was offered fair market value for his land. Subsequent action will depend on the court proceedings and whether Mr. Mayhew indicates a desire to reopen discussions.

b) If Mr. Mayhew agreed to sell his land to the Department of National Defence, he would receive fair market value for the land. It would be left to Mr. Mayhew to use the proceeds to buy another property.

Question No. 44Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Chatters Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Since 1963, with a breakdown for each each year, how many injuries and deaths have occurred relating to the Sea King Helicopters, either through malfunctioning or by accidents?

Question No. 44Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the attached table includes data for the last 38 years.

The majority of the minor injuries were not related to malfunctions of the equipment; rather, most represent “slip and fall” incidents.

Note: The flight safety database does not include the requested information from 1963 to 1967. As a result, the department conducted an additional search of information for these years. This search revealed no record of any Sea King accidents, only injuries associated with accidents were recorded during this time period.

Question No. 45Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Independent

Carolyn Parrish Independent Mississauga—Erindale, ON

With regard to permits granted by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigrationin the last 12 months, what was: ( a ) the total number of permits issued; ( b ) the distribution of those permits over 308 electoral districts; and ( c ) the number of permits granted through lawyers and consultants who charge fees for immigration services?

Question No. 45Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Joe Volpe LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Citizenship and Immigration, CIC, is concerned, by November 1 of each calendar year, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration submits an annual report to Parliament. This annual report includes the total number of temporary resident permits, TRPs, issued in Canada, at ports of entry and visa offices abroad by all delegated officials.

From December 12, 2003, to December 11, 2004, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration authorized a total of 690 instructions for the issuance of TRPs which encompassed 902 persons. One instruction may cover a family or a couple.

The department does not keep statistics on the issuance of permits by electoral district.

As well, CIC does not keep statistics on the number of clients who choose to be represented by immigration lawyers and consultants in their dealing with the department, whether on issues related to TRPs or others.

Question No. 46Routine Proceedings

January 31st, 2005 / 3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

With regard to government appointments, contracts and employment, since 1992, how many and which former and current members of the Press Gallery were paid by the government, and, for each: ( a ) what types of service were provided and to which departments, agencies or Crown Corporations were they provided; ( b ) what was the cost of these services; and ( c ) how much time elapsed between employment as a journalist and employment by the government?

Question No. 46Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, the information requested by the member cannot be generated directly from government information systems. Though the government was able to compile a list of approximately 850 names of press gallery members since 1992 from a review of relevant Canadian parliamentary guides, this information is not sufficient to extract from government information systems an accurate and complete reply to the member’s question, as it would not ensure that the individuals identified are the same individuals who are or were members of the press gallery. Thus, any answer provided by the government, on the basis of what the government can currently generate, would not be complete or accurate.

Additional corroborating information, such as date of birth or confirmation of membership in the press gallery, would be required to be able to accurately identify the individuals covered by the member’s question. There is no known public source from which this information could be gathered.

The government has no authority, given privacy considerations, to compel individuals to provide the type of corroborating information that would be necessary to provide a proper answer to the member’s question.

Question No. 48Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB

With regard to the measures relating to processing times from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on applications to register as a status Indian that flow from the departmental review recommandations and that the Indian Band Registration and Band Lists will be implementing: ( a ) precisely, what measures have been or are being implemented; ( b ) will these measures effectively address the average processing time for an application; and ( c ) if these new measures fail to address the average processing time for an application, will the Minister call for an audit by the Auditor General of Canada and implement those recommendations?

Question No. 48Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Andy Scott LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: a) In 2003 the Departmental Audit and Evaluation Branch completed a review of the Indian registration process which identified a backlog on Indian registration. The backlog identified is attributed to a high volume of complex registration transactions combined with difficulties in obtaining complete documentation to support registration activities. As of January 1, 2005, there are 8, 605 applications.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is fully committed to implementing specific audit recommendations to improve Indian registration and band list management services for first nations.

In addition, the services of an external consultant have been retained to undertake a comprehensive review of the Indian registry through a diagnostic and organizational analysis project.

The key findings of the review fall into two main categories: first, operational review, the most significant of which is the registration backlog. The primary causes identified relate to processing, human resources, management systems and management capacity. Second, the need to clarify the role and authority of the registrar particular to registration policy, litigation and relationship with the department.

b) In addition to the comprehensive review, an increase of temporary resources has been allocated until March 31, 2005, to address the registration backlog.

The integrated and comprehensive approach taken by the department is to ensure permanent and lasting improvements which fall into four categories: first, organizational solution, establish accountable structure; second, human resources solution, detailed analysis of needs and position reviews; third, management information/performance target solution, process mapping and streamlining to improve performance and productivity; and fourth, management capacity solution, building a requisite management team and skills.

