Debates of June 16th, 2017

150th Anniversary of Confederation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal war on history continues to prompt many petitions to my office, and I have a fistful of them today.

In the past, commemorative medals were issued by the Government of Canada on significant milestones in our country's history, recognizing the contributions of everyday Canadians to their communities, contributions that mean a great deal to so many but often go unrecognized and unacknowledged.

Medals to recognize people like that have been issued on the occasion of our Confederation in 1867, when the Fathers of Confederation were among those who received such an award. We also had such medals on the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation in 1927, the Centennial in 1967, and the 125th anniversary in 1992. However, as part of the Liberal war on history, there will be no medal honouring the country-building contributions of Canadians on the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

This is the case notwithstanding that plans were very well advanced under the previous government for such an award, including a design, and these plans were cancelled by the current government. As a result, tradition is being ignored and community-leading Canadians are being forgotten.

The petitions I have received and am presenting today come from the following communities: Cardigan, Prince Edward Island; Montague, Prince Edward Island; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Morden, Manitoba; Cartwright, Manitoba; Cupar, Saskatchewan, Mather, Manitoba; Duncan, British Columbia; Slocan, British Columbia; Petit-de-Grat, Nova Scotia; Arichat, Nova Scotia; Sturgeon Country, Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta; and Morinville, Alberta.

The petitioners call upon the government to reverse the very unfortunate decision to cancel the medals and to respect tradition and recognize deserving Canadians by issuing a medal to honour Canadians who have helped make a contribution to their communities, during this the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

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: Questions Nos. 1005, 1014, 1015, 1020, 1022, 1023, 1028, 1032, 1034, and 1037.

Question No. 1005

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

With regard to the $545 million of Treasury Board Secretariat funding allocated to “paylist requirements” in Supplementary Estimates (C) 2016-17: (a) how was this amount calculated; and (b) what are the “paylist requirements”, broken down line by line, being accommodated by this funding?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the $545 million amount included in 2016-17 supplementary estimates (C) is made up of amounts set aside by departments for collective bargaining purposes, as well as an amount for the employer’s anticipated costs for collective agreements that were expected to be finalized in 2016-17. Roughly 75% of the funds are amounts that departments set aside in prior years.

As a result of the 2013 operating budget freeze, departments are required to absorb the cost of wage and salary increases that take effect in 2014-15 and 2015-16, and their ongoing impact. This also includes retroactive payments. To assist departments in managing these obligations, they were provided with the opportunity to reprofile--move forward to future years--funding from 2014-15 and 2015-16 to manage the costs for which they are responsible.

Wage and salary increases that take effect in 2016-17 and future years, along with their ongoing impact, are part of the employer’s anticipated costs and will be funded centrally.

At the time the 2016-17 supplementary estimates (C) were prepared, 12 tentative collective bargaining agreements had been reached, covering over three-quarters of represented public servants. However, not all of these agreements had been ratified by the bargaining agents and none had been signed by the employer. Funding was included in supplementary estimates (C) to provide sufficient capacity to address cash management pressures that might have materialized had the agreements been ratified and signed by March 31, 2017.

As collective agreements were not ratified and signed by the end of the fiscal year, funding was not allocated to departments and lapsed to the fiscal framework. As a result, funding for the same purpose has been included in the 2017-18 supplementary estimates (A).

With regard to (b), Treasury Board Secretariat vote 30, paylist requirements, is a central vote that is used by Treasury Board ministers to allocate funds to departments for costs related to parental and maternity allowances, severance pay; and adjustments to the terms and conditions of employment of the federal public service, including members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Forces, when these have not been provided from Treasury Board Secretariat vote 15 on compensation adjustments.

The entire amount requested for supplementary estimates (C) was for adjustments to the terms and conditions of employment of the federal public service to reflect new collective agreements, as described earlier.

Question No. 1014

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

With regard to the $3.6 million allocated to the Department of Canadian Heritage for the celebration of the 375th anniversary of Montreal in Supplementary Estimates (C) 2016-17: what funds have been awarded thus far, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) project description?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i), the funds were awarded to the Society for the Celebrations of Montréal’s 375th Anniversary.

