Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2016

Question No. 359

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

With regard to the replacement of the universal child care benefit and the Canada child tax benefit with the new Canada child benefit in Budget 2016, what were the Minister of Finance’s considerations concerning families that are just under the cut off adjusted family net income amount of approximately $150 000, who will receive benefits, compared to those at, or slightly above, the $150 000 mark?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 363

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

With regard to government programs for youth, particularly those concerning substance abuse prevention, mental health and the National Anti-Drug Strategy (NADS): (a) under the NADS, how much was allocated to prevention each year over the past five years; (b) under the NADS, how much is allocated to prevention each year over the next three years; (c) under the NADS, how much was spent on substance abuse prevention among youth under 25 years of age each year over the past five years; (d) under the NADS, how much is allocated to substance abuse prevention among youth under 25 years of age each year over the next three years; (e) under Health Canada’s Substance Use and Abuse program, how much was spent on substance abuse prevention each year over the past five years, and how much is allocated each year over the next three years; (f) has the government prepared a youth education and awareness program in advance of the legalization of marijuana, and if so, what is its budget and how many government employees will work on this issue; (g) what was the value of the government’s annual grant to the Mental Health Commission of Canada over the past five years, and what will it be over the next three years; (h) what are the government programs concerning mental health among youth under 25 years of age, and for each of these programs, what are their annual budgets for this year and over the next three years; and (i) how much does the government plan to spend on programs concerning mental health among Aboriginal youth over the next three years?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 365

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

With regard to the Old Age Security Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement indexation: (a) what has the government done to develop a new measure for the cost of living faced by seniors with a Seniors Price Index; (b) how many government departments and agencies have been tasked with working on the Seniors Price Index; (c) how many people are working on the development of a Seniors Price Index, broken down by government department and agency; and (d) how many working hours have been devoted to the development of a Seniors Price Index, broken down by government department and agency?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 367

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

With regard to all federal funding in the riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for each of the fiscal years from 2011-2016, inclusively: (a) how many projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; (b) what projects received funding from a department or agency over this period; and (c) what was the value of the projects that received funding from a department or agency over this period?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 369

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

With regard to all government funding provided through Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: (a) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds, have been cancelled since November 4, 2015; (b) what was the rationale provided for the cancellation of each item identified in (a); (c) what amount of funding had been dispensed to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (d) what amount of funding had been allocated to each item identified in (a) at the time of cancellation, broken down by year; (e) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (a) when they were originally proposed, including (i) the grade or score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of the programs as it was originally determined; (f) what are the details of any and all department performance reviews of each item identified in (a) once they were underway, including (i) annual reviews, (ii) quarterly reviews, (iii) reviews undertaken at the request of the Minister; (g) which grant allocations, programs, projects, and all other means of dispersing government funds have been approved since November 4, 2015; (h) what consultations took place in relation to each item identified in (g) prior to their approval; (i) what are the details of any departmental reviews of each item identified in (g), including (i) the grade and score with which they were assessed, if any exist, (ii) the viability of these programs as it was originally determined; (j) what is the stated section of Budget 2016 under which each item identified in (g) fall, if any are applicable; and (k) what is the departmental mandate under which each of the items identified in (g) fall?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 371

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

With regard to visa requirements for citizens of Mexico entering Canada, what are the details with respect to: (a) any formal visa exemption review that the department has undertaken; (b) all evidence used to justify a lifting of the current visa; (c) all plans with respect to a possible influx of asylum claimants from Mexico; (d) consultations that were undertaken with respect to lifting the visa, including for each consultation (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the organization and individuals consulted; (e) all assurances given by the Government of Mexico with respect to this decision; and (f) Mexican citizen assylum claimant levels that would trigger a re-imposition of a visa?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 373

