Debates of Sept. 16th, 2024

Question No.2827—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With regard to the Historical Section of Global Affairs Canada (GAC): (a) what is the mandate of the section and the job description, background and qualifications of the current head of the section; (b) where are the records of the section currently held; (c) is there an index or listing accessible to the public of the records currently held by the section; (d) what policies and procedures exist for the transfer of records from the section to Library and Archives Canada, and what transfers have taken place from January 1, 2000, to present, including transfers of records of security and intelligence in 2016; (e) which records relating to security and intelligence are currently held by the section; (f) where is the historical record Department of External Affairs (DEA) file 50207-40; (g) what research has been conducted by the section, or other sections or individuals in GAC and its predecessor departments, on the LGBT Purge from 1950 to 1990, policies which singled out gay and lesbian potential recruits and employees of the DEA for discriminatory treatment; (h) what records exist in the section about the impact of the policies referred to in (g); (i) what records exist in the section of communication between Canadian posts abroad and headquarters in Ottawa during the period from 1950 to 2000; (j) what records are held by the section with respect to the debate over extension of equal employment benefits to gay and lesbian employees of the department from 1985 to 2000 with same-sex partners; and (k) what records exist in the section about former heads of mission and senior public servants in the DEA, including former Ambassadors John Watkins and David Johnson, and former Assistant Under Secretary of State John Holmes?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) to (k), the historical section is a research unit within Global Affairs Canada, GAC, whose mandate is to increase public understanding of the history of Canadian diplomacy and of GAC. The section has published a three-volume administrative history of the Department of External Affairs, as GAC was previously known, and is responsible for the “Documents on Canadian external relations” series, found at https://gac.canadiana.ca/view/ooe.b1603413E. The section also hosts internal history-related events for departmental staff. The current head of the section was appointed in 2020 through the external selection process 19-EXT-EA-KD-1023312, found at https://emploisfp-psjobs.cfp-psc.gc.ca/psrs-srfp/applicant/page1800?poster=1317318. The classification standard, including a benchmark description of duties, for the head of the historical section, HR-04, can be found on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website at https://acoc-acco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HR-eng.pdf.

There is no complete publicly available listing of records currently held by the historical section, which, it should be noted, is neither a departmental archive, nor the departmental repository for security and intelligence records or for official communications between Canadian posts abroad and headquarters in Ottawa from 1950 to 2000.

Records created by the historical section in fulfilment of its mandate are maintained within the department in accordance with government record-keeping policy, while records of the section that have been identified as having historical or archival value are transferred to Library and Archives Canada, LAC, once they no longer serve an ongoing business need as per sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act.

All records transferred to the LAC are under the care of that institution, subject to any agreements on transfer agreed to between GAC and the LAC. The records specific to security and intelligence that were transferred in 2016 are under the care of the LAC, and the finding aids for this material are available publicly and free of charge from that institution.

Finally, the records held by the department related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, LGBT, purge from the 1950s to the 1990s, including but not limited to references to file 50207-40, references to records about the impact of these discriminatory policies, references to records about the extension of equal employment benefits to gay and lesbian employees, and references to records about senior public servants in the Department of External Affairs in relation to these discriminatory policies, have been captured as part of the department’s response to the Fourth Supplementary Agreement, from phase II of the archival research project, of the LGBT class action litigation. Lists of these records have been provided to the parties, in accordance with the terms set out in the Fourth Supplementary Agreement for selection and eventual public release upon the conclusion of this process.

Question No.2828—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With regard to the contracts and services provided to the Department of Justice (DOJ) from January 1, 2016, to May 31, 2024, by Canadian Development Consultants International Inc. (CDCI) in connection with legal proceedings brought by survivors of the LGBT Purge from 2016 on, including the 2017 class action lawsuit: (a) what are the details of all agreements entered into between CDCI and the DOJ, including (i) the mandate and scope of the research to be conducted, (ii) the terms of reference, (iii) any restrictions on the records to be searched for by security classification, subject, or otherwise; (b) what are the details of all reports submitted by CDCI to the DOJ during their mandate, including the (i) dates, (ii) titles, (iii) subject matter and summary of the content; (c) are these reports available for access by the public, and, if not, on what legal basis is access limited or denied; and (d) what is the legal basis for the claim of solicitor client privilege with respect to ATIP request A-2023-00288, for four reports prepared by CDCI, and why was this not considered pursuant to litigation privilege as opposed to solicitor client privilege?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Development Consultants International Inc., CDCI, provided services to the Department of Justice for the purpose of litigation. The litigation is ongoing, as the terms and deliverables under the settlement of the class action lawsuit have not yet concluded. Therefore, the reports and related details, such as the mandate and scope of the research, the terms of reference and the restrictions on the records to be searched, cannot be disclosed as they are subject to litigation privilege and solicitor-client privilege. In response to access to information request A-2023-00288, the four reports prepared by CDCI were all exempt on the basis of section 23 of the Access to Information Act because of solicitor-client privilege and/or litigation privilege.

