Debates of Jan. 27th, 2020

Question No. 183

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, does not have information concerning the administration of the federal carbon tax.

Question No. 194

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

With regard to the prison needle exchange in facilities run by Correctional Service Canada (CSC): (a) how many needles were distributed to inmates in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, boken down by correctional institution; (b) of the needles distributed, how many went missing or were not returned to CSC, broken down by correctional institution; (c) what specific procedures are in place to ensure the safety of correctional officers; and (d) how many incidents have taken place to date where (i) officers or staff, (ii) other inmates were “stuck” or injured by a needle from the program?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i) and (a)(ii), since the start of the prison needle exchange program, the PNEP, in June 2018, 715 needles have been distributed. This number represents the number of needles distributed from the start of the PNEP program to the time of analysis, not the number of inmates who have received a PNEP kit. In 2018, 35 needles were distributed, 33 in the Atlantic Institution and two in the Grand Valley Institution for women. In 2019, 680 needles were distributed, 620 in the Atlantic Institution, three in Edmonton Institution for Women, and 57 in the Grand Valley Institution for women.

With regard to (b), all PNEP needles distributed were returned for a 100% return rate. In two instances at Atlantic Institution, a PNEP needle was not stored in the approved location; CSC staff seized the needles in question, and the participants were temporarily suspended from the program in order to be reassessed.

With regard to (c), specific procedures to ensure the safety of correctional officers and other offenders areas follows. First is threat risk assessment, or TRA. The application process includes a TRA, conducted by operations, in order to review pertinent security information to determine the potential risks from supporting the applicant’s participation in the program. The TRA model is similar to the one currently in place for offenders who use other needles and syringes, such as EpiPens and those for diabetic insulin use. This model has proven to be safe and effective. Second is kit monitoring. Needles are provided in kits in a clear plastic storage container. Procedures are in place to ensure the kit and its contents are secure and accounted for through regular monitoring, generally two times per day, during routine “stand to” counts. The third procedure is for needle exchanges: When participants wish to exchange their needles, they must return the original CSC-issued needle/syringe unit with the safety glide cap properly in place to Health Services. A nurse ensures the needle is in place before it is discarded into a biohazard sharps waste container by the participant. Next are procedures for cell searching. Procedures have been established for the routine searching of a participant’s cell whereby the kit is secured before an officer or dog proceeds with a search. Finally, there are procedures on violation of terms. Participants sign a contract, and in the event the participant does not follow the institutional procedures and the agreed-upon terms and conditions of the contract for participation in the PNEP, the inmate may be suspended temporarily or removed from the program, and a new TRA may be required.

With regard to (d)(i) and (d)(ii), no incidents have been reported of officers or other staff being “stuck” or injured by a needle from the PNEP. No incidents have been reported of other inmates being “stuck” or injured by a needle from the PNEP.

Question No. 200

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each, including (i) dates of funding, (ii) recipients, (iii) locations, (iv) project descriptions?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, information on grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage, PCH, from January 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, is available on the Government of Canada proactive disclosure website at https://rechercher.ouvert.canada.ca/fr/gc/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Patrimoine%20canadien&gc-search-year=2018|2019&gc-search-agreement-range=(b)%20moins%20de%2010%20000%20%24|(c)%20de%2010%20000%20%24%20%C3%A0%2025%20000%20%24 .

Information on grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage, PCH, from October 1, 2019, to December 1, 2019, will be released via proactive disclosure by January 31, 2020.

Question No. 204

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

With regard to individuals working full-time, part-time, on contract, or on a casual basis at Global Affairs Canada’s offices abroad, including local and third-country cooperants and advisors, as of December 1, 2019: (a) how many such individuals were required to have (i) a secret security clearance or above, (ii) a confidential security clearance, (iii) no security clearance; and (b) how many individuals were working at Global Affairs Canada’s offices abroad, as of December 1, 2019, either without the required security clearance or pending the issuance of a security clearance?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.

With regard to part (a), all Canadian-based staff, CBS, and there are approximately 1,304 at our missions abroad, have a top secret clearance. All locally engaged staff, LES, and there are approximately 3,986, have a reliability status.

Global Affairs Canada does not grant confidential security clearances.

All staff requiring clearances are compliant with Global Affairs Canada security requirements. Persons without security status require escort.

With regard to part (b), all CBS and LES have the clearances necessary to perform their duties. Top secret clearance is the minimum for CBS, while LES are cleared at the reliability status level. Some LES may qualify for and be granted a secret clearance, but only under exceptional circumstances.