Key management focus will be to strengthen performance management and measurement, accountability framework, planning and priority setting and risk assessment and management strategies.

c) Once the restructured registration process has been fully approved and implemented in the 2005-2006 fiscal year, one of our key priorities will be to conduct assessments, and where appropriate, audits and evaluations of Indian registry projects and initiatives.

At this time, we do not think it is necessary to call upon the Auditor General to conduct an audit with respect to this initiative. We are continuing to monitor and improve the process. We are pleased that response times for registration applications are improving and that we are making progress.

Question No. 49Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB

Relating to the Canada Educational Savings Grant (CESG) available for post secondary studies at accredited institutions outside Canada: ( a ) why is the government suddenly disallowing previously accredited educational institutions abroad from qualifying as accredited; and ( b ) how will this affect the CESG standing of attendees that are in receipt of it?

Question No. 49Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, the conditions surrounding the payment of an education assistance payment EAP, from a registered education savings plan RESP, which contains Canada education savings grant CESG, is governed by the Income Tax Act and is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. One of the conditions for payment of an EAP is that the post-secondary institution be “designated”. Domestic institutions listed for designation purposes are identified by the provinces and maintained by the Canada student loans program for student loan purposes. These lists are sent to CRA for use in administering both Section 118.5, Tuition Credits and Section 146.1, RESPs of the Income Tax Act. Foreign institutions qualifying for tax credits are identified and listed as designated by the international tax office in CRA.

Neither CRA nor the Canada student loans program is aware of any delisting of foreign education institutions. Foreign institutions are normally only delisted if there have been no Canadian students attending the institutions for a specific number of years. Furthermore, though delisting of a foreign institution may affect a students ability to claim their education related expenses on their tax return under S. 118.5 of the ITA, it usually will not necessarily impact eligibility for an EAP as the rules surrounding designation for EAP are different.

If a previously accredited educational institution becomes delisted then a student will not be able to withdraw the money that they have in their RESP to pay their education costs while the institution remains delisted. A student can request that the institution become part of the list designated institutions for EAP purposes.

Question No. 50Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB

Regarding the cutbacks in Non-Insured Health Benefits payment arrangement for pharmacy services to First Nations and Inuit clients in British Columbia: ( a ) why has the government proceeded with these cutbacks in British Columbia; ( b ) why is it occurring in British Columbia only; and ( c ) does the government intend on making the same cutbacks across Canada?

Question No. 50Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada's non-insured health benefits, NIHB program pays for the drug claims of eligible first nations and Inuit clients when they have a valid prescription from a health professional, and the prescription is filled by a registered pharmacist. The fee structure for pharmacists differs between provinces as NIHB Program officials fees with pharmacists on a regional basis, based on provincial and regional relevant points of reference.

Both the 1997 and the 2004 reports of the Auditor General found that the program could do more to ensure savings, particularly through dispensing fee negotiations, and expressed concern regarding situations in which the program was paying higher fees than other plans. Overall, Health Canada strives to compensate pharmacists serving NIHB clients in a fair and reasonable manner by ensuring that NIHB fees are comparable to provincial fees.

In British Columbia, Health Canada had historically agreed to pay pharmacists a 10% mark up on drugs dispensed, in addition to their professsional dispensing fees. Other plans in British Columbia, including British Columbia pharmacare, were not being charged this mark up.

As a prudent manager of public funds, Health Canada endeavours to ensure that program resources are spent on providing client benefits and access to services. To this end, Health Canada has undertaken lengthy negotiations with those representing British Columbia pharmacists in an effort to determine a fair and reasonable level of compensation for pharmacists, without including a mark up on drug costs. Despite these efforts an agreement on fees colud not be reached, and Health Canada was forced to adopt a new fee structure which reflects an increase in the dispensing fee paid to British Columbia pharmacists, as well as the elimination of the mark up previously charged on drug costs. Following the implementation of this new fee arrangement, the NIHB is still paying pharmacists at a higher rate than British Columbia Pharmacare. Health Canada feels that British Columbia pharmacists are reasonably compensated for the important service they provide to NHIB clients, and trust that pharmacists will recognize this as a reasonable arrangement.

Question No. 51Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

With regard to the following statement made on the Canada Firearms Centre's website update dated October 30, 2004, “3.4 million CFRO queries have been made by police and other law enforcement officials since December 1, 1998”: ( a ) how many of these queries were successful in finding the information being requested by the police; ( b ) how many of these queries were made by police personnel; ( c ) how many queries were made by other law enforcement personnel and who are they; ( d ) how many queries were made by non-law enforcement personnel such as Canada Firearms Centre employees; ( e ) how many queries were made by bureaucrats in other federal departments, in other provincial governments and in other regional and municipal governments; ( f ) how many queries were made as a result of some automatic search feature on the Canadian Police Information Centre's website; and ( g ) how long did the average successful query take to return results to the police officer making the request?

