Debates of March 7th, 2014

Mining Industry

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a second petition that was given to me by constituents in my riding who are extremely concerned about the practices of Canadian mining companies abroad.

They are calling for the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism, given that the mandate of the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor is so weak.

Gatineau Park

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also presenting a petition in support of my bill, Bill C-565.

At the same time, I would like to thank my colleagues who worked so hard to get petitions signed to support this bill, which will give Gatineau Park true legal protection. After 76 years, it is time that Gatineau Park had legal protection.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 197, 214, 218, 250, 251, 271, and 277.

Question No. 197

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

With regard to spending under the Scientific Research and Experimental Development program for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) how much funding was granted in each province and territory; (b) how much funding in each province and territory went to small businesses; (c) how much funding in each province and territory went to big businesses; (d) how much funding in each province and territory went to an individual; (e) how much funding in each province and territory was for basic scientific research; (f) how much funding in each province and territory was for applied research; and (g) how much funding in each province and territory was awarded for other research?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the scientific research and experimental development program, or SR and ED, is a federal tax incentive. It is not a funding opportunity through a grant or contribution.

The tax incentive has two components. The first is an income tax deduction, which allows immediate expensing of eligible expenditures. Eligible expenditures in 2014 include most of the costs that are directly related to SR and ED, including salary and wages, materials, and overhead.

The second is an investment tax credit in respect of eligible expenses. The general rate is 15% in 2014. An enhanced rate of 35 % is provided to small and medium-sized Canadian-controlled private corporations, or CCPCs, on their first $3 million of eligible expenditures. Unused credits earned in a year are generally fully refundable for small and medium-sized CCPCs on their first $3 million of current expenditures. Unused credits can be carried back three years and forward twenty years.

Information on the tax expenditures related to the SR and ED program can be found in “Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2013”, available at http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2013/taxexp13-eng.asp.

Question No. 214

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

With regard to contaminated water from the Port of Québec flowing into the St. Lawrence River in July 2013: (a) what action was taken by the government in response to this incident; (b) were there any complaints filed by the public regarding this incident; (c) what were the findings of any investigations into such complaints; and (d) what action, if any, was taken to ensure that such an incident would not reoccur or to serve as a deterrent?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in July 2013 Environment Canada enforcement officers conducted a follow-up inspection at the Port of Quebec. Environment Canada issued an inspector’s direction in 2011 requiring that those responsible for the deposits take all measures consistent with safety and with the conservation of fish and fish habitat. The Port of Quebec is currently complying with the requirements of the inspector’s direction.

With regard to (b), there was one complaint regarding this incident.

With regard to (c), scientific analysis of the samples of water from the sedimentation basin of the Port of Quebec did not demonstrate any effective deleterious substances in the effluent discharge into the St. Lawrence River.

With regard to (d), as per the directive mentioned above, Environment Canada informed the responsible parties, in writing, of their obligations under the Fisheries Act.

Question No. 218

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which Alberta employers have been issued a positive Labour Market Opinion, broken down by region and National Occupation Classifications: (a) for Alberta's minimum wage in the following years, (i) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.00, (ii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.00, (iii) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.40, (iv) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $8.80, (v) September 1, 2011--present: $9.40; and (b) for the following wage rate ranges for the following years, (i) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.01-$7.50, (ii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.01-8.50, (iii) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.41-$8.90, (iv) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $8.81-$9.30, (v) September 1, 2011--August 31, 2012: $9.41-$9.90, (vi) September 1, 2012--August 31, 2013: $9.76-$10.25, (vii) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.51-$8.00, (viii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.51: $9.00, (ix) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.91- $9.40, (x) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $9.31-$9.80, (xi) September 1, 2011--August 31, 2012: $9.91-$10.40, (xii) September 1, 2012--August 31, 2013: $10.26-$10.75?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the nature of this request would require a prohibitively long and extensive manipulation of data generated by the system. Therefore, ESDC is unable to answer this question in the time allotted.

Question No. 250

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

With regard to the Wolseley Barracks: (a) what was the reason for the 2013 demolition of the three buildings at the Barracks; (b) why has said work been called to a halt; (c) how much is the demolition predicted to cost; (d) how much money was spent on repairs to the three buildings between 2008 and 2013; (e) how much is the demolition supposed to save in the long run; and (f) how will those receiving training at Wolseley Barracks be housed once all the designated buildings are gone?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence, DND, and the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, conduct frequent infrastructure reviews to ensure that infrastructure meets our needs and entitlements.

With regard to (a), following a review of the infrastructure at Wolseley Barracks in London, Ontario, three buildings were slated for demolition in the summer of 2013 as they are no longer required by DND/CAF.

With regard to (b), asbestos was discovered between the walls in some of the buildings and therefore, to be prudent, demolitions were suspended on October 3, 2013. Investigations continue on the best way to proceed, but the overall demolition plan has not changed in scope.

With regard to (c), the contract for demolition was awarded for a total cost of $249,000. This amount will be amended by the additional work requirements caused by the discovery of asbestos, although the exact value of the amendments has not been finalized.