With regard to (ii), the amount delivered in 2016-17 is $3,620,895. The total funding for the project is $10,000,000, to be delivered over two fiscal years, 2016-17 and 2017-18.

With regard to (iii), the proposed activities will highlight the history of Montreal and its importance in the development of Canada. Programming planned by the society is taking place over 375 days, from December 21, 2016, to December 31, 2017, and includes shows, interpretive and commemorative activities, documentaries, multimedia experiences, and indigenous-themed activities. The proposed programming will permit a large audience to participate free of charge as they commemorate and celebrate the history of Montreal.

Question No. 1015

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

With regard to the government forgiving student loans owed: (a) how many student loans have been forgiven since November 4, 2015; (b) what criteria is used to determine eligibility for debt forgiveness; (c) what reasons are laid out within the criteria as acceptable to forgive student debt; and (d) for each of the instances in (c), how many loans were forgiven under each reason since November 4, 2015?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are three types of loan forgiveness provided through the Canada student loans program, the CSLP. They are the severe permanent disability benefit, Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses, and forgiveness in cases of death.

In the case of the severe permanent disability benefit, a borrower may be eligible for the severe permanent disability benefit, the SPDB, if they have a physical or mental impairment that prevents them from ever being able to study at a post-secondary level and take part in the labour force; and the disability is expected to remain with them for life. The borrower must submit an application for SPDB, along with medical documents to support the application. From November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2017, 969 Canada student loan borrowers were approved for loan forgiveness through SPDB.

In the case of the Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses, family doctors, residents in family medicine, nurse practitioners, and nurses who practise in designated rural or remote communities may be eligible to have a portion of their Canada student loans forgiven.

To be eligible for Canada student loan forgiveness, borrowers must have started their current employment--full-time, part-time, or casual, including self-employment for family doctors with a private family practice--as an eligible medical professional in a designated rural or remote community on or after July 1, 2011; completed a full 12-month loan forgiveness period, during which time they worked in a in an under-served rural or remote community; and submitted a Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses application form.

Applicants must meet the necessary licensing requirements for that profession under an appropriate authority, such as the College of Family Physicians of Canada or provincial nursing associations, and must be practising in Canada in one of the following professions: family doctor; family medicine resident in training with an accredited medical school in Canada, who would be exempt from the licensing requirement; registered nurse; registered psychiatric nurse; registered practical nurse; licensed practical nurse; or nurse practitioner.

Family doctors and family medicine residents in training with an accredited medical school in Canada may receive up to $8,000 per period in Canada student loan forgiveness, to a maximum of $40,000.

Nurse practitioners and nurses may receive up to $4,000 per year in Canada student loan forgiveness, to a maximum of $20,000 over five years.

From November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2017, there were 4,922 recipients of doctors and nurses loan forgiveness.

In the case of loan forgiveness for reasons of death, in the event that a borrower dies, all repayment obligations are terminated regardless of the loan regime.

From November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2017, 2,014 Canada student loan borrowers had their loans forgiven due to death. The data includes figures related to a processing backlog and does not necessarily reflect the number of borrowers who died from November 4, 2015, to March 31, 2017.

Question No. 1020

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

With regard to the Tribute to Liberty’s Memorial to the Victims of Communism: (a) what are the current expected start and completion dates for construction of the Memorial; (b) what is the current status of the Memorial; (c) why was the location of the Memorial changed from in front of the Supreme Court building to the Garden of Provinces and Territories; (d) why was total funding and the government's contribution to the Memorial cut; and (e) why has construction on the Stanley Cup Monument and on the National Holocaust Monument, both six years between the proposal and project's projected completion, been prioritized and fast-tracked while the Memorial to the Victims of Communism has been delayed and is facing a longer timeline?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), monument construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2018. Major monument elements are scheduled to be completed in late 2018.

With regard to (b), with the winning concept proposed by Team Raff, as announced on May 18, 2017, the memorial is now entering into the design development phase.

With regard to (c), the results of a series of consultations led by the Department of Canadian Heritage in 2016 informed the decision to change the location of the memorial.

With regard to (d), due to the change of the site, the budget was revised. The allocated financial resources will permit the erection of a monument that reflects Canadian values for present and future generations.