Question No. 206

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: (a) what percentage of seniors does the minister consider to be middle class; (b) what percentage of seniors does the minister consider to be (i) of an income or means lower than middle class, (ii) of an income or means higher than middle class; and (c) how does the percentage in (a) compare to the percentage of Canadians as a whole, whom the minister considers to be middle class?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government’s focus on middle-class prosperity reflects its priority on policies that grow the economy and benefit a very broad group of Canadians.

The income required to attain a middle-class lifestyle can vary greatly, depending on Canadians’ specific situations such as their family situation, whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive. Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 208

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

With regard to the government’s list of terrorist organizations: (a) why has the government not yet listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran as a terrorist organization; and (b) does the government consider the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be a terrorist organization?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), keeping Canadians safe is of paramount importance to this government. We are working with like-minded countries to ensure that Iran is held to account for its support of terrorism.

As we have long said, Canada has already taken a number of actions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC.

We continue to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force as a terrorist entity, and we also continue to impose sanctions on Iran and the IRGC, targeting its branches as well as senior-level members of its leadership.

The listing of entities is an ongoing process, and government officials continue to assess all groups and monitor new developments. Last year we added three additional Iran-backed groups to the Criminal Code list as terrorist entities.

We remain unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world

Question No. 212

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

With regard to rail safety: (a) how many railway incidents have occurred as a result of sleep-related fatigue issues since November 4, 2015; (b) what are the details of all such incidents, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) summary of incident, (iv) damage caused, if applicable; (c) what specific measures has the government implemented since November 4, 2015, aimed at preventing railway incidents resulting from employee fatigue; and (d) what is the current minimum turnaround time between shifts for (i) conductors, (ii) railway yard workers, (iii) other railway workers?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, TSB, is the independent agency that collects and analyzes data related to railway incidents in Canada and investigates the cause and factors contributing to their occurrence. As such, they are the appropriate authority to respond to this question.

With regard to part (b), as the authority responsible for collecting data on railway incidents in Canada, the TSB, is the appropriate party to respond to this question.

With regard to part (c), a number of specific measures have been implemented since November 4, 2015, which are aimed at preventing railway incidents resulting from employee fatigue. One is safety management system regulations. New regulations prescribing the implementation of a safety management system were published in 2015. They included specific requirements for railways to follow in terms of scheduling shifts based on the principles of fatigue science.

Another is a notice of intent, or NOI. In November 2017, Transport Canada, TC, published an NOI that described a fatigue strategy. The strategy included a review of fatigue risk management systems, FRMS, and research into key positions in the rail industry and their sensitivity to fatigue. The NOI also stated TC’s intention to initiate amendments to the Work/Rest Rules for Railway Operating Employees, or WRR, and the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015, and, if necessary, to pursue the development of new regulations to address fatigue in the rail industry.

Another measure was a Fatigue in Transportation forum. A Fatigue in Transportation symposium was held in Montreal in the summer of 2018. The forum, which brought together over 200 participants, included speakers from academia, government and the transportation industry to build knowledge and promote increased awareness of fatigue in the transportation sector.

Another measure was updated work/rest rules. The Minister of Transport issued a ministerial order in December 2018 that required industry to update the existing work/rest rules to reflect the latest principles in fatigue science. This includes revisions to maximum duty lengths, minimum rest periods, advance notice of schedules, maximum cumulative duty times and the development of fatigue management plans. Transport Canada received a revised proposed working draft of these rules on December 16, 2019, and the industry must conduct a consultation with its unions. Submission by industry of a new proposal is expected for consideration and approval in early 2020.

With regard to part (d), conductors and locomotive engineers who operate in freight service/yard service are subject to the provisions of the current work/rest rules. These rules do not contain a minimum turnaround time or mandated time off duty between shifts unless the employee has worked more than 10 hours. If the employee has worked in excess of 10 hours and is away from the home terminal, the employee must have six hours off duty. If they are at the home terminal, they must have eight hours off duty. Usually employees who are on regularly scheduled assignments, yard service, do not receive calls for work.

Railway yard workers are also subject to these provisions but are often assigned a regular schedule, obviating the need for a minimum turnaround time.

Other railway workers, which is interpreted to mean non-operating employees, are subject to part III of the Canada Labour Code, and their collective agreements where applicable. Under section.169.2 (1) of part III of the Canada Labour Code, employees are eligible for a minimum rest period of at least eight consecutive hours between work periods or shifts.