With regard to (d), approximately $145,000 was spent on repairs to the three buildings between 2008 and 2013.

With regard to (e), those three buildings are estimated to cost approximately $140,000 annually for operations and maintenance, O&M, and payment in lieu of taxes, PILT. Therefore, it is estimated that the demolition will result in an annual cost avoidance of approximately $140,000.

With regard to (f), there are sufficient classrooms in the remaining buildings to continue to run courses at Wolseley Barracks. Courses can also be held in local training or range areas, such as Cedar Springs and 4 Canadian Division Training Centre in Meaford.

Question No. 251

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

With regard to the importance of regularly updating and enforcing the Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: (a) when will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food commit to providing sustained funding for the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC); (b) how does the Minister anticipate enforcement of these Codes will be funded and executed; and (c) will the Minister commit to independent, third-party verification of the NFACC Codes of Practice to ensure that producers are compliant with these industry Codes?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) the Government of Canada’s approach to addressing animal care and welfare at the farm level includes working closely with a network of industry stakeholders and responsible organizations. The Government of Canada has been supporting the National Farm Animal Care Council, or NFACC, in developing and updating the “Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals”, establishing a framework for on-farm assessments, and providing critical leadership for Canada’s efforts. Since the establishment of NFACC in 2005, the Government of Canada has invested over $4 million in support of its activities and approaches in dealing with animal care and welfare issues.

Future funding for NFACC may be provided under the Growing Forward 2 agri-marketing assurance system. It is up to individual organizations to apply for this funding. The Government of Canada continues to provide technical support to NFACC and the codes initiative and is committed to working collaboratively with all stakeholders in addressing issues related to animal welfare.

With regard to (b), requirements in the codes of practice are enforced under provincial legislation and regulations. However, it is important to note that responsibility for implementation and enforcement does not rest with just one group. Implementation of the codes occurs in multiple ways: through voluntary producer uptake, on-farm assessment programs, quality assurance programs required by markets, and provincial regulation. The first responsibility for implementation of the codes rests with the producers and others who handle animals. Canadian farmers take their responsibility seriously, which is why, in addition to the code requirements that all are expected to follow, each code also contains recommended practices, an important tool for encouraging continuous improvement in the industry. Meanwhile, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments share legislative and enforcement responsibility for animal welfare, with provincial governments having the primary legislative authority for the on-farm handling of animals. At the federal level, regulations regarding the humane transport and humane slaughter of animals in federally inspected facilities are enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Collaboration among all the various stakeholders is a key aspect of Canada’s approach to ensuring that good practices are followed.

With regard to (c), animal care assessment programs are key to demonstrating that the codes of practice are being followed. One key goal under the NFACC animal care assessment framework is to ensure that the programs developed are both transparent and credible. Livestock and poultry producers recognize the need for developing effective assessment programs in order to demonstrate that animals are properly treated and cared for on-farm. Several commodities have already begun implementing on-farm assessments or are developing their programs, and more are expected to do so as codes are updated. Third-party assessments may play a role in the programs as they are developed over time, especially as market requirements develop.

Question No. 271

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

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW), how much funding does the FFAW receive annually for the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union received the following annual amounts of funding from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures program: for fiscal year 2011-12, $2,656,640; for fiscal year 2012-13, $4,492,374.04; and for fiscal year 2013-14 to date, $392,602.87.

Question No. 277

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

With regard to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) agency; and (b) what agency was responsible for allocating this funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) municipality?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the nature of this request would require a prohibitively long and extensive manipulation of data generated by the system. Therefore, ESDC is unable to answer this question in the time allotted.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 179, 199, 210, 225, 237, 240, and 261 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Question No. 179

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

With regard to employees and contractors of the government of Canada within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) how many such employees or contractors have there been in total per year since 2004, broken down by (i) riding (current boundaries), (ii) riding (proposed boundaries), (iii) full time, part time or occasional status, (iv) permanent, indeterminate, or temporary status, (v) total gross income for each response in (iii) and (iv), (vi) department, office, facility, or contract location; and (b) what are the projected responses for all clauses in (a) between now and 2019?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 199

