Debates of March 25th, 2022

Marine Transportation

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance repeat the myth of the neutral carbon tax. I would like to table page 18 of volume I of the most recent public accounts, which shows a quarter of a billion dollars that was raised through the GST on the carbon tax was not given back, and also that proceeds from the carbon tax were used for federal programming.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table this?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the other day, during debate, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was heckling me while I was trying to speak. Today, the same member heckled the member for Oakville in the House. I would like to try to assist the member. I ask him to refrain from exercising his misogyny and remind him that it is not appropriate to heckle women in the House. I would like him to apologize to the member for Oakville.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for raising the point of order. Actually, it is not appropriate to heckle, period, but definitely and certainly not women colleagues. I do not see the hon. member rising, but I do advise members to refrain from heckling at all times.

There is a point of order being raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first time rising in the House on a point of order, and it is on the same issue as my opposition colleague.

The opposition members boast about wanting to defend official languages. However, when they shout in the House like that, they are showing a lack of respect for the interpreters, who are trying to do their job.

My first language is French. When I cannot hear what is being said because opposition members are shouting at the top of their lungs, they are showing a lack of respect for the interpreters who are trying to tell us what is happening in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for her point of order.

As I said before, interruptions in the House are never welcome, particularly when they affect our interpreters. Such interruptions cause considerable discomfort.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 17 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Queen Juliana Park

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to present a petition from more desperately concerned residents of Ottawa who are appalled to find that a local decision will result in cutting down hundreds of mature trees in Queen Juliana Park within the city limits of Ottawa in order to build 17 acres of parking. It is a public-private development plan for a four-storey parking structure on parts of what are now Queen Juliana Park.

The petitioners are seeking the federal government's help. They ask that I relate to the House that the undersigned citizens of Canada call on the government to restore the National Capital Commission's recommendation of a different location, Tunney's Pasture, as the ideal site for the new hospital, to preserve Queen Juliana Park and the entire Central Experimental Farm as green spaces and to support the request of an independent expert panel in order to have a public inquiry into why the National Capital Commission's original recommendation was quickly and summarily reversed.

Volunteer First Responders

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition today on behalf of volunteer firefighters from Parksville, Qualicum, Bowser, Cumberland, Courtenay, Port Alberni, Sproat Lake and Cherry Creek.

The petitioners cite that volunteer firefighters account for 83% of Canada's total firefighting essential first responders. In addition, approximately 8,000 essential search and rescue volunteers respond to thousands of incidents every year. Currently, the tax code of Canada allows volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers to claim a $3,000 tax credit if 200 hours of volunteer services were completed in a calendar year. That works out to a mere $450 a year, and we know they work and volunteer more than 200 hours. This is timely, given that there could be a budget announced in the next couple of weeks.

The petitioners support Bill C-201 and call on the government to increase the tax exemption from $3,000 to $10,000 to help our essential volunteer firefighters and volunteer search and rescue people across the country, including in Ucluelet and Tofino, which I forgot to mention. We are all grateful for these first responders.

Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of constituents and Canadians right across the country with respect to diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, an aggressive brain tumour found in the brain stem that slowly takes away all vital functions while cognitive functions remain intact, which makes a child a prisoner in their own body. It is inoperable and incurable, with a 0% survival rate. It is the second most common malignant brain tumour in children and the leading cause of brain tumour deaths in children.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and the government to declare May 17 of every year national DIPG day of awareness here in Canada. They are hoping that this declaration will educate the public about the disease, encourage funding to support ongoing research, increase dialogue in the professional medical community and further publicize and promote Canada's involvement in the fight against DIPG.

Charitable Organizations

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place to present a petition about an issue that is incredibly important.

I have heard from many constituents who are concerned about the possibility of the weaponization of things like someone's values when it comes to accessing government services. A whole host of Canadians from across the country, specifically from the Thunder Bay area, have shared with me a petition that calls upon the Parliament of Canada to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression. These Canadians are incredibly concerned about the precedents that have been set by the Liberal government, and it is an hour to stand on their behalf and present this petition today.

