Debates of Dec. 9th, 2015

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2015-16

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to be clear. I think all Canadians want to make sure that Syrian refugees, Iraqi refugees, and Canadians are well taken of.

My question is how will we do that? What are the costs associated with doing that? Will we be asking the provinces to train more individuals? That would be outstanding, and I think all Canadians would welcome that. Will we, as a federal government, be training more individuals and paying for that training?

What exactly is the plan to make sure that the care of both Canadians and our new Syrian refugee colleagues who are coming here is provided for? What is the plan? What are the costs? Where are health community resources being reallocated for the immediate need and in anticipation of the long-term need?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, the provinces are certainly making every effort to receive and to prepare for the refugees. We have reinstated the federal health program, including the supplementary elements to assist that process.

I would say that if the provinces are so concerned, in the way that the member is, about this terrible burden they are about to bear, why is it that 10 out of 10 provinces have supported our project? Why is it that when we add up the provincial commitments, they have oversubscribed and there are more 25,000 agreed to by the provinces?

The member understates the degree of enthusiasm expressed by the provinces themselves and their generosity, instead of—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Chair, could I ask a specific question? It being the case that all Canadians are embracing this—as I said, we are accepting many individuals in my own riding—what is the specific amount that is being allocated funding-wise for the training of FTEs, psychiatrists, psychologists, infectious disease specialists, and others, to make sure that Syrian refugees and Canadians are taken care of?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, that is a provincial responsibility, as the member should know.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Chair, my question was whether the federal government would be aiding the provinces with respect to the training costs associated with the increased need for health care professionals for this issue?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, no. The member keeps repeating these questions. The federal government is putting in close to $700 million in interim federal health care funding, but the overall responsibility for health care rests with the provincial governments.

The member is complaining. The provincial governments are not, because 10 out of 10 have expressed extraordinary enthusiasm for our project and are reacting with generosity, whereas the member seems to be responding in the opposite way.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Chair, how will the wait list for housing be managed by the federal government? Is there an allocation of additional FTEs and individuals to do this, and is there an allocation of specific funding for the plan to be implemented?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, with respect to housing, I keep having to tell the member about jurisdictional matters. These questions of social housing are largely not federal. Many of them are municipal.

It is our view that refugees should probably not go to the head of the queue and get in front of Canadians who have been waiting a year or more for housing. It is not our decision. That is largely municipal, but I have spoken to over 30 mayors on this topic and they all agree on that particular point.

Our objective will be to help the new refugees find housing without displacing Canadians who have been waiting for a long time for social housing.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Chair, I will be using about 10 minutes of my time to make remarks, and then 5 minutes for questions and answers.

I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the government to address a priority of Treasury Board and the entire government, and that is the importance of evidence-based decision-making, an issue that was raised earlier by the President of the Treasury Board in this debate.

That brings me to making a couple of remarks before I get into the discussion. I would like to congratulate the two ministers who are at committee of the whole for the first time in their positions. I would like to congratulate all of the new and returning members on both sides of the House for being here. I look forward to a constructive and positive working relationship in the interests of Canadians, as we move forward in this 42nd Parliament.

Evidence-based decision-making is vitally important to Canadians, and it is vitally important to good decision-making by government. That is why it was explicitly set out in our Liberal platform in the recent election.

I will give members a couple of examples of where we committed to restore evidence-based decision-making. One was the restoration of funding for the Experimental Lakes Area, which is an important world-leading facility for research and understanding of the potential collective and individual impacts on our important freshwater waterways in Canada.

Another is a commitment to restoring funding for ocean science and monitoring, which, as a British Columbian, I know is extremely important to our wild salmon, to understanding the impacts on the ecology of our oceans and riparian areas. It will be important as we move forward to implement the recommendations in the Cohen commission report on the Fraser River sockeye salmon.

I also want to speak today about the importance of evidence-based decision-making in my riding of Vancouver Quadra. When the mandatory long-form census was cancelled, I heard from many people across the riding, especially people from the University of British Columbia. I would like to take a moment to congratulate the university on its 100th anniversary. This important research and learning facility ranks frequently in the top 40 of such institutions around the world.

The government has an ambitious plan for bringing real change to Canadians, and we want to make a fundamental change in how evidence is used to effectively deliver on our commitments.

Canada, as a member of the Group of Eight, the United Nations, and the Group of Twenty, needs a strong evidence-based decision-making process to support and promote its views at the international table.

