Debates of Nov. 29th, 2013

Question No. 5

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), prior to May 2012, the issuance of residency questionnaires, RQs, was not systematically tracked by the department; therefore, data are unavailable for the last five years.

With regard to (b), Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, does not compile statistics by constituency and therefore cannot identify the total number of RQs sent to citizenship applicants living in the riding of Ottawa Centre.

With regard to (c), prior to May 2012, the issuance of RQs was not systematically tracked by the department; therefore, data are unavailable for the last five 5 years.

With regard to (d), prior to May 2012, the issuance of RQs was not systematically tracked by the department. In May 2012, CIC introduced a new version of the RQ. The RQ is issued in cases where additional information and documents are needed in order to assist in determining whether or not an applicant meets the residence requirement for citizenship. The RQ is not a new feature of the citizenship application process. It has been used in one form or another for several decades. CIC takes the issue of fraud in the immigration and citizenship programs very seriously. Our intent is to apply the full strength of Canadian law, and where evidence permits, to strip permanent resident status or citizenship, seek removal, and/or refer the matter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP, for a criminal investigation. It is a much simpler process to be able to prevent those who are involved in residence fraud from becoming citizens in the first place than to try to revoke citizenship after they have already acquired it.

With regard to (e), the RQ is issued at various stages of the processing of applications in cases in which additional information and documents are needed in order to assist in determining whether an applicant meets the residence requirement for citizenship. The tools used to decide whether an RQ is issued are investigative tools, and as such cannot be released by CIC.

Question No. 6

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

With regard to the property owned by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) at 250 Lanark Avenue in Ottawa: (a) is the property designated as surplus; (b) if so, is the property designated as surplus strategic or surplus routine; (c) does PWGSC intend to dispose of the property; (d) if so, what is the planned timeframe for the disposal of the property; (e) how is the green space at the property currently being used; (f) what are the reasons for restricting public access to the green space at the property?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the property owned by Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, at 250 Lanark Avenue in Ottawa, with regard to (a), yes, the property is designated as surplus.

With regard to (b), the property is designated as surplus strategic.

With regard to (c), yes, PWGSC intends to sell the property.

With regard to (d), PWGSC plans to sell 250 Lanark Avenue to Canada Lands Company in 2014 for strategic disposal.

With regard to (e), although the federal occupants of the site do not actively use the green space at 250 Lanark Avenue, the green space is managed as grounds associated with an occupied office building.

With regard to (f), public access to the green space remains restricted, as the grounds are associated with an office building that continues to be used for office accommodation. Furthermore, as the department continues to move towards the disposal of the property, PWGSC does not wish to further encumber the property and impact the disposal negotiations with Canada Lands Company.

Question No. 12

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Regarding the measures “totaling two billion dollars” contained in the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, tabled by the government in November 2010: (a) over what time frame is this money to be spent; and (b) how much of the $2 billion has already been spent?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the enhancements to the new veterans charter, in regard to (a), the $2 billion is the accrual cost estimate of the additional amount that will be paid to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans because the approved program changes over the life of the program--i.e., it is defined as the period up until the last eligible program recipient dies.

In regard to (b),it is not possible to calculate how much of the $2 billion has already been spent because a portion of the $2 billion liability is paid down each year as benefits and services are paid to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. Because the funding announced in November 2010 was incremental funding for previously established programs, it is not possible to identify separately how much of the $2 billion has already been spent.

Confirmation can be provided as of August 31, 2013 that 2,717 veterans now have access to increased monthly financial compensation through the earnings loss benefit, 590 veterans have increased access to the Permanent Incapacity Allowance, and 202 veterans have access to Exceptional Incapacity Allowance.

Question No. 21

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

With regard to the Indirect Costs Program: (a) what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005; and (b) in the case of McGill University and l'Université Laval, what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the indirect costs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council does not require universities to differentiate between indirect and direct costs when reporting expenditures to Industry Canada.

Question No. 29

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

With regard to the 267,000 cubic meters of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes that are stored above ground in concrete containers at the Chalk River Laboratories: (a) what is the long-term plan for the containment and safe storage of these wastes; (b) how has the safety of these containers been demonstrated and what is their design life; (c) how has their long term performance been (i) evaluated, (ii) verified; (d) is there an update on the proposed deep geological repository at the Chalk River property and what is (i) the project description, (ii) the project scope; (e) how much will the deep geological repository cost; (f) how has the long term performance been evaluated for the proposed deep geological repository; (g) has a post-closure safety assessment been done; (h) what has been the process for public participation in this project’s development to date; (i) what are the future plans for public participation; and (j) what is the peer review process for this proposed deep geological repository?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at Chalk River Laboratories, CRL, is safely and securely stored and managed in a number of above-ground and in-ground waste management structures and areas at the site. Several options are being considered for the long-term management of these wastes. The range of options being considered includes surface, near-surface, and deep geologic facilities. The investigations are currently in the option assessment stage. Feasibility studies are under way or planned to inform decision-making on the types of long-term waste management facilities required to safely manage these wastes over the long term.