With regard to (e), the creation of national monuments follows a process that has three major phases: design competition, design development, and implementation. Each monument project is realized under its own set of circumstances, such as the nature of the commemoration, the site or location, the budget, the involvement of partners, and varying schedules

Question No. 1022

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With regard to the announcement made by the Government House Leader (GHL) on the evening of April 30, 2017, concerning a government motion proposing to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons: (a) was the decision, which was the subject of the announcement, taken by the Cabinet or a committee of the Cabinet; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, by whom was the decision made, on behalf of the government; (c) in coming to the decision announced, was anyone consulted in this respect; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the relevant names, titles, dates and associated file numbers concerning those consultations; (e) what is the government’s current position concerning the contents of the GHL March 10, 2017, discussion paper; (f) was the GHL letter to the Opposition House Leaders shared with journalists prior to being sent to her colleagues; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, why was the letter shared; (h) with respect to the “specific commitments” in the 2015 Liberal Party platform, referred to by the GHL, what are the so-called specifics; and (i) why were no details concerning, or drafts of, the government’s intended motion provided by the GHL?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Small Business and Tourism and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the announcement made by the government House leader, the GHL, on the evening of April 30, 2017, concerning a government motion proposing to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the government will be moving forward with the commitment to modernize the rules of the House of Commons in order to make Parliament more relevant for Canadians and make it a better place to work by introducing a government motion in the House of Commons to implement these commitments. The motion will refer to the commitments made in the platform during the election in relation to the inappropriate use of prorogation and omnibus bills, the strengthening of committees, improving financial oversight, and increasing accountability in question period.

In the discussion paper released in March 2017, the government put forward ideas in good faith to foster a dialogue on additional ways that we could modernize the operations of the House of Commons. As indicated in the letter of April 30, 2017, the government does not intend to move forward on these items at the present time. Going forward, the government remains committed to dialogue among all parties on how to improve the tone in the House of Commons and to find new ways of making the House more effective at addressing government and private members’ business. Most importantly, we hope that we can make the House of Commons more accountable to Canadians.

Question No. 1023

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

With regard to the approval of the purchase of Super Hornets without a tender, and to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Service and Procurement in the House on April 6, 2017, that “I will let the Department of National Defence provide him with details regarding this capability gap”: what are the details of any information that would have led to this statement, including those relating specifically to the existence of a “capability gap”?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has obligations to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, to have a certain number of fighter jets mission-ready at all times, as well as obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The number of mission-ready planes the Royal Canadian Air Force, or RCAF, can put in the air today is fewer than Canada’s NORAD and NATO obligations combined. The RCAF is risk-managing this capability gap, and has been doing so for a number of years. However, the government is not willing to accept this level of risk anymore.

On November 22, 2016, the government announced that it will launch, within its current mandate, an open and transparent competition to replace the fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft. In addition, the government announced that Canada will immediately explore the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s for an interim period until the permanent replacements arrive. While the government has entered into discussions with the U.S. government and Boeing about this potential acquisition, no decision has been made yet. Discussions must demonstrate that the interim fleet is appropriately capable and can be obtained at a cost, schedule, and economic value that are acceptable to Canadians. Furthermore, the government also announced that it would increase support for the current CF-18 fleet.

On June 7, 2017, the government unveiled its new defence policy: “strong, secure, engaged”. In order for Canada to counter today’s evolving threat environment and remain highly interoperable with its allies and key operational partners, this policy commits to replacing the CF-18 fleet with 88 advanced fighter aircraft.

Question No. 1028

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

With regard to the investigation into the Clyde River Fish Kill in Clyde River and area on Prince Edward Island (PEI): (a) how many personnel from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have been involved in the investigation; (b) with regard to interviews conducted between DFO officials and individuals involved in the case, how many interviews have taken place, and over what period of time; (c) with regard to trips to PEI related to this investigation made by off-island DFO offices, (i) how many trips were made, (ii) how many vehicle hours have been accumulated, (iii) what was the duration of each trip, (iv) what were the accommodation and travel status costs; (d) who requested this extended investigation at the federal level; (e) which individual, or individuals, from PEI requested the assistance of the DFO; (f) has the DFO been provided with a report from Environment Canada on the extraordinary rain event that caused the flooding, and if so, what did the report conclude; and (g) what are the details of all correspondence, both written and electronic, related to this matter, between officials from the PEI Department of the Environment and DFO personnel?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there was no involvement by personnel of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO.

