Debates of Nov. 1st, 2017

Procedure and House Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on this 4-H day, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the order for the second reading of private members' bills introduced in the Senate and recommended that the item listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the report is deemed adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Taxation

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very timely petition, in light of the discussion about the potential unfairness, allegedly, of income splitting. I have constituents who believe that income splitting that was taken away by the government should be restored for all Canadians. They write that the government's elimination of the family tax credit has stripped thousands of families of a much-needed tax break and that it is imperative that the family tax credit, or a similar effective vehicle for income splitting, be reinstated so that Canadians, not the government, can decide how to spend their hard-earned money.

The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to act quickly to reinstate income splitting for all Canadians.

Trans Canada Trail

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a long-time advocate for safe cycling, I am pleased to present petition e-957, which calls on the government to establish minimum standards for quality and safety through the Trans Canada Trail act to ensure that the trail is a true world-class greenway.

More than 2,000 Canadians showed their support and signed this petition. I am very pleased to present it here today.

Wild Salmon

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to present a petition from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands. It calls on the House of Commons to use the precautionary principle and to finally go ahead and enact the 75 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen on wild salmon in B.C.

Killer Whales

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

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is about protecting the very endangered southern resident killer whale population. This population is now down to 76 animals, and the concern is that vessels approaching, noise, and other threats imperil the survival of the species.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, petition e-1054, initiated by a gentleman I know, whose name is Dean Penton, from Joe Batts Arm, talks about the fishery. He states that the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call on the government to conduct a public inquiry to examine all aspects of Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries management, the roles of DFO and FAW, the groundfish moratorium, and all science and management related issues.

I present this with a total of 1,090 signatures.

Algoma Passenger Train

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by people who say that the Algoma passenger train is still not on track, and that this is having a serious impact on residents, businesses, and passengers. They say that 75% of properties are unaccessible. Other means of access are not reliable; either they are not open year-round or they simply do not exist. Industrial roads that people may use are often not accessible.

The petitioners are calling on the government to restore the Algoma passenger train so that Transport Canada can fulfill its mission.

The Environment

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from residents of Burnaby South, and of course, residents all across British Columbia. The petition is entitled “Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline is not in our national interest”.

The petitioners go on to list that they are opposed to increased tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet as well as that bitumen is very hard to clean up. They are especially upset because Kinder Morgan has installed anti-salmon spawning nets and fencing all across rivers in British Columbia. Kinder Morgan has not removed this fencing, and the petitioners are calling on the government to make sure it is removed. I call on the government to make sure it takes action.

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. 1103 and 1113.

Question No. 1103

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

With respect to the characterization of persons in the care, custody or control of the Canadian military as “PUCs” and “Persons Under Control,” or use of like categories, whether or not such terms were or are used officially or unofficially: (a) was there, at any point between 2001 and 2011, a government policy, formal or informal, to characterize or label Afghans detained by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as “Persons Under Control” and “PUCs”; (b) was there, at any point between 2001 and 2011, a Canadian Forces policy, either formal or informal, to characterize or label Afghans detained by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as “Persons Under Control” and “PUCs”; (c) if the answer in either or both (a) and (b) is affirmative, what was the nature of that policy; (d) if the answers in (a) and (b) are negative, were there circumstances under which the Canadian Forces, or Canadian Forces members, (i) could nonetheless engage in a practice, versus implement a policy, of categorizing or labelling a detainee as a “Person Under Control” and “PUC”, (ii) did engage in a practice of categorizing or labelling a detainee as a ''Person Under Control'' and “PUC”, and, if so, with what purpose and in what periods; (e) if the answer in (d)(ii) is affirmative, has the government attempted to determine whether such “Persons Under Control’' and “PUCs” were ever transferred to the control of other states and, if so, how many and in what periods; (f) if the Canadian Forces, or Canadian Forces members, did transfer some “Persons Under Control” and “PUCs’' to the control of other states, what efforts have been made to determine the identity and fate of those transferred persons; (g) if the Canadian Forces, or Canadian Forces members, wished, at any point between 2001 and 2011, to characterize or label 'detainees' as “Persons Under Control” and “PUCs”, either to engage in a practice or to create a policy allowing for such a characterization or labelling, could they have done so without the approval of (i) the Minister of National Defence, (ii) the Chief of Defence Staff; and (h) if the Canadian Forces, or Canadian Forces members, wished now, in any theatre of war in which Canada may find itself present, to characterize or label 'detainees' as “Persons Under Control” and “PUCs”, either to engage in a practice or to create a policy allowing for such a characterization or labelling, could they do so without the approval of (i) the Minister of National Defence, (ii) the Chief of Defence Staff?

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the government acknowledges that several terms were used to refer to persons detained by the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, during their operations in Afghanistan. Regardless of the term used, the CAF treated all persons in their care, custody, or control humanely in accordance with the established Government of Canada process for handling, release, transfer, or post-transfer monitoring, and in a manner consistent with the rights and protections of the Third Geneva Convention. As such, detainees were provided with food, shelter, and required medical attention. The terms used to characterize detainees did not in any way affect the CAF’s appreciation or exercise of their obligations toward these persons, nor did it affect Canada’s process for handling, release, transfer, or post-transfer monitoring of persons under CAF care, custody, or control.