Question No. 51Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian firearms registry online, CFRO, service provides police officers access to firearms licence and registration information in the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS. This information, among other things, helps the police to intervene and respond to calls effectively to prevent injury and crime, assists in the investigation of firearm-related crimes and helps police forces to identify and return stolen and lost properly to its rightful owner.

a) The CFRO system provides information to police on the existence or non-existence of a firearms licence and registration certificate for every query made.

b) Police agencies and a number of investigative and enforcement branches of other federal and provincial departments have access to CFRO only if they have access to Canadian police information centre, CPIC. CPIC is part of national police service NPS, which is administered by th RCMP. NPS provides essential, front-line support services to the law enforcement community in Canada and abroad.

c) Police agencies and a number of investigative and enforcement branches of other federal and provincial departments have access to CFRO only if they have access to Canadian police information centre, CPIC. CPIC is part of national police service, NPS, which is administered by the RCMP. NPS provides essential, front-line support services to the enforcement community in Canada and abroad.

d) Canada Firearms Centre, CAFC personnel do not access CFRO in view of the fact that they have direct access to CFIS. CAFC personnel would only access CFRO for testing or troubleshooting purposes.

e) Police agencies and a number of investigative and enforcement branches of other federal and provincial departments have access to CFRO only if they have access to Canadian police information centre, CPIC. CPIC is part of national police service, NPS, which is administered by the RCMP. NPS provides essential, front-line support services to the law enforcement community in Canada and abroad.

f) The system cannot determine the circumstances under which a query is made.

g) The average CFRO server response time to return a person's query is 1.4 seconds. The response time to process the query is for the CFRO server and does not take into consideration other factors that may slow down response time. Slow downs may be caused by system interfaces with various police departments, technical issues.

Question No. 54Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

With regard to the “load leveling” exercise recently completed by the Canada Firearms Centre that involved the mailing of renewal notices to some 770,000 holders of Possession Only Licences, for each province and territory: ( a ) how many envelopes were sent out; and ( b ) how many envelopes were returned for each reason noted on the envelope such as “unclaimed”, “no such address”, “address incomplete”, “moved address unknown”, “no such post office”, “refused by addressee”, “deceased” and “unknown”?

Question No. 54Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:

(a) The number of renewal notices sent to possession only licence holders by province and territory are the following:

(b) As of Monday, December 13, 2004, 46,509 envelopes were returned as “undelivered” from Canada Post Corporation CPC. The reasons for return were not categorized.

Question No. 55Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

With regard to the cleanup of the Sydney Tar Ponds, what technologies has Environment Canada examined and which of these, if any, have they approved?

Question No. 55Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, during a seven year period of working closely with the community through the joint action group on all aspects of the Sydney Tar Ponds project, a review of proven technologies was conducted. Some of the specific technologies reviewed included: bioremediation, stabilization and solidification, soil washing, thermal desorption, pyrolysis, hydrogen reduction, incineration, co-burning and capping, and containment. Following the review, the Government of Canada supported the Province of Nova Scotia in developing a short list of options for the cleanup. Six options were identified for the tar ponds and four for the coke ovens. The options included combinations of containment, soil washing, bioremediation, co-burning, incineration, and pyrolysis technologies. These options were based on the community’s desire for a permanent cleanup that uses proven technologies.

In May 2004, this government entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia. This MOA is intended to facilitate the final phase of the remediation of the site. The province submitted details of the project to our government in late December 2004. This detailed project description will undergo a thorough review and approval process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Minister for Public Works and Government Services Canada will lead the Government of Canada’s continuing support of the province.

Question No. 56Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

With regard to the potential move of National Defence Headquarters: ( a ) is the government considering moving the site of National Defence Headquarters from its present location and, if so, what locations are currently under consideration; ( b ) has the government entered into negotiations with any party and, if so, at what stage are negotiations; and ( c ) what is the government proposed timeline for the move?

Question No. 56Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, PWGSC is not presently in any activities related to relocation of the NDHQ functions presently carried out at 101 Colonel By Drive and as such, no other locations are currently being considered or analyzed; PWGSC is not negotiating with any party for the relocation of NDHQ functions presently carried out at 101 Colonel By Drive; in light of the above, PWGSC is not managing any timelines for such a move at this time.

Question No. 57Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

With regard to the potential move of National Defence Headquarters: ( a ) is the government considering moving the site of National Defence Headquarters from its present location and, if so, what locations are currently under consideration; ( b ) has the government entered into negotiations with any party and, if so, at what stage are negotiations; and ( c ) what is the government proposed timeline for the move?

Question No. 57Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, the answer to a) is no and the answer to b) and c) is not relevant.

Question No. 59Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

With regard to project applications received for sponsorship under the Millennium Bureau of Canada and the Canada Millennium Partnership Program: ( a ) what was the process by which applications for funding were solicited, received, recorded, and assessed (including ministerial or ministerial staff approval in the process); ( b ) what was the criteria by which each application was assessed; ( c ) what was the number of applications received, by province; and ( d ) what was the number of applications approved and the dollar amount of each, by province?