With regard to (b), no interviews were conducted by DFO.

With regard to (c), no trips to P.E.I. related to this investigation were made by off-island DFO offices.

Parts (d) and (e) are not applicable.

With regard to (f), no, DFO has not been provided with a report from Environment Canada.

With regard to (g), there has been no correspondence between officials from the P.E.I. Department of the Environment and DFO personnel.

Question No. 1032

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

With regard to the decision made by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to charge $100 for a ten minute search for information and $30 for each additional minute, as described in The Hill Times on May 3, 2017: (a) what is the title of the individual who made the decision to charge for information; (b) when was the Minister’s Office made aware of the decision to charge for information; (c) has the Minister or his office issued a statement approving of the decision to charge for information; (d) has the President of the Treasury Board advised IRCC that charging for information is not in keeping with the Prime Minister’s directive to make government data “open by default” and, if so, when was this done; and (e) what was the response by IRCC?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), no decision to charge for this information was made. The requester was advised to contact the statistical unit in the department responsible for providing data on a cost-recovery basis. This is standard operating procedure when an access to information request has been received for which no records exist. In an attempt to assist the requester, the access to Information and privacy division suggested the requester turn to the cost-recovery unit. IRCC only charges the $5 request fee for access to information requests. The authority to charge for data related to immigration that has not been published by the department is contained in subsection 314(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The amounts that can be charged are also contained therein.

With regard to (b), no decision to charge for this information was made, as this is part of IRCC’s established practice to meet requesters’ information needs.

With regard to (c), as noted in (a), charging for reports produced under cost recovery is done under the authority of subsection 314(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and the fees set under paragraphs 314(1)(a) and 314(1)(b) of these regulations.

With regard to (d) and (e), as noted in (a), charging for customized reports is done under the authority of subsection 314(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. IRCC is implementing a rigorous open government plan by posting greater numbers of data tables with an increased frequency on the Government of Canada’s open data portal. IRCC data tables on the open data portal are among the most-accessed data sources.

Question No. 1034

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

With regard to individuals detained at airports by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), since January 1, 2016, broken down by airport and by month: (a) on how many days have CBSA holding cells at airports been (i) at half-capacity, (ii) at capacity, (iii) over-capacity, (iv) empty; and (b) what is the protocol when CBSA holding cells are over-capacity?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CBSA canvassed all regions across the country for the requested information. While the CBSA has holding cells in 21 airport locations, not all airports were able to provide the data requested. Manual records exist; however, given the scope and time frame of the request, as well as the large volume of information, the CBSA is unable to provide detailed information as requested.

With regard to (b), the CBSA has short-term holding cells in 21 airports across the country. These cells are for detentions of 48 hours or less. CBSA holding cells at airports are under capacity the majority of the time and are normally used for a short period of time while the individual is awaiting pickup from a local police agency or to be escorted to an outbound flight.

Should holding cells reach overcapacity, the CBSA will move individuals to other designated facilities as per the established agreements in place in each region. The nature and reason for detention may dictate the facility used in some circumstances.

Question No. 1037

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

With regard to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: (a) has the Minister receive communications from stakeholder groups expressing concerns regarding the National Inquiry; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which stakeholders expressed concern and how many communications were received; (c) has the Minister received communications from individual Canadians expressing concerns regarding the National Inquiry; and (d) if the answer in (c) is affirmative, how many communications were received?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs received 456 pieces of correspondence in the form of letters and emails from stakeholder groups and from individuals across the country on the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls between November 4, 2015, and May 3, 2017. Records are based on a search of the department’s document tracking system. Some items may not have been captured if they fell outside the search criteria or were not tracked or entered correctly in the system. The correspondence reflected various views on the inquiry, including views on the mandate of the commission, opposition to the inquiry, concerns with inquiry timelines, and support for the inquiry.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1000-1004, 1006-1013, 1016-1019, 1021, 1024-1026, 1029-1031, 1033, 1035, 1036, and 1038 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.