House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was young.

Topics

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 700, 701, 703, 704, 706, 712, 715, 721, 722, and 727.

Question No. 700Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

With regard to confined field trials of crops with novel traits, as conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientists at the Central Experimental Farm, and the possibility of these being prohibited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in the summer of 2013: (a) what was the decision made and why; and (b) have there been any field trials of crops with novel traits at the Central Experimental Farm since 2013?

Question No. 700Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Battlefords—Lloydminster Saskatchewan

Conservative

Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in 2013, confined field research trials were not prohibited at the Central Experimental Farm, CEF. While Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, received authorization from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, to conduct field trials at the CEF, AAFC withdrew the approved application as it was determined that the project did not require field trials. Thus AAFC did not proceed with any trials during this period.

With regard to (b), in 2014, AAFC did not have any projects requiring field trials at the CEF, and thus no applications were made to CFIA to conduct confined field research trials during 2014. Therefore, there were no field trials of crops with novel traits conducted at the CEF in 2013 or 2014.

Question No. 701Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Articles 39 and 40 of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Conservation and Enforcement Measures: what penalties, fines, and court actions have been imposed by the home countries of foreign trawlers that have been cited for illegal fishing in the NAFO regulatory zone off Canada's East Coast over the past ten years?

Question No. 701Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Egmont P.E.I.

Conservative

Gail Shea ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, there have been 13 home countries of foreign trawlers that have been cited for illegal fishing in the NAFO regulatory zone off Canada’s east coast. In total, there have been 2 verbal rebriefs, 8 warnings, 2 vessels ordered to leave the NAFO regulatory area, 1 vessel suspended, 696,980.48 EU in fines, 12.000 EEK in fines, 100 LVL in fines, and 285 USD in fines.

Question No. 703Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the so-called “last-in, first-out policy” (LIFO) that governs the northern shrimp fishery: what studies has the government carried out on the impact of LIFO on rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Question No. 703Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Egmont P.E.I.

Conservative

Gail Shea ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, the department has undertaken economic analyses on the impacts of reductions in total allowable catch to the offshore and inshore fleets in 2010, 2011 and 2014. No studies have been undertaken to look at the impact of LIFO on rural communities directly.

Question No. 704Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the closure of the Corner Brook Veterans Affairs office: (a) has the Department hired personnel specifically to provide the services of the closed Corner Brook office; (b) if so, what offices in Newfoundland and Labrador do the personnel work from; and (c) are their positions full-time permanent, if not, how are they classified?

Question No. 704Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Vaughan Ontario

Conservative

Julian Fantino ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), no, Veterans Affairs Canada did not hire personnel specifically to provide the services of the closed Corner Brook office. When the Corner Brook office closed, the employment end date for one existing employees of that office was extended. This employee is located at the Service Canada office in Corner Brook.

With regard to (b), no additional personnel were hired. There is one Veterans Affairs Canada employee working at the Service Canada office at 1 Regent Square, Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador. All remaining Veterans Affairs Canada staff work out of the Veterans Affairs Canada office in St. John's or at the integrated personnel support centre at Canadian Forces Station St. John's.

With regard to (c), the Veterans Affairs Canada employee working at Service Canada in Corner Brook is a full-time employee and will continue to be employed there as long as the services are required.

Question No. 706Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) what are the full costs to date for army, navy and air force contributions to Operation Reassurance, broken down by each service; and (b) what are the estimated future costs of Operation Reassurance, as well as the costs for any other initiatives by the Canadian military to promote stability in Eastern Europe?

Question No. 706Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), full costs to date are unavailable, as the costs of a mission are not available until publication of the annual departmental performance report or 90 days following the end of the mission.

With regard to (b), cost estimates are dynamic and evolve with the refinement of planning and operational assumptions. These estimates are updated regularly to support planning efforts and decision-making, and would therefore be inaccurate.

Question No. 712Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

With regard to the distribution of funds from the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnerships Program from June 2013 to present: (a) for each contribution what is the (i) dollar amount, (ii) the name of the recipient organization, (iii) the electoral district by the 2003 representation order, (iv) the electoral district by the 2013 representation order; (b) what is the total amount contributed by calendar year in (i) each electoral district by the 2003 representation order, (ii) each electoral district by the 2013 representation order; (c) what is the total amount contributed by calendar year to each organization; (d) what is the number of applications made in each province by calendar year; and (e) what is the number of applications made by calendar year in (i) each electoral district by the 2003 representation order, (ii) each electoral district by the 2013 representation order?

Question No. 712Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Egmont P.E.I.

Conservative

Gail Shea ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not track the information on funding levels under the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program by electoral district and calendar year.

Question No. 715Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Deficit Reduction Action Plan Track 16: Reduction in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Activities: (a) what is the government’s objective with regard to this reduction; (b) how many employees have been eliminated to date due to this objective and what are their positions and locations; (c) how many employees will be eliminated in total and what are their positions and locations; (d) has the government done an analysis on what effects this reduction of NAFO air hours from 1000 to 600 and sea days from 785 to 600 may have on foreign overfishing off Canada’s coasts and, if so, what are the findings of any such analysis; (e) what are the internal tracking numbers for any documents or briefing materials on this Track provided to senior government officials at the level of Director General or above; (f) what is the total budget reduction of the Track in (i) 2014-2015, (ii) beyond; and (g) what methods used to monitor fishing activity on the high seas, including aerial surveillance, at-sea and port inspections, international observers, satellite (RADARSAT II) and vessel monitoring systems will be effected by this reduction and what are the details of how these methods will be effected?

