Debates of May 31st, 2023

Criminal Code

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would just like some clarification about your decision earlier on wearing a T-shirt. I know that you cited the Standing Orders, but I would like it to be clear. This is how I interpret your decision. If a member decides to come to the House wearing a T-shirt with a slogan, speaks on a topic and the Chair or another member intervenes to raise the matter, the Chair will tell the member that they can finish their comments, but must dress in the future in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Tomorrow morning, if I arrive in the House in a T-shirt that reads “Vive le Québec libre”, I would be able to finish my comments, but my dress must be in accordance with the Standing Orders for my next intervention. I would just like to clarify that that is how things will work in the future. In the Bloc Québécois, we have always wanted the Standing Orders to be enforced and for things to be clear. We have always wanted the government to respect the Canadian Constitution, even though we do not like it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think I made that clear. I allowed the rules to be bent this one time in the interest of getting through Routine Proceedings, but let us just say it will not happen again.

I believe that if we want to talk about what we are wearing in the chamber, I would invite the caucuses to maybe put a motion on the floor so that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can look at it. It is not something we can be deciding on the floor.

In the future, I would suggest that we do not wear T-shirts with slogans on them in the House.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 45th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for La Prairie is rising on a point of order.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the last time, you allowed the member to complete her speech even though she was in breach of the Standing Orders of the House. That was clearly explained in the remarks you read. Now, she is rising wearing the same T-shirt and you have just told my colleague that you would not allow that in the future. This is the future. Now, she is rising wearing the same T-shirt. I am sorry, but at some point, there are limits. Could you enforce the standing order that you read and that is extremely clear? She is obviously in breach of the Standing Orders. It was fine earlier, but this is not earlier, this is now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, because I know there are certain members who are listening this time around, I will just repeat what I had indicated earlier. We saw the Speaker make a ruling, inadvertently, by allowing a member to stand for the introduction of a vote on a bill not wearing a tie and then, in your ruling, you used discretion in this situation.

My understanding was that it was just so that we can get through the rubric. It is a one-time issue where we saw something earlier in a vote, and it is not something that is going to be accepted going forward because you are giving a detailed explanation.

That was my understanding, so I would suggest that we just continue to get through the rubric. Members on all sides of the House have taken note of what you have said, and I am sure that the respective whips will make sure that it is reinforced in caucuses.

Hazaras

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a great honour for me to present a petition today on behalf of the Canadian Hazara advocacy group. This is a group with members from across the country, from coast to coast, and they are particularly concerned about the persecution that the Taliban is subjecting members of the Hazara community in Afghanistan to. It is well recorded that there are many atrocities going on. Members of the Hazara community in Canada have come together and put their shoulders to the wheel to make sure that we are fully aware of this and that we do everything we can possibly do.

It is important to point out that other Parliaments and municipalities have taken note of this and recognize full well that we should stand up and stand with all members of the Hazara community. In this particular case, the petitioners are rightly asking us to support an investigation by the Human Rights Council of the UN into the serial atrocities that are going on against the Hazaras. In addition, they request that we substantially increase visas for Hazaras seeking asylum in Canada through special immigration programs.

It is a great honour to present this petition, and I would remind all members how incredibly important it is that we continue to pay attention and continue to stand up for members of the Hazara community.

Justice

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the fifth time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River are demanding that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which have fuelled the surge in crime throughout the rural community.

The crime severity index in the rural town of 4,000 has increased by over 50% from just five years ago. What was once a safe community has now turned into a place where people fear for their lives; this is because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and community.

I fully support the good people of Swan River.

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. 1387 to 1391, 1394 and 1398.

Question No.1387—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

With regard to notifications for environmental emergencies in the province of Alberta, broken down by calendar year since 2020: (a) what is the number of environmental occurrences that took place as defined in the Canada-Alberta Environmental Occurrences Notification Agreement; (b) what is the total number of occurrences that were officially reported; and (c) what are the details of all environmental occurrences in (a), including the (i) location, (ii) deleterious substances involved, (iii) date of the first notification?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, can only report on the number of environmental occurrences that were reported to the National Environmental Emergencies Centre by Alberta. For the calendar years 2020, 2021 and 2022, Alberta notified ECCC of a total of 4175 environmental occurrences.