With regard to (b), all low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at CRL, including that stored in above ground concrete structures, is maintained in a safe and secure condition, as required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, licence conditions. The integrity of this storage is verified on an ongoing basis through appropriate monitoring of the containment and the surrounding environment. This waste will be maintained in secure storage until permanent disposal facilities are available. The design life for the above-ground concrete storage structures, commonly referred to as shielded modular above-ground storage, or SMAGS, is 50 years.

With regard to (c), long-term performance is evaluated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, via monitoring to confirm that the wastes continue to be stored safely, and the results are reported to the CNSC. The first Canadian SMAGS was constructed in 1982 by Ontario Hydro on the Bruce nuclear site and has been in service, without issue, since that time. AECL has two such facilities in service at CRL, as well as an earlier-generation facility with less shielding, which is for low-level radioactive waste only.

With regard to (d), a number of long-term management options are being considered for AECL’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, including the possibility of a deep geologic facility. AECL is currently conducting a site suitability assessment of the CRL site for a deep geologic facility for its intermediate-level radioactive waste. The study is part of AECL’s efforts to define the infrastructure required for the long-term management of radioactive waste at CRL. The site suitability assessment is not yet complete and, as such, neither a project description nor a project scope has been developed.

With regard to (e), the cost assessments completed to date have been high-level estimates for possible deep geologic facility concepts and are not sufficiently developed for public release. The high-level estimates are, however, in line with estimates for other similar proposed facilities.

With regard to (f), a long-term performance assessment would be part of a formal plan. As there is no decision to proceed with a deep geologic facility, a long-term performance assessment has not yet been completed. Such an assessment would be an integral part of the safety case that would be required to license such a facility.

With regard to (g), a post closure safety assessment would be part of a formal plan. As there is no decision to proceed with a deep geologic facility, a post-closure safety assessment has not yet been completed. This assessment would be an integral part of the safety case that would be required to license such a facility.

With regard to (h), public awareness of the feasibility study has been promoted through interaction with the local environmental stewardship council for CRL and presentation of results at conferences.

With regard to (i), should the site suitability study indicate that a deep geologic facility would be feasible for the Chalk River site, directed public consultations would proceed on the options for managing Chalk River’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste over the long term. This would include the possibility of a deep geologic repository. The process would involve the local community, aboriginal groups, stakeholders, and the broader public. If a decision was made to proceed with a deep geologic facility, an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, would be required, providing further opportunities for public involvement.

With regard to (j), as no decision has been made on whether to proceed with a deep geologic facility, no peer review process is in place. It would be important to include a peer review process if the project moves ahead.

Question No. 42

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

With respect to interactions between the government and any citizens or residents of Canada, what interactions have taken place since January 1, 2010, broken down by (a) government department; (b) number of interactions by type per month; (c) minimum time between initial request and closure of the file; (d) maximum time between initial request and closure of the file; (e) average time between initial request and closure of the file; (f) number of the interactions that were satisfactorily resolved; (g) number of interactions that were closed without being resolved; (h) number of interactions that remain open and unresolved; and (i) what policy or policies govern these interactions?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in order to produce information on all interactions with citizens and residents of Canada to the level of detail requested, organizations would be required to manually verify each and every file they maintain. Organizations do not necessarily maintain records on interactions employees may have had with citizens or residents of Canada. For these reasons, as well as because of the extraordinary volume involved, it is not possible to produce the information requested.

Question No. 44

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

With regard to search and rescue and Canadian Coast Guard ships (CCGS) in Newfoundland and Labrador (N.L.): (a) does the government plan to replace or provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in Burin and Burgeo, N.L., (i) if so, how many new lifeboats will be allocated to each town, (ii) is the replacement of lifeboats in Burin and Burgeo part of the $488 million announcement by the Honourable Peter Mackay, P.C., M.P. on June 26, 2013, (iii) was the announcement scheduled to take place prior to the date referred to in (ii) at any time, (iv) what was the reason for changing the day of the announcement, (v) when will the boats be delivered, (vi) are there any delays in the delivery of the boats, (vii) if so, why are there delays in the delivery of the boats, (viii) does the government plan to replace or provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in other communities in Random—Burin—St. George’s, (ix) if so, which communities will have their lifeboats replaced or be provided with additional lifeboats, (x) when will the announcements for other communities take place, (xi) when will the lifeboats in these communities be delivered; and (b) what is the reason for placing the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell on lay-up, (i) has the government consulted stakeholders on the impact to search and rescue of this measure, (ii) if so, which stakeholders were consulted, (iii) what were the positions of each stakeholder group on this measure, (iv) how many hours will it take for the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell to return to operational status in the event of an emergency, (v) does the government intend to decommission the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell, (vi) has there been any discussion about decommissioning the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell, (vii) what tasks did the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell perform, (viii) what is the government’s plan to replace this performance, (ix) which vessels will be equipped to immediately respond to an oil spill while the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is in lay-up, (x) which vessels will be equipped to immediately respond to major oil installation fires or fires on coastal and transatlantic vessels operating in water adjacent to the coast of N.L. while the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is in lay-up?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), yes, the government is planning to replace the existing search and rescue lifeboats in Burin, NL, and Burgeo, NL. Each will be replaced by a newly built search and rescue lifeboat of a more modern design.