Question No. 715Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Egmont P.E.I.

Conservative

Gail Shea ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the objective of this exercise was to rebalance the mix of surveillance and enforcement tools at disposal in the NAFO regulatory area, or NRA, in order to better reflect improvements in compliance, improvements in electronic monitoring, and a reduction in the days fished in the NRA by foreign fleets. These changes allowed us to optimize the distribution of our compliance and enforcement assets without compromising our overall enforcement effectiveness.

With regard to (b) and (c), 23 positions have been eliminated as a result of this objective. No employees will be eliminated as a result of the reduction of three fishery officer positions in the NAFO/Offshore Surveillance Unit and 20 seagoing Canadian Coast Guard positions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Position reduction will be managed through attrition and existing vacancies.

With regard to (d), NAFO enforcement will not be affected as part of this measure. The current enforcement program will continue to focus on detection and deterrence of non-compliance by foreign vessels.

With regard to (e), the tracking numbers are 2012-006-02401.

With regard to (f), the total budget reduction of the track in 2014-15 and beyond is $4.2 million per year.

With regard to (g), no methods used to monitor fishing activity will be affected. Dedicated, armed, boarding-ready patrol ships will continue to remain available for patrolling Canada’s 200-mile limit and for carrying out inspections in the NRA.

Question No. 721Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

With regard to Correctional Service Canada's (CSC) terminated Prison Farm Program: (a) has CSC studied the possibility of re-opening a prison farm program; (b) what studies, reports or assessments have been prepared by CSC regarding the re-opening of a prison farm program, broken down by (i) date of studies, reports or assessments, (ii) title of studies, reports or assessments, (iii) internal tracking number of studies, reports or assessments; (c) what briefing documents have been prepared for ministers and their staff regarding the re-opening of a prison farm program, broken down by (i) date of request for briefing note, (ii) title of requested briefing note, (iii) internal tracking number of briefing note; (d) what is the anticipated cost, broken down annually for the next ten years, of re-opening a prison farm program; (e) how much money has currently been budgeted to re-open a prison farm program; (f) how much money has currently been budgeted to study the re-opening of a prison farm program; (g) has the government’s policy changed regarding a prison farm program since 2010; and (h) what records exist regarding meetings at which CSC was asked to re-open a prison farm, broken down by (i) date of meeting, (ii) attendees, (iii) any internal tracking numbers assigned to the meeting’s documentation?

Question No. 721Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Lévis—Bellechasse Québec

Conservative

Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will not revisit the decision to close the prison farms. There is no desire to reinstate this ineffective program. The Government of Canada invests in programs that are efficient and effective. CSC is focusing on programs that provide relevant and practical employment skills as part of their rehabilitation.

Question No. 722Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

With regard to Service Canada, specifically to the 2008 document, “Moving Forward, Growing Service Canada in the Ontario Region”: (a) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of any file, memorandum, instruction, directive or any other record which document (i) the decision which resulted in removing Kingston from the list of physical processing areas of hubs for the Employment Insurance business line of Service Canada since the issuance of the 2008 document, (ii) the rationale which resulted in removing Kingston from the list of physical processing areas of hubs for the Employment Insurance business line of Service Canada since the issuance of the 2008 document; and (b) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of any file, memorandum, instruction, directive or any other record which documents (i) the decision which resulted in adding North Bay to the list of physical processing areas of hubs for the Employment Insurance business line of Service Canada since the issuance of the 2008 document, (ii) the rationale which resulted in adding North Bay to the list of physical processing areas of hubs for the Employment Insurance business line of Service Canada since the issuance of the 2008 document?

Question No. 722Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia

Conservative

Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, ESDC undertook a comprehensive review of program and service delivery. These reviews are done on an ongoing basis to ensure programs and services are focused, modern, and efficient, that they continue to respond to the priorities of Canadians, and that they are in line with core federal responsibilities. Modernizing the employment insurance processing system was part of the review.

In August 2011, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development announced a plan to consolidate smaller and more costly employment insurance processing sites into larger regional hubs. This new service delivery model was a national strategy, informed by but not exclusively based on the 2008 regional document “Moving Forward, Growing Service Canada in the Ontario Region”. The model, to be implemented gradually over three years, focused on moving from 120 sites across the country to 22 sites.

Question No. 727Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

November 17th, 2014 / 6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

With regard to questions Q-1 to Q-644 submitted to the Order Paper during the Second Session of the 41st Parliament: (a) what are the details of all information, provided by responding departments to the Privy Council Office (PCO), that was omitted in the final responses to the questions; (b) what are the details of any correspondence, memos, notes, emails, or other communications, sent within the relevant departments, within the PCO, or transmitted between the departments and the PCO, regarding the omission of such information, broken down by (i) relevant file numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved; (c) what are the reasons for the omission of information in the responses to these questions; and (d) what are the details of all objections to such omissions?

Question No. 727Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, except for those questions requiring an oral answer pursuant to the Standing Orders, the government’s answers to questions on the order paper are contained in documents tabled in Parliament that bear a minister’s or parliamentary secretary’s signature. Any other version of a response is considered draft and unofficial.

In processing Parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and any draft responses would be considered advice to a minister.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 702, 705, 707 to 711, 713, 714, 717 to 720, 724 to 726, and 728 to 737 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 702Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the recreational and food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador: what amount of money has been spent by the government to monitor and enforce the fishery in each of the last five years?