With regard to part (b), for the calendar years 2020, 2021 and 2022, Alberta notified ECCC of 4175 environmental occurrences.

With regard to part (c), for details on the notifications of environmental occurrences reported to ECCC by Alberta, ECCC would need a significant amount of time to extract a report that would organize all of the calls, exclude sensitive and personal information and provide the details of all notifications by location. ECCC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Further information can be found at: www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-emergencies-program.html

Question No.1388—

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

With regard to BGRS, which is handling the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) relocation program: (a) on what date was the contract awarded to BGRS; (b) what firm was responsible for the relocation program prior to BGRS; (c) was the contract awarded to BGRS as a result of the expiry of the previous contract with that firm; (d) if the answer in (c) is negative, why was there a change in the firm responsible for the program; (e) was the contract awarded by mutual agreement or through a competitive bidding process; (f) how many compensation awards to CAF members in connection with their relocation have been subsequently claimed retroactively or cancelled (i) since the start of the contract with BGRS, (ii) for the duration of the contract with the firm that preceded BGRS, broken down by year; (g) how many complaints have been received regarding file management (i) since the start of the contract with BGRS, (ii) by the firm that preceded BGRS, broken down by year; and (h) what is the ratio of the number of complaints per number of files handled (i) since the contract was awarded to BGRS, (ii) by the firm that preceded BGRS, broken down by year?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the current contract for the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, relocation program was awarded to Brookfield Global Relocation Services, BGRS, on August 25, 2016.

With regard to part (b), BGRS was previously awarded the contract for the relocation program on August 14, 2009.

With regard to parts (c) to (e), the contract was retendered on expiry in a competitive bidding process.

With regard to part (f), National Defence, and not BGRS, approves reimbursement or recovery of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the member’s relocation.

Since the start of the current contract on August 25, 2016, there were 3285 instances where funds were recovered by National Defence from CAF members. This total includes recoveries from CAF members who requested and received advances in excess of what they claimed, as well as those who received benefits and then upon additional review had the benefit adjusted or cancelled. Further details on funds recovered prior to this time period would require an extensive manual search of paper records, which could not be completed in the allotted time.

With regard to parts (g) and (h), CAF members typically submit complaints to National Defence when they feel they were denied a financial benefit resulting from a decision or omission within the policy itself and not regarding the process or the file management, i.e., with BGRS. Further information on relevant policies can be found in the Canadian Armed Forces relocation directive at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/relocation-directive/cafrd.html.

Since August 25, 2016 there have been 73,978 files, i.e., individual moves initiated. Isolating the requested data would require an extensive manual search, which cannot be completed in the allotted time.

Ultimately, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces recognize the challenges that members and their families face when relocating, and seek to address any grievances in a timely manner.

Question No.1389—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

With regard to planned defence spending by the government: what will Canada's level of defence spending be as a percentage of gross domestic product, broken down by year for each of the next five fiscal years?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, National Defence remains committed to maintaining the defence budget increases set out in Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. These investments will increase the total National Defence budget from $18.9 billion in 2016-17 to $32.7 billion by 2026-27, an increase of more than 70%.

This is an ongoing process and figures on planned spending continue to be refined. Indeed, at any given time, projected calculations can fluctuate based on changes in defence investments, capabilities and needs. Further, Canada’s defence spending and procurement will be based on threat analyses and assessments of needs.

Annual reports on defence expenditures of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, countries, including Canada, are published in March of each year, and can be found at the following link: NATO - News: Defence expenditure of NATO countries (2014-2022), 21-Mar.-2023.

Finally, as announced in budget 2022, National Defence is undertaking a review of its defence policy, which will include considerations for defence spending.