With regard to (a)(i), one search and rescue lifeboat is planned for each location.

With regard to (a)(ii), yes, the replacement of the Burin and Burgeo search and rescue lifeboats will be financed as part of the $488 million announced by Minister MacKay.

With regard to (a)(iii), the answer is no. In spring 2013 different scenarios and dates were contemplated, and the Mari-Tech 2013 Conference was chosen as the optimum time and place.

With regard to (a)(iv), question (a)(iv) is not applicable.

With regard to (a)(v), delivery of the vessels is forecast from 2015 through 2018. However, this preliminary forecast will be updated through consultations and contracting with industry.

With regard to (a)(vi), no, there are no delays in the delivery of the vessels.

With regard to (a)(vii), question (a)(vii) is not applicable.

With regard to (a)(viii), no, there is no plan to provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in other communities in Random—Burin--St. George’s.

With regard to (a)(ix), (a)(x), and (a)(xi), the questions are not applicable.

With regard to (b), the department realigned resources with current fishing efforts and compliance rates, which reduced the overall requirement for CCG ship time. Two new vessels, CCGS G. Peddle S.C. and CCGS Corporal McLaren M.M.V., will conduct six months of midshore fisheries patrol. Other vessels will be assigned to deliver Coast Guard programs.

With regard to (b)(i), there is no impact to search and rescue. All CCG vessels are search and rescue vessels, and will be assigned tasks according to program needs.

With regard to (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), the questions are not applicable.

With regard to (b)(iv), it will take approximately three weeks to reactivate the vessel.

With regard to (b)(v), the vessel is in cold lay-up and may be reactivated to cover off duties of other vessels as they are taken out of service for extended periods of time.

With regard to (b)(vi), no decision has been made at this time.

With regard to (b)(vii), the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is a patrol vessel that is used to carry out various Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries and Oceans programs.

With regard to (b)(viii), other vessels will be assigned to carry out Coast Guard Services, such as the CCGS Leonard J. Cowley, the CCGS Cygnus, or the CCGS Earl Grey.

With regard to (b)(ix), all Coast Guard vessels can respond to oil spills. CCGS Ann Harvey and CCGS George R. Pearkes have capacity similar to CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell.

With regard to (b)(x), firefighting is not part of the Coast Guard’s mandate.

Question No. 60

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

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the 2007 citations issued by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) inspectors to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area: (a) has the government been informed of any penalties or fines imposed by the vessels’ home countries; (b) has the government inquired about any penalties of fines imposed by vessels' home countries; and (c) were the fines or penalties paid by the vessels that were fined?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 2007 citations issued by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, inspectors to vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada has in some cases been informed of penalties and/or fines imposed by the vessels’ home countries. In other instances, the cases are currently pending or under investigation or have been closed.

With regard to (b), no formal inquiries were made, as this information is reported to NAFO members on an annual basis.

With regard to (c), when fines or penalties were imposed after conviction, information related to whether they were paid or not was not made available to NAFO members until subsequent years.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Questions Nos. 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, 37 and 43 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 9

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

With regard to the importation of consumer electronic products and devices, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-2007: (a) what is the total value of consumer electronic devices and other products imported into Canada under tariff codes (i) 8519.81.29, (ii) 8521.90.90, (iii) 9948.00.00; and (b) how much was paid in tariffs for the importation into Canada of consumer electronic devices and other products under tariff codes (i) 8519.81.29, (ii) 8521.90.90, (iii) 9948.00.00?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 11

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

With regard to the Translation Bureau: (a) how many words were translated from French to English and from English to French for the years (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012, (v) 2013; and (b) what was the Bureau’s baseline budget, how many permanent, term and contract employees did it have, and what amount did the various federal institutions allocate for translation in the years (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012, (v) 2013?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 16

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

)With regard to the government's September 2007 announcement of a “one-time, tax-free, ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick during the summers of 1966 and 1967”: (a) how much money was budgeted for these payments; (b) how many payments were issued; (c) how much of the money budgeted was not paid out in ex gratia payments; and (d) what was done with the money that was not paid out?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 19

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

With regard to the Translation Bureau: (a) what was the total number of translator, interpreter and editor positions at the Bureau, per year, since 2005-2006; (b) what is the Bureau's total number of client institutions; (c) what was the total number of client institutions, per year, since 2005-2006; and (d) what is the total amount invoiced to these institutions for (i) translation or editing services, (ii) interpretation services?