Question No.2830—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to locomotive inspections conducted by Transport Canada (TC): how many inspections did TC conduct in British Columbia since 2019 related to locomotive spark arresting devices referenced in Section 15.1 of the Railway Locomotive Inspection and Safety Rules Locomotives Design Requirements (Part II), broken down by the (i) date and location of the inspection, (ii) owner of the locomotives, (iii) number of locomotives inspected, (iv) presence of deficiencies, (v) remedial actions ordered?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada is responsible for regulating the safety of railway operations, pursuant to the Railway Safety Act and part II of the Canada Labour Code.

Under the Railway Safety Act, railway companies are ultimately responsible for maintaining their operations and infrastructure in accordance with the regulatory regime. The department’s role is to monitor federally regulated railway companies for compliance with rules, regulations and standards through oversight activities including audits and inspections.

The railway locomotive inspection and safety rules outline the design and inspection requirements for locomotives operated by companies subject to the Railway Safety Act.

Under the rules, railway companies are responsible for the inspection and repair of all locomotives to ensure safe operation. Transport Canada’s oversight is conducted to ensure company inspections are performed as per the rules and that locomotives placed or continued in service are free from the safety defects prescribed in part III of the rules, including the safety defects pertaining to internal combustion engines outlined in sections 26.1 and 26.2 of these rules as follows:

26.1 The engine and engine room shall be kept free from accumulation of oil, grease, fuel oil, and other combustible material. Pollution control tanks shall be kept free from leakage and/or from overflow.

26.2 Locomotives operated in service during the fire season, shall have exhaust passages on the discharge side of spark arresting devices or turbo-chargers kept free of oil accumulation and carbonaceous deposits in excess of 1/8 inch (3 mm) in thickness.

In the province of British Columbia, Transport Canada inspected 1,072 locomotives from 2019 to 2023. The inspections were conducted in 35 yards, maintenance facilities and stations across the province, covering locomotives from 15 companies, which included CN Rail, BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited, VIA Rail Inc., Southern Railway of British Columbia and White Pass & Yukon Route Railway. The inspections found that 1,018 locomotives were compliant to the internal combustible engine requirements and 54 were found non-compliant to these internal combustible engine requirements.

For all locomotives inspected, Transport Canada provided a report to the company identifying the non-compliant items as applicable. As such, companies were provided 14 days to respond to Transport Canada inspectors with corrective measures. In all cases, satisfactory actions were taken by the company.

Question No.2832—

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

With regard to the Housing Accelerator Fund and the government's response to Order Paper question Q-2531: was there any funding provided to areas in Ontario, such as counties or upper-tier municipalities, that were not included in the response, and, if so, what was the amount of funding provided to each area, broken down by type of housing funded?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the housing accelerator fund and the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2531, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation determined that the entities in question, such as counties or upper-tier municipalities in the areas in Ontario, did not meet the eligibility criteria for the housing accelerator fund program. Eligibility is contingent upon having delegated authority to oversee land use planning and development approvals.

The housing accelerator fund is cutting red tape to fast-track the construction of more than 550,000 new homes over the next decade, and the federal government is finalizing agreements with more than 60 small and rural communities. Combined, these agreements will deliver more than $176 million to fast-track the construction of over 5,300 homes in the next three years and more than 51,000 homes over the next decade for rural Canadians.

Question No.2833—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

With regard to the government's Clean Fuel Regulations and Clean Fuel Standard: what is the projected impact that the regulations and the standard will have on Canada's gross domestic product, broken down by year between now and 2030?

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

Mr. Speaker, information on the GDP, or gross domestic product, impact estimates of the clean fuel regulations for 2030 is included in the regulatory impact analysis statement, published along with the regulations in 2022 at https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-07-06/html/sor-dors140-eng.html.

To evaluate the direct impact of the regulations, as well as the effect of relative price changes on Canadian economic activity and GHG, or greenhouse gas, emissions, a macroeconomic analysis was completed. When these effects are taken into account, it is estimated that the regulations will result in an overall GDP decrease of up to $9.0 billion, or up to 0.3% of total GDP, while reducing up to 26.6 megatonnes of GHG emissions in 2030, using an upper bound scenario where all credits are sold at the marginal cost per credit.