The Canadian government has access to detailed levels of information for over 1,600 government programs, which includes spending and performance data. We will use this evidence to make decisions that meet the needs of Canadians and achieves value for money. That essentially means that our job of serving Canadians will be done cheaper, faster, and better, with good evidence and with science and facts. Countries look to Canada to set this example, and we are excited to be raising the bar.

The government is also establishing new performance standards, improving the use of evidence and data in program innovation and evaluation, and accelerating and expanding open data initiatives.

The Government of Canada is proud of the many scientists in its ranks who do such important research on agriculture, forestry, biology, and the oceans, as I have mentioned, to name just a few. We take pride in the work that government scientists accomplish. Canadians look forward to hearing Canadian scientists speak about their research, share their results, and make it more accessible.

Our government will use evidence to drive innovation. We are committed to setting aside funding to test and evaluate new approaches to solving problems in government service delivery.

Specifically, as I mentioned, we have restored the mandatory long-form census. As well, we are improving the quality of publicly available data in Canada, and we are developing an innovation agenda which is necessary to the flourishing of Canada's economy in the future.

Collectively, these measures are giving the Government of Canada and our communities key information that we need to best serve Canadians.

Our commitment to the use of evidence extends beyond internal data. The most important evidence comes from Canadians themselves. We will use the feedback we get from Canadians through the extensive consultations we do to ensure we are making the right decisions with the biggest impact.

Without accurate and reliable data, the government cannot review the $100 billion in tax expenditures each and every year to ensure that program spending continues to meet the needs of Canadians.

We also want to share information, so that provincial and municipal governments can plan ahead and be effective. Everything from transit planning to housing strategies to support for new Canadians becomes much easier when people have data at their fingertips.

I am proud that our government is open to working with organizations and asking others for help. For example, we want to harness this expertise and knowledge and learn how we can use the research that the David Suzuki Foundation has undertaken to guide us when creating our climate change strategy. That is why Dr. Suzuki was one of the many delegates that the government invited to attend the climate change conference in Paris. There were representatives from all levels of government, along with indigenous leaders, non-governmental environmental organizations, business leaders, and youth. I am proud that we are restoring the tradition of having members of civil society contribute their ideas, knowledge, and data to making better decisions at these conferences on climate change.

Our government is also committed to meaningful engagement with Parliament and parliamentarians. This means providing Parliament with the evidence it too needs to make the right decisions. To support this commitment, we are increasing the information value of our documents on spending. Aligning the estimates and budget processes, improving public accounts reporting, and providing Parliament with costing analyses for all of the legislation will give parliamentarians real access to spending and performance information. This will truly enable parliamentarians to do the jobs they are elected to do on behalf of their constituents, and that is to scrutinize the government's spending.

I am proud of the improvements that we have committed to. The process is already under way. The President of the Treasury Board is working very hard on a number of these initiatives.

I appreciate the privilege of speaking to the important matter of evidence-based decision-making in this committee of the whole.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Chair, I am wondering what our government is planning in terms of communicating with municipalities, which are quite often on the leading edge of open government when compared to federal government. Can we draw on any kind of support from municipalities in terms of their experiences?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for Guelph for pointing out the importance of decision-making at the community and municipal level.

One of the commitments that we have as a government is to partner with other levels of government. We already saw our Prime Minister do that when he reached out to the provincial premiers to invite them as well to go to Paris, as the process of developing a climate change plan begins under our new government.

Municipalities are a very important part of our infrastructure commitment. We will be working with the municipalities and open government and their initiatives. The two-way learning that we expect will happen is something that I know members of the House are looking forward to.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver Quadra for that speech. It is refreshing to hear the government benches espouse the virtues of evidence-based decision-making.

I know my colleague has served time as the Liberal Party critic for National Defence, and also as a provincial environment minister.

It seems as though most of the time when we talk about evidence-based decision-making, we revert to talking about science and climate change. As the justice critic in the last Parliament, the lack of evidence-based decision-making in criminal justice policy was a hallmark of the previous government, and it has resulted in us having a sizable agenda going forward.

My question to the member is twofold. Could she talk a bit about the importance of evidence-based decision-making in her previous portfolio in defence, to the extent that there is a connection there? Also, could the member talk about the importance of the long-form census, the restoration of it, and where it fits in the whole evidence-based decision-making thrust of the government?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, first it is important that government, like any organization that has the mandate to serve people, is continually looking at how it can do that better. That is what the President of the Treasury Board's mandate is all about and what the hard-working people at the Treasury Board are busy with on an ongoing basis.

