Debates of Jan. 30th, 2017

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 596, 598, 605, 606, 608, 609, 611, 613, 615, 622, 626, 628, 629, 631, 634, 642, 644, 653, 654, 660, 663, 671, 672, 673, 676, 680, 684, 688, 694, 697, 702, 725, 726, 734, 737, 740-742, 744, 755, 757, 761, 762, 764, 770, 772, 777, 782, 785, 788, 789, 791, 792, and 793.

Question No. 596

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

With regard to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) how many jobs were created through this program from 2014 to 2016, broken down by year; and (b) for each of these years, how many jobs (i) were full time, (ii) were part time, (iii) lasted more than 12 weeks, (iv) lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, (v) lasted between 4 and 8 weeks, (vi) lasted less than 4 weeks?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the jobs created by the Canada Summer Jobs, or CSJ, program are as follows: for 2014, 34,538; for 2015, 34,470; and for 2016, 65,874.

For 2014, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 34,538 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.

With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 11% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 51% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 38% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.

For 2015, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 34,470 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.

With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 11% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 66% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 23% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.

For 2016, with regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), through CSJ there were 68,874 full-time and part-time jobs. It should be noted that jobs must be full time--i.e., from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Under exceptional circumstances, students with disabilities or with other barriers to full-time employment are eligible to work part time.

With regard to (b)(iii), (b)(iv), (b)(v), and (b)(vi), the estimated duration is based on average project data: 2.5% of the jobs lasted more than 12 weeks; 77.5% of the jobs lasted between 8 and 12 weeks, and 20% of the jobs lasted less than 8 weeks.

Question No. 598

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

With regard to Supplementary Estimates (B), 2016-17 and the $46.7 million listed for Public Works and Government Services Canada under “Funding for incremental costs related to post-implementation pay operations”, how was the total of this funding used, broken down by line item and expense?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, as of November 10, 2016, the supplementary estimates (B) have had not been approved by Parliament.

Should they be approved by Parliament as tabled, PSPC plans to allocate this funding (of $47.6 million) in the following way: $5.7 million for additional support provided by IBM, which includes 24-7 troubleshooting support and refinements to processes and functionality.; $22.2 million for satellite offices in various locations, including Gatineau, Montreal, Shawinigan, and Winnipeg, as well as the call centres in Toronto and Ottawa.; $14.6 million for additional resources to manage our complaints centre, provide training and support to departments, and provide other support to ensure that system maintenance is performed with minimal disruption and that systems interacting with Phoenix are running as they should; and . $4.2 million as contingency to address unforeseen issues as they arise.

This is also subject to receiving the necessary spending authorities from Treasury Board.

Question No. 605

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With regard to the regulations and guidelines outlined in sections 241.31 (3) and 241.31 (3.1) of the Criminal Code: (a) since June 17, 2016, has the Minister of Health established a process for monitoring and reporting on medical assistance in dying; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, what information has been gathered, on (i) the types of medical conditions that motivate requests, (ii) whether the safeguards in the law are working as intended, (iii) demographic information about people who request the service, (iv) whether there are regional differences in how the service is carried out across Canada, (v) the number of requests made for medical assistance in dying both approved and not approved; (c) what are the details of any statistics available related to information gathered; and (d) if the answer to (a) is in the negative, what steps has the Minister of Health undertaken to begin collecting the information in (b)?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the new legislation, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), formerly Bill C-14, authorizes the federal Minister of Health to make regulations for the purpose of establishing a system for monitoring medical assistance in dying.

With regard to (a), a process for monitoring and reporting on medical assistance in dying is currently being developed. While most sections amending the Criminal Code to permit the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying came into force with the passage of the legislation, the sections on monitoring, sections 4 and 5, will come into force 12 months later--i.e., June 17, 2017. This means that the federal Minister of Health’s authority to make regulations with respect to monitoring will only become active at that point, but it does not require that the regulations be completed by that time.

For these reasons, (b) and (c) are not applicable.

With regard to (d), federal officials are currently working on the parameters of a federal monitoring and reporting system, including what information will be collected; to whom it must be sent; information technology requirements; and how information will be protected, analyzed, and released. The complexity of these regulations and the consequences for health care professionals require that the government must take the time necessary to get the regulations right, and include opportunities for consultations. Until these federal regulations are in place, health care professionals will not be required to provide information to the federal government; however, each province and territory has its own approach to the implementation and oversight of medical assistance in dying and may require its health care providers to provide data for these purposes.

All governments in Canada recognize the importance of timely public reporting on medical assistance in dying. To this end, federal, provincial, and territorial officials are working collaboratively to produce interim reports with available national data during the regulatory development period.

The government expects an initial release of data in early 2017. Subsequent interim reports will be released on a periodic basis until annual reporting commences under the federal regulatory regime.

