Debates of May 3rd, 2013

Falun Gong

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by about a hundred of my constituents, who feel that practitioners of Falun Gong have been the largest, most persecuted group in China since July 1999.

They are calling on Parliament to condemn and halt the systematic killings of Falun Gong practitioners for their organs by the Chinese Communist Party. They also want Parliament to publicly call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.

Experimental Lakes Area

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, petitions continue to roll in on the Experimental Lakes Area today from Winnipeg.

The petitioners demand that the government reverse its decision or, if not that, at least in good faith ensure that it moves forward on transferring the facility in an orderly fashion to a responsible new program.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today : Nos. 1227, 1240, 1245, 1247 and 1248.

Question No. 1227

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

With regard to Registered Retirement Savings Plans, what would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to include within the deduction limit any one-time contribution to an RRSP of an amount that is paid to a taxpayer as a lump sum by his or her employer in respect of the taxpayer’s loss of an office or employment, for reasons other than by dismissal for just cause?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the question amounts to estimating the cost to the Government of allowing tax-free rollovers of severance pay to a registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP.

Based on available tax data, it is estimated that permitting rollovers of severance pay and lump sum payments received for long service to an RRSP would cost about $285 million annually in forgone federal tax revenue. This estimate takes into account that individuals currently receiving severance pay may contribute all or part of such amounts to an RRSP based on their available unused RRSP room, while others with little or no unused RRSP room would likely take full advantage of a rollover measure.

Question No. 1240

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to the proposed Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, published in the Canada Gazette on December 15, 2012 for public consultation: (a) what was the number of responses received by the deadline of February 28, 2013; and (b) of these responses, (i) how many responders indicated they disagreed with all or certain sections of the proposed regulations, (ii) how many responders indicated they agreed with all or certain sections of the proposed regulations, (iii) what were the 3 sections of the new regulations that were most commented on?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Health Canada received a total of 1663 comments on the proposed marijuana for medical purposes regulations, MMPR, during the 75-day public comment period, which ended on February 28, 2013. Comments received by mail after this deadline that were postmarked before the end of the public comment period were included in this count.

With regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), of the 1663 comments received, 1317 comments proposed changing the regulations, 77 expressed support for the regulations and 269 had mixed views. A summary of the comments will be included in the regulatory impact assessment statement when published in the Canada Gazette, part II later this year.

With regard to (b)(iii), the three areas on for which Health Canada received the most comments were the elimination of personal production of marijuana in favour of a regulated commercial or industrial production, the estimated cost to purchase marihuana for medical purposes from licensed producers and the limitation of products to dried marijuana only.

Question No. 1245

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

What would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to re-establish a Federal Apiarist position at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to coordinate research in bee-keeping?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the hypothetical situation presented would depend on a variety of factors, including personnel availability, salary demands on the employer, technical support staff requirements, bees, equipment, laboratory and storage space, and ongoing operating funds. All these factors would need to be included in the amount and would vary depending on the size of any new apiary program.

Owing to these factors, an accurate cost estimate cannot be provided at this time.

Question No. 1247

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

With regard to changes made or planned to be made by NAV Canada to flight paths of aircraft arriving at and departing from federally-owned airports in 2012 and 2013 year to date: (a) which airports are affected by the flight path changes; (b) how many flights and what percentage of total flights are subject to flight path changes, broken down by i) incoming and outgoing flights, ii) flight arrival or departure time, iii) affected airport; (c) what is the justification for the changes; and (d) have consultations taken place on these changes and, if yes, what are the (i) groups consulted, including, but not limited to, public consultations, (ii) date of the consultations?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in March 2007, NAV Canada submitted terms of reference on the projected airspace changes to the Windsor-Toronto-Montreal, WTM, corridor. Transport Canada accepted the proposed changes in October 2008 and the changes were implemented on February 9, 2012.

With regard to (a), the Windsor-Toronto-Montreal, WTM, corridor was affected by the flight path changes. The following major airports were affected by these modifications: Toronto--Pearson, Ottawa, Montreal--Trudeau and Quebec City. Owing to the nature of these changes, airports in the vicinity of the major aerodromes were also affected, such as Windsor, London, Kitchener, Hamilton, Oshawa, Toronto--Buttonville, Toronto--Downsview and Toronto--City Centre). The proposal also affected flight training areas in the vicinity of Toronto--Pearson.

With regard to (b), members are requested to contact NAV Canada for this information.

With regard to (c), the purpose of these changes was to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions as well as to improve cost efficiency.

With regard to (d), members are requested to contact NAV Canada for information on the consultations process.

Question No. 1248

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

With regard to noise caused by airports: (a) what measures are in place to mitigate airport noise, (i) which statutes, regulations or documents set out these measures, (ii) which entities are responsible for enforcing these measures; (b) what measures are under consideration or planned to mitigate airport noise; (c) how much research funding has been provided for projects relating to mitigation of airport noise between 2006 and 2013 year to date, broken down by (i) year, (ii) title of project, (iii) recipient of funding, (iv) source of funding; and (d) how many noise complaints have been received relating to airport noise, broken down by (i) entity which received the complaint, including but not limited to airport authorities, NAV Canada and the Ministry of Transport, (ii) airport which was the subject of complaint, (iii) date of complaint?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), noise issues are best handled at the local level. Local representatives and airport-based staff have intimate knowledge of regional matters and are better able to address local concerns.