However, to do continuous improvement, one needs to have the baseline data. We need answers to question like how we are doing: How is it working? When we tried something out, did it work? What is the evidence?

Evidence and data are important in all fields of endeavour. We want to continually keep up to date with what is happening in terms of information technology, the expectations of the public, and we want to improve our delivery of services and processes.

That relates to National Defence. Information about the impacts on some of the men and women in uniform who were in Afghanistan in an operational capacity and who were injured was being hidden. It was very difficult to find out exactly what was happening, how people were doing, and what the rates of suicide were.

It was very difficult for the previous government to do its job and improve services because the data was lacking as to what was actually happening.

With respect to the justice agenda, we know that the data and evidence clearly did not support some of the previous government's agenda. Some of the spokespersons in the United States were talking to Canadians, asking why we were going down that road of the crime and punishment agenda when the evidence did not support the long-term well-being of people in communities.

I am delighted that we will be restoring the focus on evidence-based decision-making in this country.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Chair, the member spoke about the unmuzzling of scientists at the government level.

She also talked about innovating within government.

She also spoke about her university celebrating a special anniversary. In the riding that I have the pleasure of representing, in Fredericton, I have two universities: the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University. Scientists in those institutions are pleased to see the government moving forward with a scientific agenda, and an agenda that will focus on innovation.

Could the hon. member speak a little about what she is hearing from people at the University of British Columbia as it pertains to science and innovation?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, UBC, as well as the universities he spoke of, are research and learning institutions. They are leadership development institutions. One cannot teach without an evidence-based approach, without science, without data, in whichever field of endeavour the university is working.

What I have heard during the last 10 years is that the disrespect for science and for evidence-based decision-making has been dismaying and that it needs to be restored.

I am pleased to say that is our commitment today.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will give a brief statement, followed by questions. I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

Canadians are generous, so we are welcoming the refugees who will be getting off the plane as permanent residents and they expect Parliament to debate important questions of the day, including whether the government has a plan to do this well and allow the resettlement to be successful. That is what we all want.

The sense we have on this side of the chamber is that this is a plan made on the fly and that could lead to poor outcomes for new members of the Canadian family. We only need to look to the Liberal Party platform that the Prime Minister refers to every day in question period to see Liberals changed their plan in the election.

In their first statement on the subject, the Liberals allocated $250 million in their platform for the Syrian processing resettlement; $100 million this year for processing and settlement; $100 million as a new payment to the UNHCR. Then in another document, in the same election campaign, they allocated $200 million for the same program. Part of that $200 million was again the $100 million in new funding for the UNHCR or relief work.

Whether we take it as $300 million or $250 million, Liberals' plans were different even during the campaign. One thing was constant. They were going to have a new payment to the UNHCR for relief efforts related to this tragedy.

In the Liberals' November 9 press release, once again the new minister said: $100 million for processing; $100 million to the UNHCR for relief. In supplementary estimates we are debating today, $277 million spent; $177 million for operational expenditures; and $99 million for grants. There is no mention of that $100 million in new spending for UNHCR.

Why is this missing from the supplementary estimates?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Chair, the $100 million for UNHCR has not disappeared, however, it is not in the estimates of the immigration department. He will find it in the Department of Global Affairs.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, today we have already heard the minister say that he will have supplementary estimates (C) for security measures. Is he now saying there will be supplementary estimates (D) for Global Affairs?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, we should be clear. I am not suggesting any additional supplementary estimates whatsoever from my department. What I said was that certain security measures covered by CBSA would be in supplementary estimates (C). It is my understanding that the $100 million for UNHCR will be in supplementary estimates (C) for global affairs. However, what the member sees from my department is, to the best of my knowledge, all that Parliament will get on the Syria project.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, the $700 million over a five-year span that the parliamentary secretary outlined at the beginning, is the minister telling the House that it is only for immigration, or does that include global affairs? Does that include security? Does that include defence?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can give the member a breakdown. The number is $280 million for 2015-16 for immigration alone. If he wants the total cost for the Syria project, 2015-16 to 2020-21, then it is $550.8 million for my department. On the other hand, if he wants the total for the whole of the federal government for the whole of the period, then it would be $677.9 million.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, if the minister has these costs for five years at just under $700 million, why are all these new expenditures not in these supplementary estimates?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, perhaps the member could repeat the question. I do not understand.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister is quoting cost certainty here, and his parliamentary secretary did as well, of almost $700 million over five years. Why are all these new costs not in these supplementary estimates in front of the House now?