Ukraine

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a petition that is really important to the thousands of people who have shown up this month at the Manitoba legislature on three separate occasions to act as one in solidarity with Ukraine over what is taking place there. What the petitioners are asking for in signing this petition is for the government to encourage ongoing support for things like lethal aid and humanitarian aid, for Canada to continue to open its arms to Ukrainian refugees who are being displaced because of the horrors of what is taking place in Ukraine and for us to consider if it is possible to look into the issue of no-fly zones.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 314 to 316.

Question No.314—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

With regard to statistics held by the RCMP in relation to firearms: (a) what definition does the RCMP use to determine if a firearm is domestically sourced or foreign sourced; (b) is the definition in (a) universally used by other police jurisdictions in Canada that trace the origins of firearms; (c) does the designation of a firearm as domestically sourced (i) include firearms that entered Canada illegally, (ii) have unknown sources, due to not having a serial number or other identifying markers removed; (d) which police forces in Canada (i) use the RCMP lab services to trace firearms, (ii) do their own tracing of firearms; (e) what is the RCMP's definition of a "crime gun"; (f) are firearms seized in the course of another investigation for a non-violent crime, a mental health intervention, or turned over to the RCMP as part of an amnesty or other voluntary surrender of a firearm for disposal to the RCMP included in the definition of a "crime gun"; and (g) are the firearms seized by Canada Border Services Agency included in the RCMP reports related to the percentage of firearms sourced domestically or from foreign countries?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the RCMP’s Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre, or CNFTC, uses the following definitions. A domestically sourced firearm means a firearm with a legal history and lawful ownership in Canada, which is then acquired by a criminal entity through illegal means, e.g., theft or illicit sale. A foreign-sourced firearm is determined or suspected to have been unlawfully imported into Canada, i.e., smuggled.

With regard to part (b) of the question, the RCMP and Ontario’s firearms analysis and tracing enforcement program, or FATE program, use the previous definitions.

The answer to part (c)(i) of the question is no.

The answer to part (c)(ii) is no. A firearm with an unknown source is categorized as “unknown”.

With regard to part (d)(i) of the question, the RCMP’s national forensic laboratory services provide serial number restoration services to law enforcement but does not process firearm tracing requests. The CNFTC assists frontline policing, except in Ontario, by providing an extensive firearms tracing service for domestic and international law enforcement agencies, including from the United States.

With regard to part (d)(ii), Ontario’s FATE program processes firearms trace requests for all Ontario police services. All other law enforcement agencies in Canada use the CNFTC.

With regard to part (e), the RCMP uses the following definition of a “crime gun” that was developed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. A crime gun is any of the following: a firearm, as defined under the Criminal Code, used or suspected to be used in the commission of a criminal offence, regardless of whether or not it was possessed legally; or a firearm that has an obliterated, altered or removed serial number.

With regard to part (f), law enforcement determines whether a firearm meets the definition of a “crime gun” through the investigative process, including the RCMP where it serves as the police of jurisdiction.

The answer to part (g) is yes. However, firearms seized by law enforcement are not automatically traced by the CNFTC. The CNFTC can only process firearms when they are voluntarily submitted by law enforcement.

Question No.315—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

With regard to the Chinook software program operated by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), broken down by fiscal year and country of origin: (a) what is the acceptance rate of immigrants by (i) immigration class, (ii) official language of Canada spoken, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) acceptance rate, (v) rejection rate; (b) what are the criteria, keywords or phrases used by IRCC for making decisions related to (a)(iv) and (a)(v); (c) what is the process by which IRCC managers accept or reject decisions made through the software; (d) what is the rate at which managers intervene and overrule decisions made through the software (i) in favour of the applicant immigrating to Canada, (ii) in opposition of the applicant immigrant to Canada; and (e) what are the criteria, keywords or phrases used to make those decision in (d)(i) and (d)(ii)?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is concerned, with regard to part (a) of the question, IRCC officers may use the Chinook spreadsheet tool for assessing temporary resident visa, study permit and work permit applications. Chinook is not used to assess permanent resident, or immigrant, applications. Therefore, we cannot provide a breakdown identifying the acceptance rate of immigrants, immigration class, which official language of Canada they speak, their ethnicity or refusal rates. IRCC does not collect or record any information pertaining to any applicant’s ethnicity.