Question No.1390—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

With regard to sexual assault, physical assault or harassment complaints filed by those abiding by the government’s hotel quarantine measures since March 1, 2020: (a) how many sexual assaults, physical assaults or harassment complaints have been filed, broken down by type of complaint; (b) how many of the complaints in (a) resulted in criminal charges; (c) how many sexual assaults, physical assaults or harassment complaints have been filed against quarantine screening and enforcement officers during regular visits, broken down by type of complaint; (d) how many of the complaints in (c) resulted in criminal charges; (e) has the government made any payments related to legal or settlement fees related to harassment or assaults related to government quarantine measures, and, if so, how many payments have been made and how much has been paid out; (f) how many complaints have been filed related to quarantine officers inappropriately demanding cash payments from those under restrictions; (g) for any complaints filed in (f), was any disciplinary action taken against the quarantine officers, and, if so, how many officers were disciplined, broken down by type of disciplinary measure; and (h) did the government conduct a gender-based analysis of its quarantine measures and programs before implementation, and, if so, what were the findings and details of the analysis, including whether (i) vulnerability due to confinement and authority of the officer was assessed, (ii) evaluations of any private security firms hired were conducted with respect to safety, (iii) other measures were considered, in order to ensure the safety of those under government restrictions?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, is aware of two sexual assault complaints filed by travellers while abiding by the government’s hotel quarantine measures since March 1, 2020. Further information is provided below in the response to part (b).

With regard to part (b), the following two complaints resulted in criminal charges. In February 2021, an individual was charged by local police with sexual assault, break and enter, and harassment at the Sheraton Montreal designated quarantine facility, DQF. The victim was a quarantined traveller.

In May 2021, a hotel employee within the housekeeping department at a Toronto government authorized accommodation, GAA, was arrested and received one charge of sexual assault. The victim was a traveller staying at the hotel. The hotel is no longer using the services of this employee.

With regard to parts (c) and (d), there are no sexual assault, physical assault or harassment complaints filed against quarantine screening and enforcement officers in relation to travellers who have stayed at a DQF or GAA.

With regard to part (e), the government has not made any payments related to legal or settlement fees related to harassment or assaults related to government quarantine measures.

With regard to parts (f) and (g), there have been no complaints filed related to quarantine officers inappropriately demanding cash payments from those under restrictions.

With regard to part (h), notwithstanding the fact that emergency orders issued under section 58 of the Quarantine Act are not subject to the cabinet directive on regulations or the requirement to conduct a gender-based analysis plus, GBA+, analysis, PHAC did conduct a GBA+ analysis to inform the development of border measures, including DQFs, and continued to make necessary adjustments to these programs throughout the pandemic response.

To ensure the health and safety of all personnel and travellers, contracts were established to provide security services 24 hours per day, seven days a week at the DQFs. Security service providers were required to have a reliability security clearance or equivalent. In addition, all personnel were required to complete mandatory specialized training to support the provision of quarantine services. The enhanced training provided them with skills, including how to de-escalate critical situations, improve communication between travellers and hotel personnel, and improve the capacity to respond to the needs of diverse populations.

GBA+ factors were considered during the development of the programs. Unforeseen impacts on diverse and vulnerable groups were continually addressed throughout operations, including by quarantine officers who, as nurses, have professional training and follow duty of care standards when interacting with vulnerable populations under their professional designation.

These considerations were factored into programming, including accommodating different religious dietary needs, e.g., halal and kosher; ensuring that materials were available in a variety of languages; and instructing quarantine officers to consider a broad range of factors, e.g., medical requirements, families travelling together, unaccompanied minors, etc., at the border, as well as the need for alternative quarantine options.

Question No.1391—

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

With regard to the budget 2022 announcement of $539.3 million for the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, broken down by province and territory, and by organization: what is the amount of funds (i) committed, (ii) allocated but not distributed?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of $539.3 million over five years, starting in 2022-23, is to enable provinces and territories to supplement and enhance services and supports within their jurisdictions to prevent gender-based violence and support survivors.

With regard to parts (i) and (ii), budget 2022 funding is being provided directly to provinces and territories through negotiated bilateral funding agreements. Once the bilateral funding agreements are established with the provinces and territories, the funding amounts will be made publicly available.