Question No. 1113

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

With regard to Canadians affected by the Canadian Red Cross tainted blood scandal prior to 1986, and who only received approximately one third of their settlement because the Canadian Red Cross claimed bankruptcy before the victims were paid, will the government: (a) reconsider their decision to not help the victims and instead provide these Canadians and their families with a financial settlement to recognize their pain, suffering and losses equivalent to the payments made to those government-compensated victims between 1986 and 1991; and (b) consider paying them the difference of the two-thirds that the Canadian Red Cross did not pay them due to claiming bankruptcy?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada considers it a tragedy that so many Canadians contracted hepatitis C and/or HIV from the Canadian blood system. While the Government of Canada acknowledges that nothing can truly compensate for the loss of life or health, it was the right thing to provide compensation to victims through the extraordinary assistance plans for HIV-infected individuals, EAP-1 and EAP-2, as well as the 1986-90 and the pre-1986/post-1990 hepatitis C settlement agreements.

In 1990, the Government of Canada established the extraordinary assistance plan, EAP-1, which provides financial assistance to individuals infected by HIV through blood or blood products received in Canada. It consists of one lump sum payment of $120,000, tax-free. The estates of deceased persons who would have met the eligibility criteria may also apply to the plan. To date, financial assistance has been provided to 1,105 persons who contracted HIV from the blood system, for a total amount of $132.6 million. The EAP-1 has no official closure date and new applications are still being received. Please see www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/infectious-diseases/extraordinary-assistance-plan-financial-assistance-individuals-infected-hiv-through-canadian-blood-system.html.

The federal/provincial/territorial assistance program for HIV secondarily infected individuals, EAP-2, was announced in 1998. It provides financial assistance to persons who are first-order relatives (spouse, partner, or child) of EAP-1 recipients, and who are HIV-positive resulting from the relationship with the primary EAP recipient. It consists of one lump sum payment of $240,000, tax-free. The estates of deceased persons who would have met the eligibility criteria may also apply to the program. Crawford Class Action Services, a third party organization that operates at arm’s length from governments, administers the EAP-2. To date, financial assistance has been provided to 91 persons for a total amount of $21.84 million. The EAP-2 has no official closure date and new applications are still being received. Please see www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/diseases-conditions/federal-provincial-territorial-assistance-program-hiv-secondarily-infected-individuals.html.

The Government of Canada has set aside approximately $2 billion in compensation for individuals who, tragically, contracted hepatitis C from the blood system. This was done via two court-approved settlement agreements to compensate individuals who contracted hepatitis C from the blood system. Both the 1986-90 hepatitis C settlement agreement, as well as the pre-1986/post-1990 hepatitis C settlement agreement, were approved by the courts and are being administered by Crawford Class Action Services at arm’s length from the federal government.

The Canadian Red Cross Society, CRCS, was granted protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, Canada, and subsequently proposed a plan of compromise and arrangement to settle litigation arising from contaminated blood. The plan of compromise and arrangement was voted upon, approved by its creditors, and sanctioned by the court on September 14, 2000. The plan of compromise and arrangement included the creation of a number of trust funds for HIV, hepatitis C, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease claimants, “CRCS settlement”. The CRCS settlement totalled $79 million and was contributed by pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, physicians, and insurers. The federal government was not a party or contributor to the CRCS settlement.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Furthermore, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1107, 1109, 1110, 1112, 1115 to 1117, and 1119 to 1121 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1107

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

With regard to current diplomats: (a) what are the start and expiry term dates for every current (i) Ambassador, (ii) Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, (iii) High Commissioner, (iv) Chargé d'affaires, (v) Consul General; (b) which diplomatic postings are currently vacant; and (c) since what date has each of the postings in (b) been vacant?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1109

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, for each period between November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2016, April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, and April 1 2017 to June 19, 2017: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they applied for funding under, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (i.e. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they received funding under, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1110

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With respect to the recipients of Honours and Recognition for the Women and Men of the Canadian Forces, for each period divided between April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002, April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2004, April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005, April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006, April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007, April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008, April 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009, April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010, April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012, April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013, April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015, April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016, April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017, April 1, 2017, to June 19, 2017: who are all the recipients by date awarded by (i) name, (ii) rank, (iii) unit or sub-unit, (iv) Regiment, (v) Battalion, (vi) battlegroup where relevant, of the Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendation, Canadian Forces Unit Commendation, and the Command Commendation?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1112

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to agreements for buildings or offices rented or leased by the government: (a) how many buildings or offices are currently leased by the government in each of the electoral ridings of (i) Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, (ii) Kenora, (iii) Timmins—James Bay, (iv) Nipissing—Timiskaming, (v) Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, (vi) Thunder Bay—Superior North, (vii) Thunder Bay—Rainy River, (viii) Sault Ste. Marie, (ix) Nickle Belt, (x) Sudbury; (b) what are the names of the companies or individuals who own the buildings or offices leased by the government, for each of the properties in (a), broken down by address of the property and department; and (c) what is the monetary value of each lease or rental agreement in (a), including for each lease or rental agreement the details thereof, including, but not limited to, its expiry date?

(Return tabled)