With regard to part (b), Chinook is not used to assess permanent resident, or immigrant, applications. For all application streams, officers make decisions in accordance with the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA and the immigration refugee protection regulations, or IRPR. Decisions are based on the officer review of the application and are made by the officers themselves. Chinook does not recommend nor make decisions. It is a complementary tool to assist the decision-maker that streamlines administrative steps that would otherwise be required in the processing of temporary resident applications. Chinook does not alter the way decisions are made. Officers always make the decision on a temporary resident application and provide the rationale for that decision, not the Chinook spreadsheet.

In response to part (c), Chinook is a tool designed to simplify the visual representation of a client’s information. It is a spreadsheet tool that supports IRCC offices. Decisions are not taken by or through the Chinook tool, nor does it recommend decisions. The IRPA and IRPR are the basis for the decisions rendered by officers. Decisions are made by officers based on their review of the application and submissions made by the applicant. IRCC officers make decisions and IRCC managers do not fetter the decision-making process of officers by accepting or rejecting their decisions.

In response to part (d), IRCC managers do not fetter the decision-making process of officers by accepting or rejecting their decisions. Officers make decisions in accordance with the IRPA and IRPR. These decisions are made by the officer and based on their review of the application. Chinook does not recommend or make decisions, nor do Chinook or IRCC managers alter the way decisions are made by IRCC officers.

With regard to part (e), IRCC managers do not fetter the decision-making process of officers by accepting or rejecting their decisions. Officers make decisions in accordance with the IRPA and IRPR. These decisions are made by the officer and based on their review of the application. Chinook does not recommend or make decisions, nor do Chinook or IRCC managers alter the way decisions are made by IRCC officers.

Question No.316—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

With regard to the Chinook software program operated by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), broken down by fiscal year and country of origin: (a) what keywords and phrases are used by IRCC officials to sort visa applications; (b) what is the occurrence of keywords and phrases that are used by IRCC officials to sort visa applications; and (c) based upon the use of these keywords and phrases, what is the rejection rate of visa applicants by class by IRCC officials?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is concerned, for indicator management within the Chinook Excel tool, keywords are used to notify officers of trends that IRCC has detected or highlight a particular factor of concern, not to sort visa applications. Keywords are also used to identify positive considerations such as applications that may require expedited processing, e.g., conferences, funerals and weddings. Indicators and keywords are identified and submitted for entry into Chinook by IRCC officers. Indicators and keywords are not generated by the Chinook tool.

Statistics on the use of indicators and word flags are not tracked globally, though the information if present on individual applications would appear in notes in the global case management system, or GCMS.

With respect to file management within the Chinook tool, the sorting of applications is based on the status of the application in the GCMS. It is not based on keywords or phrases.

Statistics on the occurrence of keywords and phrases to sort visa applications are not tracked and are therefore unavailable.

Statistics on the occurrence of keywords and phrases for the rejection rate of visa applicants by class are not tracked and are therefore unavailable.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Madam Speaker, if the government's response to Question No. 313 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.313—

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

With regard to the 34,000 unprocessed applications at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) will the 560 temporary staff hired to deal with the backlog have their contracts renewed, and, if so, until when; and (b) does VAC have projections on how large the backlog will be in the future if the contracts are (i) renewed, (ii) not renewed, and, if so, what are the projections, broken down by quarter for the next two years?