Question No. 216

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

With regard to the Statutes of Canada 2019, Chapter 14 (An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence), over the development, drafting and legislative process for this legislation: (a) was any consideration given by the government as to how this legislation would affect the International Joint Commission’s Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River Plan 2014; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, were any briefing notes written detailing these considerations, broken down by (i) title, (ii) subject, (iii) author, (iv) date written, (v) department internal tracking number; (c) was any consideration given by the government as to how this legislation would affect water levels and shoreline properties in Canada; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, were any briefing notes written detailing these considerations, broken down by (i) title, (ii) subject, (iii) author, (iv) date written, (v) department internal tracking number?

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in developing Bill C-68 to modernize the Fisheries Act, including restoring lost protections to fish and fish habitat, extensive consultations were undertaken with indigenous peoples, other levels of government, industry and non-government organizations, and the public at large. While there was no direct consideration of the International Joint Commission’s plan, the modernized act draws on views and perspectives of many partners and stakeholders to provide a wide range of tools to support the proper management of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.

In response to (b), for DFO, this is notot applicable, given the reply to (a).

In response to (c), the purpose set out in Bill C-68 was to provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries, and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including preventing pollution. The powers, authorities and tools contained in the modernized act in and of themselves do not impact water levels and shoreline properties in Canada. Therefore, these impacts were not considered in developing Bill C-68.

The rationale is that prior to the amendments in Bill C-68 being adopted, the Fisheries Act included long-standing provisions for the management of water flow in relation to existing obstructions, such as dams or other barriers in a water course. These are for the purpose of the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, such as to provide for fish passage around such barriers by means of fish ladders, or to provide for the flows downstream of a barrier sufficient to protect fish and their habitat. These authorities were previously found in section 20 of the Fisheries Act as it read immediately prior to royal assent of Bill C-68, and with the coming into force of all the amendments provided for in Bill C-68, they are now found in section 34.3.

As the result of Bill C-68, section 34.3 was amended to establish subsection 34.3(7), that provides for the minister to make regulations respecting the flow of water that is to be maintained to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat in relation to existing obstructions. Subsection 34.3(7) is enabling only and has no force or effect until such time as regulations may be made. Any future regulations would necessarily include broad consultation with affected partners and stakeholders.

In response to (d), for DFO this is not applicable, given the reply to (c).

Question No. 225

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

With regard to the 16 CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft purchased by the government: (a) what are the operational limitations of the aircraft; and (b) what specific limitations were discovered during operational testing in 2019?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this government is making investments to ensure that our search and rescue crews have the necessary aircraft to support life-saving services to Canadians in need. As such, we are procuring 16 new planes that are capable of providing improved search and rescue capabilities over long ranges, in difficult weather conditions and at night.

Canada accepted the first aircraft in Spain on December 18, 2019. As outlined in the defence capabilities blueprint, National Defence anticipates receiving all aircraft by 2022-23.

Details can be found at http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1721

With regard to operational limitations, the Royal Canadian Air Force has not yet commenced the initial testing and evaluation of the aircraft. The initial operational testing period for the CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft is expected to be conducted in the first half of 2020.

Question No. 231

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

With regard to the government’s profit policy as related to shipbuilding: (a) what risk assessment or mitigation does the government conduct related to guaranteed contracts for the Arctic off-shore patrol ships (AOPS), Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), and Halifax Class Frigates; (b) what is the profit range offered to Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (ISI) for its work on the AOPS, CSC and Halifax Class Frigates; (c) what is the total profit offered for guaranteed work under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, whereby there are cost plus contracts; (d) what are the details, including findings, of any third party review of Canada’s profit policy related to the AOPS and CSC, and (e) what are the details of all briefing materials related to the profit rate negotiated with ISI for the CSC and AOPS, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada has developed a formal risk management plan for the national shipbuilding strategy, NSS. The plan is informed by international best practices and helps to predict, identify and manage the key risks facing the NSS. Key risks include: timely analysis and decision-making, mitigated through a senior-level governance structure; human resources capacity, mitigated through hiring more procurement officers, training government analysts on estimating cost, and supporting for training and apprenticeship programs; and public communications, mitigated through annual reports, announcements, technical briefings, and other opportunities to provide Canadians with timely information on the NSS.

Contracts for AOPS, CSC and Halifax class frigate work periods are subject to procurement risk assessments conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board framework for the management of risk, the PSPC integrated risk management policy and the PSPC acquisitions program risk assessment framework. information on risk assessments in contracts is available online on the Buy and Sell website

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/3/1/5 and https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/6/5/15/1

Procurement risk factors are assessed on a continuous basis and steps are taken to support the effective administration of the contracts.