Question No.1394—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

With regard to the government's commitment to close the infrastructure gap on First Nations by 2030: (a) what metrics is the government using to measure the progress on meeting this commitment; (b) has the government made any assessments on whether it is on track to reach this commitment; and (c) what year does Indigenous Services Canada expect the infrastructure gap will be closed, and what is the current level of progress based on the metrics in (a)?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), infrastructure investments are a key element of the government's commitment to foster the growth of safe, healthy and prosperous indigenous communities and support indigenous economic participation. Infrastructure needs of first nations communities are always evolving, whether due to changing population and demographics, adapting to climate change, or changes in technology. ISC is committed to working with first nations partners to determine the scope and scale of the infrastructure gap, and identify ways to close this gap, based on first nations needs and priorities.

In 2022, on-reserve first nations communities were asked to identify and prioritize their housing and infrastructure needs in comprehensive fashion though a community infrastructure needs engagement. In British Columbia, the First Nations Health Authority was engaged on health-related infrastructure assets. A total of 405 communities, representing 72% of on-reserve first nations communities across Canada, provided these surveys to ISC, as of April 24, 2023. ISC has committed to provide additional capacity support in 2023 to the Chiefs of Ontario, to work directly with Ontario first nations that have not yet provided input to this survey. As such, ISC cannot yet provide a final report on this exercise; however, it expects that a comprehensive estimate of the first nations infrastructure gap will be available in 2023.

In 2023-24, in order to better respond to fire suppression needs and to measure progress, ISC began collecting annual data from first nations communities on fire incidents, what type, or types, of fire suppression services are available in the community, and what education and prevention programs are being delivered.

Through its departmental results framework, ISC has identified a number of indicators to measure progress made to close infrastructure gaps in first nations. For example, in 2023-24, the departmental result “Indigenous communities have sustainable land management and infrastructure” will be measured, in part, by the following indicators: percentage of first nations housing that is adequate as assessed and reported by first nations; percentage of on-reserve public water systems financially supported by ISC that have low risk ratings; percentage of on-reserve public wastewater systems financially supported by ISC that have low risk ratings; percentage of on-reserve ISC funded other community infrastructure assets with a condition rating of "good" or "new"; percentage of on-reserve education facilities with a condition rating of "good" or "new"; and percentage of on-reserve health facilities with a condition rating of "good" or "new".

ISC will report publicly on progress made against these indicators in its Departmental Results Report.

The department is also exploring alternative approaches to reform how it funds and delivers infrastructure programming, to provide first nations with a more fulsome suite of financing options, comparable to non-indigenous communities, to better support first nations in prioritizing, building and maintaining infrastructure assets in their communities. To that end, the department continues to engage with first nations communities to seek their views, including on results reporting.

With regard to part (b), as noted in part (a), ISC continues to work with first nations to determine the scope and scale of the infrastructure gap, and therefore, reporting against it is not yet feasible. While more work needs to be done, since 2016 and as of December 31, 2022, $8.49 billion, excluding operating expenses, of ISC targeted infrastructure funding for first nations on reserve has been invested toward 8,206 projects, and 4,996 of them are complete. A further $8.43 billion will be invested before 2031-32.

With regard to part (c), closing the infrastructure gap on reserve is a whole-of-government commitment. Once the initial needs-based infrastructure and housing surveys are completed, ISC will continue to work directly with first nations and other federal organizations that invest in first nations infrastructure, e.g., Infrastructure Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to identify what further measures and investments may be required to close the infrastructure gap by 2030.

Question No.1398—

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

With regard to gender parity amongst ministerial exempt staff, as of April 13, 2023: (a) how many chiefs of staff for ministers are identified as (i) male, (ii) female, (iii) neither; (b) how many directors of policy for ministers are identified as (i) male, (ii) female, (iii) neither; (c) how many directors of communications for ministers are identified as (i) male, (ii) female, (iii) neither, and (d) how many political exempt staff in general are identified as (i) male, (ii) female, (iii) neither?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board)]

Mr. Speaker, this government is steadfast in its commitment to gender equality. Since 2015, the Prime Minister has led a cabinet with gender parity. While a comprehensive response cannot be completed in the time allotted, across government, ministerial exempt staff reflect the diversity of Canada. Currently, across ministers’ offices, the gender balance for chiefs of staff, directors of policy and directors of communication is between 40% and 50%. Further information on ministerial exempt staff can also be found through the GC directory.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[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. 1386, 1392, 1393 and 1395 to 1397 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.