The regulations will work in combination with other federal, provincial and territorial climate change policies to create an incentive for firms to invest in innovative technologies and fuels by setting long-term, predictable and stringent targets. The broad range of compliance strategies allowed under the regulations will also allow fossil fuel suppliers the flexibility to choose the lowest-cost compliance actions available. If the regulations induce more long-term innovation and economies of scale than projected in the estimates presented in this analysis, then the regulations could result in lower costs and greater benefits, particularly over a longer time frame.

The social cost of carbon is a monetary measure of the net global damage from climate change that results from an additional metric ton of CO2 emissions for a given year. Since the publication of the clean fuel regulations in July 2022, the federal government has updated the social cost of carbon estimates, aligned with updates made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Taking this into account, it is expected that the monetized benefits of the regulations will exceed their costs, over the full time frame of analysis, 2022 to 2040.

Question No.2836—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

With regard to the RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada's 2024 Report 7 entitled "Combatting Cybercrime", paragraph 7.23 which states that "We found that the centre did not forward 7 of 26 (27%) of the requests we reviewed from international partners to domestic police agencies to see whether that had evidence relevant to the investigation,": what proportion of the requests which the RCMP did not forward to domestic police agencies were held back for (i) lack of sufficient evidence, (ii) lack of credible evidence, (iii) inadmissible or unlawfully collected evidence, (iv) other reasons, broken down by reason?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, cybercrime investigations are complex and multijurisdictional, especially given that cybercriminals can perpetrate their actions from anywhere in the world. Therefore, it is essential that all relevant parties work together in a coordinated fashion to better protect Canadians.

Recognizing the importance of strengthening Canada’s capacity to counter cybercrime, in 2020, the Government of Canada provided the RCMP with approximately $137.5 million to establish the national cybercrime coordination centre, or NC3, to work with domestic and international law enforcement and other partners to investigate and combat cybercrime.

The RCMP has also invested an additional $78.9 million to increase its federal policing capacity, including establishing specialist cybercrime teams across the country.

The RCMP NC3’s ability to collect, analyze, share and coordinate international requests with domestic police agencies for assistance will improve as the program continues to work towards its full operating capability in 2024-25, including the ongoing implementation of a new case management system, referred to as the national cybercrime solution, to collect, analyze and exchange operational cybercrime data with law enforcement partners domestically and internationally.

The RCMP undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The RCMP is a decentralized organization comprised of over 700 detachments in 150 communities across the country. The RCMP concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted, and this could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No.2838—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Auditor General of Canada's Report 7 entitled "Combatting Cybercrime", paragraph 7.47 which states "a decision was made by the CRTC to delete data on the devices on an accelerated time frame after obtaining the consent of the owner of the devices. The CRTC subsequently contacted the law enforcement agency to inform it that the data on the devices had been deleted and that a warrant was no longer viable. However, we found that the statement made to the law enforcement agency was incorrect, as the data on the devices was deleted at a later date.": (a) what was the rationale for the CRTC to delete data on devices after the law enforcement agency issued a production order to the CRTC in relation to that investigation; (b) on what dates was the data deleted; and (c) on what date did the CRTC contact the device owner to seek permission to delete files?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the CRTC fully complied with the production order and provided law enforcement with exact copies of all of the data that the CRTC extracted from the devices.

The CRTC is not legally permitted to keep devices obtained during an investigation indefinitely, and the device owner’s lawyer requested the return of the devices. Given that the devices contained programs, e.g., malware, and data that could have been used for malicious purposes, these files were removed from the devices prior to their return.

Regarding part (b) of the question, given that the devices contained programs, e.g., malware, and data that could have been used for malicious purposes, these files were removed from the devices prior to their return. The files were removed on April 14, 2022.

With regard to part (c), the CRTC is not legally permitted to keep devices obtained during an investigation indefinitely, and the device owner’s lawyer requested the return of the devices. Given that the devices contained programs, e.g., malware, and data that could have been used for malicious purposes, these files were removed from the devices prior to their return. On April 12, 2022, CRTC staff obtained permission from the device owner to remove the files.

Question No.2843—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

With regard to the government’s commitment to close the infrastructure gap on First Nations reserves by 2030: (a) does the Minister of Indigenous Services agree with the Auditor General of Canada’s findings in the 2024 Reports 2 to 4 to the Parliament of Canada, which said that Indigenous Services Canada is not on track to end the housing infrastructure gap; (b) does the government believe it is on track to meet the mandate assigned to the Minister; and (c) in what year does Indigenous Services Canada believe the infrastructure gap facing First Nations will close?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities welcomed the report of the Auditor General of Canada on housing in first nation communities.