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to the development and operation of the Canadian Multiple Sclerosis Monitoring System (CMSMS) announced in March 2011: (a) what are the government's baseline assumptions for the CMSMS, (i) how many Canadians live with MS according to the government’s source, (ii) what is the government's source; (b) what have been the challenges in developing the system between March 2011 and today, (i) how has each challenge been overcome, (ii) what are the achievements to date, (iii) what milestones has the government planned between December 2013 and December 2015 and by what dates; (c) what is the cost of developing the system, broken down by costs to date; (d) how much money did the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) contribute to the development of the CMSMS, (i) were there any other partners involved in the development of the system, (ii) if so, who are they, (iii) what has each contributed; (e) who was involved in the design and development of the CMSMS, (i) from what departments/institutions were they, (ii) were potential conflicts of interest declared and, if so, how; (f) what health information does the CMSMS track, specifically, with regard to (i) chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), (ii) impacts of CCSVI treatment, including but not limited to use of the following scales, Expanded Disability Status Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, (iii) pharmaceutical treatments for MS, (vi) adverse drug reactions by MS drug; (g) who is/was overseeing pilot testing, (i) who is/was responsible for ensuring that patient information is/was protected, (ii) who is/was responsible for the integrity of the results; (h) were ethical reviews for pilot testing necessary and, if so, on what date did each pilot site pass ethical review; (i) when is pilot testing expected to/did it take place and at which MS clinics will/did testing occur; (j) on what date did recruitment of patients begin for each pilot site and what methods are/were used to recruit patients; (k) how many MS patients are/were recruited for each site and how is/was consistency ensured across sites; (l) what information are/were MS patients given about the pilot testing and how their information will be/was protected and used, (i) is/was participation voluntary, (ii) can/could patients pull out of the testing at any time, (iii) what health information is/was being tracked at each pilot site and at what time intervals, (iv) what health information is being/was tracked about CCSVI and impacts of CCSVI treatment, including but not limited to use of the following scales, Expanded Disability Status Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, (v) what health information is/was being tracked about pharmaceutical treatments for MS, (vi) what adverse drug reactions are/were being tracked by MS drug; (m) what is the relationship between the clinical trials and the CMSMS, (i) will data be transferred from one to the other and, if so, how will this happen, (ii) when will it begin, (iii) who will be responsible for the oversight; (n) what are the estimated operating costs annually for the CMSMS and at what sites is/will the CMSMS operating/operate; (o) how much money is/will the CIHR contributing/contribute to the operation of the CMSMS, (i) are/will there be any other partners in the operation of the CMSMS and, if so, (ii) who are they, (iii) what will they each contribute; and (p) how will the results of pilot testing be communicated to patients, the medical community and the general public and by what date is reporting expected to occur?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 210

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) Processing Centres and EI Call Centres: (a) what goal has been set with respect to percentage of EI applications processed through automation; (b) what is the time table for achieving this goal; (c) what was the percentage of automation achieved in EI processing, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (d) for EI processing centres, (i) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date, (ii) what is the variance in total employees and in the percentage of term versus indeterminate employees from one year to the next, (iii) what is the planned number of employees for fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, (iv) what is the rationale for any reductions in employees; (e) what is the service standard for processing claims that take longer than 28 days to process; (f) what has been the annual result in achieving this standard for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (g) what are the reasons for not achieving the standard in the years requested, if applicable; (h) what is the EI call centre agent workday occupancy metric and what is the government's rationale for this measure; (i) what has been the EI call centre agent workday occupancy target and result, nationally and broken down by province, for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (j) for EI call centres, (i) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date, (ii) what is the variance in total employees and percentage of term versus indeterminate employees from one year to the next, (iii) what is the planned number of employees for fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, (iv) what is the rationale for any reductions in employees; (k) how many EI claims were processed for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; and (l) with respect to the program indicator (percentage of initial and renewal EI claims finalized within 21 days from date of filing and 21 days of registration of revised EI claims), what was the standard and results achieved for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date and why was the standard not achieved?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 225

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

With regard to the study and treatment of eating disorders: (a) how many major eating disorder studies have been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) including treatment, prevention or epidemiology research; (b) how many CIHR peer review committees include members who have expertise in eating disorders; (c) are questions about eating disorders included in national databases; (d) what Health Canada eating disorder initiatives are in place; (e) what are the reasons for which Health Canada does not include low body mass index (BMI) as a separate category; (f) is the Public Health Agency of Canada tracking eating disorders in terms of prevalence, access to treatment and availability of services; (g) is Statistics Canada tracking eating disorders; (h) what are the rates of eating disorders among First Nations, on reserve and in the territories; (i) what barriers to care for Aboriginal Canadians have been identified; (j) have eating disorders been integrated into obesity prevention initiatives in Aboriginal communities; (k) are these initiatives gender and culturally sensitive; (l) in the case of obesity-related research or healthy weight initiatives conducted by the government, are there safeguards in place to ensure ‘no harm’; (m) has the government conducted any research studies examining the full spectrum of eating disorders, from those affecting people with low BMIs to those affecting people with high BMIs; (n) what research efforts by Canada are underway to address those refractory cases currently being treated in long term care mental health facilities; (o) what actions is the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) taking concerning eating disorders; (p) are eating disorders included in MHCC reports; (q) of the MHCC management (board, executive staff and directors) are there any persons with expertise in eating disorders; (r) has the MHCC developed guidelines for treatment and/or prevention of eating disorders and, if not, why not; (s) have Health Canada or other government agencies performed a review of funded eating disorder services and, if not, why not; (t) have Health Canada or other government agencies tracked co-morbid disorders such as eating disorders coupled with psychiatric illnesses; and (u) have Health Canada or other government agencies tracked eating disorders coupled with medical disorders?