Question No. 606

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

With regard to the Minister of Finance’s involvement in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) what were the findings of the risk analyses conducted by the Department of Finance to justify two federal loan guarantees of $6.3 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively, to enable Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor to carry out the Muskrat Falls project; (b) does the Department recommend that the government offer further loan guarantees to cover the project’s rising costs; (c) is the value of the assets of the Muskrat Falls project greater than the $9.2 billion in loan guarantees; (d) does the fee of 0.5 per cent that the government applied to the $2.9-billion loan guarantee announced in November 2016 indicate that this new extension of funds will not be backed by Muskrat Falls assets; (e) has the Department assessed the ability of the Newfoundland and Labrador government to repay the federal government in relation to the Muskrat Falls project should the federal loan guarantee be implemented and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment; and (f) has the government considered the possibility that Newfoundland and Labrador may default on payments to the government following the implementation of the federal loan guarantee, which enabled it to carry out the Muskrat Falls projects, and, if so, what conclusion did the government reach?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b), (e), and (f), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and certain information has been withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes advice or recommendations and cabinet confidences.

With regard to (c), Nalcor Energy, found at www.nalcorenergy.com/publications.asp, and Emera Inc., found at http://investors.emera.com/corporateprofile.aspx?iid=4072693, both value property, plant, and equipment assets at historical cost in their financial statements. Once construction is completed, costs and therefore asset values are expected to be in excess of total federal loan guarantees.

With regard to part (d), the specific conditions of additional loan guarantee support will be negotiated with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nalcor Energy in the near future with provisions for commercial terms. The Government of Canada will remain protected by a strong legal construct, as with the first federal loan guarantee.

Question No. 608

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

With regard to the involvement of the Minister of Natural Resources in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) on the basis of what analysis did the Minister decide that the Muskrat Falls facility would enable Nalcor to cover project costs; (b) at what price will the electricity produced at Muskrat Falls have to be sold for to enable the project to achieve a breakeven point; (c) before offering a new loan guarantee of $2.9 billion, did the Minister conduct market research to determine that the price of electricity in the Atlantic provinces and northeastern United States would enable the Muskrat Falls project to achieve a breakeven point; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what were the findings of this study?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the cost recovery framework for Muskrat Falls consists of a series of revenue agreements available on the Muskrat Falls website at https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/newsroom/reports/, in English only, in provincial legislation, and in orders in council. This cost recovery framework legally requires that all project costs be recovered from electricity consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of the final costs.

With regard to (b), the prices paid to the project entities will be set at a value that ensures full cost recovery plus a return on equity. These prices will be determined once the projects are complete and the final construction cost is known.

With regard to (c), the Muskrat Falls project’s viability is not dependent on electricity exports; all project costs will be covered by electricity consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador. As such, no market research was required to determine whether export prices would enable achievement of a break-even point.

For these reasons, (d) is not applicable.

Question No. 609

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

With regard to the involvement of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard in the Muskrat Falls project: (a) before authorizing the Muskrat Falls project, did the Minister ensure that the necessary environmental assessments were completed pursuant to the Fisheries Act, particularly as regards mercury contamination of fish stocks; (b) was the Minister informed of the findings of independent studies indicating that the Muskrat Falls project would result in high levels of contamination and, if so, why did the Minister not cancel the authorization?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, was actively involved in the environmental assessment of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project, which was carried out by a federal-provincial joint review panel and concluded in August 2011. Among other things, the environmental assessment examined in considerable detail the bioaccumulation of methylmercury as a result of the project. It was recognized during this environmental assessment that the Muskrat Falls component of the project and other hydroelectric projects on the Churchill River would likely result in some bioaccumulation of methylmercury, including in downstream areas.

During the environmental assessment, DFO reviewed various technical documents, submitted information requests, and prepared both a written submission and an oral presentation for the hearings. DFO provided expert science-based advice that downstream bioaccumulation of methylmercury could be greater and extend further than predicted by the proponent, Nalcor Energy. This was recognized in the report and conclusions of the joint review panel. In response to the joint review panel’s conclusions and recommendations, the Government of Canada required Nalcor Energy to extend downstream methylmercury monitoring into Goose Bay and Lake Melville. This monitoring would assess the extent and duration of any increases in methylmercury in fish and seals and enable Nalcor Energy to implement consumption advisories if needed.

The requirement to implement a comprehensive methylmercury monitoring program was formally prescribed as a condition of the authorization DFO issued to Nalcor in 2013, under section 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act, for impacts on fish and fish habitat from the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam and reservoir creation.

With regard to (b), over the past three years, the Nunatsiavut government has carried out and supported studies on methylmercury in Lake Melville, including work by Harvard University researchers published in 2015. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, was made aware of these studies as a result of meetings with the Nunatsiavut government in October of 2015.