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

With regard to social infrastructure funding and other investments to address housing and homelessness: (a) how much has been allocated per fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2019-2020, overall and broken down by province or territory for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (b) to date, what amounts have actually been spent or are the subject of a funding agreement for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2019-2020, overall and broken down by province or territory for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (c) on what dates does funding come into effect and terminate, broken down by province or territory, for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (d) what is the funding mechanism for (i) the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (ii) the doubling of the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative, (iii) affordable housing for seniors, (iv) shelters for victims of family violence, (v) renovations and retrofits of social housing, (vi) rental subsidies for CMHC-administered housing, (vii) northern and Inuit housing in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, (viii) Inuit housing in Nunavik, Inuvialuit and Nunatsiavut, (ix) housing in First Nations communities, (x) on-reserve shelters for victims of family violence, (xi) the Affordable Rental Housing Innovation Fund, (xii) affordable rental housing funding, (xiii) assistance for homeowners affected by pyrrhotite, (xiv) the Homelessness Partnering Strategy; (e) how much funding has been invested in or allocated to existing social housing under long-term arrangements per fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2029-2030 (i) in Canada, (ii) by province, (iii) by social housing project; (f) what is the name of each social housing project and the expiry date of its long-term agreement; (g) since 1995, how many long-term arrangements have expired (i) per year, (ii) per province or territory; (h) how many long-term arrangements are scheduled to expire by 2030 (i) per year, (ii) per province or territory; and (i) what steps is the government taking or does it plan to take over the next 12 months to renew funding for the long-term operating agreements upon which social and cooperative housing organizations across Canada depend, given the impending expiry of funding agreements established under section 56.1 of the former National Housing Act and section 95.1 of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, and agreements entered into by the federal government and the Quebec government pertaining to article 61 of Quebec’s National Housing Act?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Mr. Anthony Rota]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

Motions for Papers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Mr. Anthony Rota]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to congratulate the member for Chilliwack—Hope for his omnibus speech he gave before question period yesterday. A big part of the problem with Conservative omnibus bills was that they were also ominous bills. Whatever the title, the actual result was often the opposite. The Fair Elections Act, for example, was about how to interfere with, not promote, fair elections.

In the last Parliament, the member whom I worked for as a staffer was critic for, among other things, citizen services. The Auditor General's report, the year that we got that portfolio, dealt with the websites of the Canadian government and their focus on citizen services. What we learned was that the Conservatives had, immediately upon taking power in 2006, stopped all research into how people actually used government websites. Heaven forbid they cater to the needs of the people rather than to the desires of the government.

Our government consults extensively. We do policy on the basis of evidence and on the wants and needs of the country. There is nothing ominous about that.

Does the member for Chilliwack—Hope accept the evidence of evidence-based policy, or does he continue to believe that dogma is the most important factor in policymaking?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why that hon. member does not actually want to talk about the budget implementation act, because he is probably, like most Canadians, ashamed of the economic record of the current government.

Just yesterday, after I gave my speech, the finance minister got up and said that after only a few months, he had already blown his economic projections out of the water in the wrong way. He had already had to use his contingency. The $6 billion contingency was gone. He had to borrow another $32 billion from future generations of Canadians.

So yes, we know that the government likes to consult Canadians, but at a cost of $1,500 apiece. We have certainly seen that from multiple ministers, selling access to themselves for $1,500 to well-heeled Canadians. I can tell the House that the 100,000 energy workers, who have been laid off since the current government took office, cannot afford the entry fee to consult with the government.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to pose a question in terms of the mounting deficit. As we heard yesterday, another $32 billion on top of what is already there, and no plan to pay it back.

Could the member comment on how he feels that is going to affect the next generation?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right. This will affect the next generation.

As Canadians know, when they borrow money, they have to pay it back. The members of the government broke their word to Canadians to the tune of three times the deficit they promised, when they promised a $10 billion deficit that would be reduced to no deficit in their mandate. They have blown both of those promises out of the water. It is now a $32 billion deficit, and instead of being back to balanced budgets by the end of the first four years, the Liberals have no plan.

The finance minister was clear yesterday that he has no intention and no plan to bring this back to a balanced budget. We know it will be future generations of Canadians who will have to pay this back through higher taxes, or through critical program services cuts. The Liberals are good at that. They did it the last time they were in power. They cut $25 billion from the health care budgets across this country. We are heading down that same path with this out-of-control, reckless spending plan.