Transport Canada provides oversight of this system, verifying that the policies and procedures work for the community, for the industry and for travelers. This is done in conjunction with third parties, including Health Canada, NAV Canada and the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. Transport Canada also enforces airport noise abatement procedures and operating restrictions.

The applicable Canadian Aviation Regulations relating to noise can be found at the following link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/aerodromeairnav-standards-noise-cars-906.htm.

Further information on noise can be found at the following link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/aerodromeairnav-standards-noise-menu-923.htm.

With regard to (b), the publication entitled “Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports”, which provides guidance to airports to mitigate airport noise, is being updated. The current publication can be found at the following link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp1247-menu-1418.htm.

With regard to (c), Transport Canada has not funded these types of projects.

With regard to (d), noise complaints must be addressed to the management of the airport where an aircraft is either landing or taking off. Noise issues are best handled at this level. Airport management establish locally based airport noise management programs to deal with noise from aircraft operating at that airport, which includes the receipt of noise complaints from adjacent communities. Questions of this nature should be addressed to the specific airport or airports.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 1224 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1224

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

With regard to human resources at the Joint Rescue Coordination Centres of Trenton (JRCC Trenton) and Halifax (JRCC Halifax): (a) how many Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) search and rescue coordinator positions are there (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (b) how many of these positions are officially unilingual English positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (c) how many of the positions in (a) are officially bilingual BBB positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (d) how many of the positions in (a) are officially bilingual CBC positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (e) how many of the positions in (a) are staffed permanently (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (f) how many of the coordinators in (a) meet the BBB language requirement (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (g) of these coordinators, how many are certified to take charge of a watch (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (h) how many of the coordinators in (a) meet the CBC language requirement (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (i) of these coordinators, how many are certified to take charge of a watch (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (j) how many unilingual English-speaking coordinators are there (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (k) of these coordinators, how many are certified to take charge of a watch (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (l) what were the expected schedules for January 1, 2013, and the following 12 months, specifying the bilingual positions, unilingual positions and names of the individuals assigned according to these schedules and the language proficiency of these individuals, (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (m) how many retirements are expected over the next 12 months (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (n) what is the language requirement for CCG JRCC supervisor positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (o) what is the language proficiency of the incumbents of the CCG JRCC supervisor positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (p) how much has the government committed to date to improve the French proficiency of CCG search and rescue (SAR) operations coordinators since June 2011; (q) how many Canadian Forces (CF) air SAR coordinators work (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (r) how many of these CF air SAR coordinators are bilingual (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (s) what is the current individual language proficiency of the CF air SAR coordinators (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; and (t) following the Commissioner of Official Languages’ recommendations of August 2012 regarding air SAR coordinators, what actions has the Department of National Defence taken to assign bilingual air SAR coordinators to the JRCCs of Trenton and Halifax?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

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

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago yesterday, many of us in this House were elected for our first term. Given that occasion, as I rise today I thank my constituents in Calgary Centre-North who elected me and gave me the great honour of allowing me to represent them and speak on their behalf here in Ottawa. I thank my constituents very much.

It is on that note that it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of our budget implementation bill, which continues on our government track record of trying to ensure that Canada is a place of economic prosperity, job growth, environmental health and safety, and innovation. It is also a place where as legislators in this House of Commons, we can assure our constituents we are doing everything possible to be wise stewards of their taxpayer dollars and everything possible to ensure the sustainability of the programs we are tasked with legislating long into the future.

Two years ago, I remember travelling throughout my riding. The number one thing I heard from my constituents then, and now—I was actually out door knocking last weekend in a couple of communities in my riding—is the fact that Canadians are still concerned about the economy. I believe that is still the number one issue on the minds of Canadians right now. We need to be cognizant of that when we are approaching debate on the government's budget.

Canadians are still concerned about the global economic situation. They are concerned about ensuring we have markets to which we can trade our products and that we have export markets. They are concerned about ensuring we have job growth.

They are also concerned about making sure our government programs are sustainable, that we are making sure when we are voting to spend their tax dollars in this place that we can do that with authority. We want to be able to tell them we are looking for ways to make programs more effective whenever possible. That is really the goal of economic action plan 2013.

I often rise in the House to speak about environmental issues, but today I will speak about a few initiatives that are very important to the people in my riding. Certainly there is commonality across the country, but there are certain issues addressed in economic action plan 2013 that are important to Albertans.