In February 2016, DFO carried out a scientific review of the implications of the Harvard study on methylmercury in Lake Melville through a Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, or CSAS, process. DFO and Environment and Climate Change Canada scientists determined that predictions in the Harvard study were consistent with the advice the DFO provided during the environmental assessment. The scientific review recommended some adjustments to downstream methylmercury monitoring protocols, which DFO implemented.

These adjustments are covered under the Fisheries Act authorization issued to Nalcor Energy in 2013, which allows for the implementation of adaptive management in the monitoring of post-project predictions and adjustments to the program to respond to new information. As a result of this condition, the authorization did not require cancellation or amendment.

Departmental officials have maintained an ongoing dialogue with the Nunatsiavut government with respect to the project. The minister of DFO has also met with the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources for the Nunatsiavut government to acknowledge and discuss the Nunatsiavut government’s concerns related to methylmercury in Lake Melville. Furthermore, in October 2016 an agreement was made between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indigenous leaders to create an independent expert advisory committee, or IEAC, that would determine and recommend options for mitigating human health concerns related to methylmercury. While DFO does not possess expertise in relation to human health risks associated with methylmercury, DFO will be participating in the IEAC as an expert adviser in relation to the bioaccumulation of methylmercury in fish and seals downstream of the project.

Question No. 611

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

With regard to the decision to not issue a commemorative medal as part of the Canada 150th celebrations: (a) what was the justification for this decision; (b) what are the details of any documented evidence to support this justification; and (c) what process was used to make this decision, in particular, (i) who was consulted, (ii) how they were consulted?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation is a unique opportunity to bring Canadians together and strengthen our connection to our communities by inspiring a vision of a vibrant, diverse, and inclusive country.

Canada 150 celebrations will be rooted in community building, engagement, and family celebrations from coast to coast to coast. These celebrations are for each and every Canadian. They are about connecting with one another.

Our government will mark the 150th anniversary of Confederation by inviting all Canadians to participate, celebrate, and explore via the numerous initiatives in their communities.

The Government of Canada is providing funding for community-driven activities and pan-Canadian signature projects as well as major events. Our government is empowering and encouraging all Canadians to engage with their community and to make 2017 a year to remember. We want all Canadians to join in the celebrations.

The vision for the 150th anniversary of Confederation is intended to inspire Canadians and bring them together by highlighting the themes of diversity and inclusion, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, young people, and the environment.

Our government is proud to support and promote initiatives that will inspire a generation of Canadians to help build Canada’s future and creating a lasting economic, cultural, and social legacy for our country.

Question No. 613

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

With regard to wait times at the Thousand Islands Bridge Border Crossing and the Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge Border Crossing, broken down by crossing, between May 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016: (a) what was the average wait time for vehicle traffic, broken down by month, day and hour; and (b) what was the volume of vehicle traffic, broken down by month, day and hour?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

:Mr. Speaker, the CBSA cannot provide the requested information within the prescribed time frame. The request would result in an exceptionally large volume of information, and translating thousands of lines of data would require significant human and financial resources.

Current and forecasted border wait times, however, are available at the following web address: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/bwt-taf/menu-eng.html.

Question No. 615

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

With regard to the work integrated learning program mentioned by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, in the House of Commons on November 18, 2016: (a) what are the details of the program; (b) how much government funding has been allotted for the program; (c) what is the duration and yearly budget for the program; and (d) what are the specific goals of the program?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as announced in Budget 2016, the student work-integrated learning program, or SWILP, is a $73-million program that will support new work-integrated learning, WIL, opportunities, such as co-ops and internships for young Canadians, with a focus on high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business, as well as through sustainable partnerships to align skills training with jobs in demand. Details will be provided once the SWILP is officially launched.

With regard to (b), as announced in Budget 2016, the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a $73-million program that will support new work-integrated learning, or WIL, opportunities, such as co-ops and internships, for young Canadians, with a focus on high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business, as well as through sustainable partnerships to align skills training with jobs in demand.

With regard to (c), the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a four-year program. Yearly budget for the SWILP will be provided once the SWILP is officially launched.

With regard to (d), the student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, is a four-year initiative that will support sustainable and innovative partnerships between employers and willing post-secondary education, or PSE, institutions to create quality work-integrated learning, WIL, opportunities for PSE students in high-demand fields related to science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM, and business.

The WIL opportunities created through these partnerships will better align the technical, foundational, and work-ready skills of students. PSE students will be encouraged to approach learning and WIL opportunities with an entrepreneurial mindset, to better position them to secure employment in their chosen fields of study and make immediate and meaningful contributions to Canada’s future growth and innovation.

The student work-integrated learning program, SWILP, will bring stakeholders from post-secondary education institutions and employers in key growth and innovation sectors of the Canadian economy.