In response to (b), contracts issued to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., ISI, are negotiated to arrive at a fair and reasonable cost for the work, including the profit paid for performing the work. Profit ranges under the multi ship contract, for work on the Halifax class frigates from 2008-21, the AOPS contracts and the CSC contracts are within the overall range of the policy on cost and profit as per the PSPC supply manual. Information on the profit policy is available online on the Buy and Sell website:

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/10

The details of the profit level negotiated and approved for these contracts cannot be disclosed as it is confidential commercial information which could prejudice the competitive position of ISI.

In response to (c), profits under the NSS are negotiated through individual contracts and are guided by the policy on cost and profit. As such, there is no total profit offered for work under the NSS per se.

In response to (d), no third party reviews of Canada’s profit policy related to the AOPS or CSC projects have been conducted. Contracts issued to ISI were negotiated to arrive at a fair and reasonable cost for the work, including the profit paid for performing the work. The negotiated profit is within the framework of the PSPC policy on cost and profit.

However, third party reviews have been conducted for both projects in support of contract negotiations, to undertake risk assessments prior to contract awards and amendments, and to evaluate the level of effort required for ISI to complete tasks. Details of these reviews cannot be disclosed as they contain confidential commercial information of ISI.

In response to (e), details of briefing material for the AOPS and CSC projects on negotiated profit rates cannot be disclosed as they contain confidential commercial information of ISI.

Question No. 238

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

With regard to the Office of the Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise: (a) when will a system for fielding complaints be operational; (b) what will be the process for assessing complaints when they arrive; (c) how many official complaints has the office received to date; and (d) if the answer to (c) is none, what steps has the ombudsperson and her staff undertaken since her appointment on April 8, 2019?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion and Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.

In response to (a), the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, CORE, system for filing complaints is currently in development. It plans to implement phase one by launching a web portal for filing complaints in early May 2020. An electronic client management system, CRM, is under development and will be implemented as part of phase two of the complaint system, which will improve its accessibility.

In response to (b), CORE’s standard operating procedures have been drafted and will be made available for consultation with stakeholders in early January 2020. When the CORE website is launched, there will be an opportunity for broader public consultation.

In response to (c), CORE has not received any official complaints to date.

In response to (d), since the appointment of Sheri Meyerhoffer as ombudsperson in April 2019, numerous activities have been undertaken, including: establishing the office, i.e., staff, space, systems, procedures, meetings with more than 150 stakeholders as of November 30, 2019, speaking engagements, participation in numerous national and international events and conferences and the negotiation of memoranda of understanding with Global Affairs Canada and other government bodies.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to the following questions could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 to 13, 15 to 17, 21 to 23, 25 to 30, 33, 34, 36 to 39, 41 to 45, 47 to 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 68, 69, 71 to 76, 78, 79, 81 to 86, 92 to 102, 104, 105, 108 to 113, 115 to 118, 121 to 124, 126, 130, 131, 134, 136, 137, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 152 to 156, 161, 162, 164 to 172, 174, 176, 177, 180 to 182, 184 to 193, 195 to 199, 201 to 203, 205, 207, 209 to 211, 213 to 215, 217 to 224, 226 to 230, 232 to 237, 239, 240.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

With regard to the barge Nana Provider and its grounding off of Quadra Island in the Salish Sea on November 9, 2019, while being towed by the Polar King: (a) was the government notified by domestic or international authorities if the Nana Provider was carrying any dangerous goods as defined in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and, if so, which authorities reported the dangerous goods and when; (b) were the barge and tug following a proper route as prescribed in the Canadian Coast Guards’ Radio Aids to Navigation 2019 in the time leading up to the Nana Provider’s grounding; (c) what are the requirements for a vessel to use the Inside Passage instead of travelling along the West Coast of Vancouver Island and did the Nana Provider meet those requirements; (d) was there any communication from the Coast Guard’s Marine Communications and Traffic Services prior to the grounding that would have prevented it; (e) what has the government determined was the reason for the barge running aground; (f) if the reason has not yet been determined, (i) when is the expected date of completion of the investigation; (ii) will the results of the investigation be publicly available; (iii) how does the government intend to inform local, Indigenous, provincial and federal representatives of the result of the investigation; (g) to which authority or authorities was the occurrence reported and when; (h) how were affected Indigenous communities consulted and involved in the reporting, management of the stationary barge, and salvage processes; (i) what was the capacity of each of the federal vessels that responded to the occurrence to mitigate damage to the environment and people nearby; and (j) how long did it take each of the federal response vessels to arrive from the time of reporting?