First, the Canada job grant was one of the cornerstones of economic action plan 2013. Certainly in my home province, we face a skilled worker shortage. I have heard from many businesses in my community and across the province, but there are other components of the economy across the country that speak to this as well. That is why we introduced the Canada job grant. Providing up to $15,000 per person in Alberta would combine federal, provincial, territorial and employer funding to help folks get the skills they need for independent jobs. By doing so, we hope to fill those in-demand jobs in a more effective way.

We also want to make sure that Canadians who want to seek those skills to fill those positions have the tools at hand to do that. That is the role of this program. I am very excited about it. I am sure it will have a very positive impact on our economy across the country, but certainly at home in Alberta.

One of the challenges we have in Calgary is the fact that it is a growing city. I am quite proud to represent a Calgary riding because I feel it is one of the economic engine cities of the country. One of the demands we see in Calgary is for infrastructure. Our government has been very proud to support infrastructure funding across the country. In Calgary, some of our economic action plan funding has been used to build things like the Stoney Trail ring road.

I am very excited about the indexation of the gas tax fund to better support the development of this infrastructure, and I hope my colleagues will support it. That is such an important thing because it will allow cities to build upon the continuation and certainty we have provided by making the gas tax transfer funds permanent. That is a legacy that our government is quite proud of, and it is a wonderful part of economic action plan 2013.

I will talk about a few other things today that are in economic action plan 2013.

As members know, we have recently reformed the temporary foreign worker program to make sure Canadians are given the first crack at available jobs. About a week and a half ago, I held a town hall teleconference in my riding. I think I had almost 10,000 of my constituents on that call at one point. Several of the questions we received related to making sure that program is both effective and fair in the long run. That is really where our reforms have been aimed over the last year. Certainly, this is a step in the right direction.

There are many things that my colleagues should have a look at with regard to how communities in their ridings are supported in economic action plan 2013. I have just mentioned a couple of them here.

I want to spend my remaining time talking about something that is very near and dear to my heart, that being the support for science and technology in economic action plan 2013.

There is one program that I specifically want to highlight and which I hope my colleagues will choose to support, and that is the $165 million in multi-year support we have provided to genomics research through Genome Canada. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with Genome Canada's work, it is a very unique program. It cultivates and supports some of the best and brightest researchers in their work on this cutting-edge, uniquely Canadian research that is designed to support a wide variety of industrial problems and basic research problems across the country.

I am quite supportive of this funding because Genome Canada has a track record of research excellence in supporting some of the best and brightest researchers in this country. I hope my colleagues will support economic action plan 2013, in part because some of these programs exist and are funded.

Further to that, on the S and T side, I believe we have $325 million of additional support for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC. This is an organization that is dedicated to bringing clean energy technology, clean technology and sustainable technology to industry so we can continue to address major issues in some of the bigger sectors of our economy, including the energy sector.

A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to tour Pure Technologies, a company in my riding. It has developed a technology that SDTC has supported. Basically, it is a ball that can go through pipelines and detect microscopic fractures to help promote better monitoring of our pipeline safety. It is these sorts of developments that our government is proud to support, through organizations like Genome Canada and SDTC, but more importantly also through our tri-council granting agencies as well.

I spent several years working with these agencies, and we have provided continued support to them through budget 2013, as well as to the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This is an organization that supports the funding of research infrastructure, so it is either the bricks and mortar needed to support research or the equipment that researchers need. Our continued support there is very indicative that supporting science and technology, and the diversification of the Canadian economy, is something our government is not only cognizant of, but into which we are really putting our money where our mouth is. That is very evident in budget 2013.

Overall, the goal of budget 2013, and what we have seen in here, is that balance between ensuring we have long-term economic growth, which is built on our track record of programs such as a suite of programming for responsible resource development, but also making sure our House is in order in Ottawa. We are trying to make sure that as we grow our economy, we are also moving back to balance.

I was quite pleased to see some of the economic forecasts that this budget has been based around. I know our Minister of Finance has worked quite hard to get to that point.

I certainly will be very proud to support this particular bill because of that ability to move Canada's economy into sustainability well into the future and build on our strong track record of growing Canada's economy.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I agree with a central point that my hon. friend made, which is that Canadians believe the economy and economic growth is the number one priority. However, where I disagree with her is that somehow the government is a “wise steward of taxpayers' dollars”.

I would particularly ask the member whether or not this budget, with its hundreds of tax hikes, from hospital parking and credit union safety deposit boxes to bicycles and baby strollers, which are costing Canadians perhaps $8 billion over the next five years, demonstrates a good economic decision at this point in our country's history. Is this the right time for those changes?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I answer my colleague's question and hear of his interest in reducing the tax burden for the average Canadian. I am glad this is something we share.

In fact, it has been through our government's efforts since we took power in 2006 that we have reduced the Canadian tax burden by about $3,000 for an average family of four. That is a lot of money. It has an impact on Canadian society. Yes, this is our track record, and it is something that we are quite proud of.

I find it interesting that he is bringing this up, given that the budget his party put forward actually did not have any costing attached to it. I am not sure how he can talk about wise stewardship of taxpayer dollars when there is no costing associated with the NDP's financial proposals. It is something we should be quite concerned about.