Question No. 622

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

With regard to the Critical Habitat of the Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) St. Lawrence Estuary Population Order, published on May 14, 2016: (a) when will the Order come into force; (b) how many stakeholders have commented on the project; and (c) what are the names of the stakeholders who commented on the project, if this information is available?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the ministerial order is expected to come into force in early winter 2017.

With respect to (b) and this ministerial order, four comments were submitted during the 30-day Canada Gazette part I comment period.

With regard to (c), the stakeholders who commented on this proposed ministerial order are Madame Amélie Larouche, chef conseillère, Première Nation Malécites de Viger; Philippe Gervais, vice-président, Capital Hill Group; Lloyd Sykes, a citizen; and from the Government of Quebec, Minister Laurent Lessard, Ministre des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, and Minister David Heurtel, Ministre du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques.

Question No. 626

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

With regard to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and specifically, the section which called for the review of the previous government's changes to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Protection Acts: (a) specifically what lost protections is the mandate letter referring to; (b) what harms or proof of harm, to fish or fish habitat, attributed to the previous government's changes to these two Acts exist; and (c) specifically what protections lost, or alleged to have been lost as a result of the previous government's changes to these two Acts, is not provided for under other federal, provincial, or territorial legislation or regulations?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the previous government’s changes to the Fisheries Act were made with little consultation or transparency and were poorly received by environmental and indigenous groups. Various partners, stakeholders, and indigenous groups have emphasized the need for improved engagement and collaboration in developing and implementing any new legislation and policy to protect fish and fish habitat.

Since the Fisheries Act was changed in 2012-2013, indigenous groups, the academic community, stakeholders, and the public more generally have expressed concern with the changes to the act and their implementation. The department has continued to hear these types of concerns during the initial stages of public engagement related to the review of the 2012-2013 changes to the Fisheries Act this year.

For example, concern has been expressed about the legislative change from a prohibition against “harmful alteration, destruction or disruption of fish habitat” to a prohibition against “serious harm to fish”, defined as the “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. Some people have expressed concern that under this new wording, temporary alterations to fish habitat are no longer prohibited, even though temporary alterations can have significant effects on fish and fish habitat productivity.

There has also been concern raised that since 2012-2013, the habitat protection prohibition only applies to fish and fish habitat that are part of or support commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries and that are currently harvested.

The department has received comments that the reduction in offices and staff that coincided with the 2012-2013 amendments also reduced protections, as they resulted in a decreased capacity to deliver on fish and fish habitat protection through project review, monitoring, and enforcement.

With regard to (b), the department has not been either resourced or mandated to conduct this type of comprehensive monitoring and has not undertaken specific monitoring or analysis to compare the impacts of the changes to the act. The department is, however, developing new processes to monitor projects as well as to report back to Canadians on how fish and fish habitat are being protected in these specific areas.

With regard to (c), while management of inland fisheries has largely been delegated to the provinces and the Yukon Territory, the administration of the provisions related to the protection of fish and fish habitat remains with the federal government across Canada. Provincial and territorial authorities do deliver a range of natural resource conservation initiatives under various provincial and territorial laws that complement those of the federal government. For example, land use decisions made by these authorities may have a significant bearing on the quality and function of fish habitat in a given watershed.

Question No. 628

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

With regard to the Community Participation Fund program: (a) how many grants were issued from January 1, 2016, to November 23, 2016; (b) how many of the groups who received grants were (i) Indigenous groups, (ii) local groups and local organizations, (iii) municipalities with a population of less than 10 000, (iv) not-for-profit organizations; (c) how many requests for funding were received; and (d) what percentage of grants went to (i) reviewing documents and providing written comments to contribute to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada, (ii) preparing for, travelling to, and participating in meetings related to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada, (iii) hiring expertise or conducting studies that contributes to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system in Canada?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada. That is why the community participation funding program, CPFP, helps eligible indigenous groups and local communities take part in developing and improving Canada's marine transportation system. The CPFP gives recipients the opportunity to contribute their knowledge towards tailoring marine transportation systems to local conditions and the environment.

Eligible recipients include indigenous groups, local groups and local organizations, municipalities with a population of less than 10,000, and not-for-profit organizations. Applicants must also prove that they depend on the local marine environment in an area that is being considered for social, economic, or commercial activities.

With regard to (a), 36 grant recipients were approved during this time period, and 29 grant payments have been issued to date.

With regard to (b), of the groups that received grants, 22 were indigenous groups, none were local groups or local organizations, one was a municipality with a population of less than 10,000, and 13 were not-for-profit organizations.

With regard to (c), 39 funding requests were received.

With regard to (d)(i), 100% of grants went to reviewing documents and providing written comments to contribute to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system. With regard to (d)(ii), 100% of grants went to preparing for, travelling to, and participating in meetings related to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system. With regard to (d)(iii), 16.6% of grants went to hiring expertise or conducting studies that contributed to the development and improvement of Canada’s marine transportation system.