ISC accepted the Office of the Auditor General’s recommendation that it work with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in collaboration with first nations, to develop and implement a strategy to close the housing gap by 2030. In particular, the department committed to engaging with first nations partners on establishing measurable targets and tracking progress, aligned to available funding, as part of the implementation of the co-developed national first nations housing and related infrastructure strategy.

Since 2016, the Government of Canada, through Indigenous Services Canada, has increased targeted funding for housing on reserve by over 1,300%. Between 2016 and March 31, 2024, ISC has invested $2.39 billion in targeted funding to support first nations housing. This is supporting the construction, renovation and retrofit of over 19,000 homes on reserve, of which 9,431 are complete. An additional $1.75 billion in funding, secured in budget 2022, will be invested in first nations housing through 2026-27. While these investments are making an impact, ISC acknowledges that there is more work to do to close the housing gap on reserve. The department continues to work with its partners to support first nations in addressing their self-determined housing priorities and to close the infrastructure gap by 2030.

In support of this objective, budget 2024 announced new indigenous housing and community infrastructure investments of $918 million over five years to accelerate work to narrow housing and infrastructure gaps in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, including $426 million for first nations on reserve. This brings the total of Government of Canada commitments to over $4.5 billion.

In response to part (b) of the question, closing the infrastructure gap on reserve is a whole-of-government commitment that requires co-operation among multiple responsible ministers and federal organizations that invest in first nations infrastructure (e.g., Infrastructure Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation).

While significant investments have been made and initiatives are under way to transfer infrastructure service delivery to first nations communities, the Government of Canada knows there is more work to do. ISC is actively working directly with first nations, first nations organizations and other federal organizations to identify what further measures and investments may be required to close the infrastructure gap by 2030. For example, the Minister of Indigenous Services has hosted two round table discussions to date on economic reconciliation with indigenous leaders, financial sector executives and senior federal government representatives. The infrastructure gap was discussed at both round tables, as were possible solutions; the “What We Heard” reports for the February 2024 and May 2024 discussions are publicly available online.

In response to part (c), the government is committed to its continued work with partners to close the infrastructure gap by 2030. Budget 2024 commitments further demonstrate this commitment.

Question No.2849—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to the $36 billion in planned spending reductions for the Canada Health Transfer announced in 2011: what services were impacted by the spending reduction, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) year, (iii) health field?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in December 2011, the Government of Canada announced that the Canada Health Transfer, or CHT, would continue to grow at six per cent annually from 2014-15 to 2016-17, and, beginning in 2017-18, the CHT would grow in line with a three-year moving average of nominal gross domestic product, or GDP growth, with funding guaranteed to increase by at least three per cent per year.

The December 2011 announcement effectively extended the six per cent CHT escalator for three additional years beyond the legislated time frame set out in the September 2004 10-year Plan to Strengthen Health Care, which was to end in 2013-14. This resulted in the CHT continuing to grow at six per cent annually for 2014-15 to 2016-17, thereby providing provinces and territories with additional CHT growth in those years. Since that time, the CHT has grown at an average annual rate of almost five per cent under its current GDP-based escalator, which provides provinces and territories with ongoing and predictable funding for healthcare. In addition, budget 2017 included a targeted investment of $11 billion in federal funding over 10 years to improve home and community care and mental health and addiction services.

Estimates of hypothetical gains or losses that might have occurred, such as the $36-billion estimate provided by the Council of the Federation, or CoF, in 2012, do not account for these additional investments in the years following.

Looking forward, budget 2024 confirmed the government's commitment under the “Working Together to Improve Health Care for Canadians” funding plan, first announced by the Prime Minister on 7 February 2023, to provide eligible provinces and territories with a five per cent CHT growth guarantee, to be paid through annual top-up payments, for the five-year period 2023-24 to 2027-28. The growth guarantee is currently valued at $15.3 billion over the 10-year duration of the “Working Together” plan, which ends in 2032-33.

Historical data from 1980 to 2024 for the CHT and other major federal transfers, broken down by province and territory and by year, can be found at the following link: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/4eee1558-45b7-4484-9336-e692897d393f/resource/b7d86b5e-0615-4601-bb36-559953e374ef

Question No.2851—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

With regard to real estate sector investments made by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSPIB), since fiscal year 2015-16: (a) what is the total value of assets held in (i) residential, (ii) retirement, real estate; (b) in what ways does the PSPIB prioritize worker, community and societal health and well-being when considering its investments in residential and retirement real estate; and (c) does the PSPIB consider renovictions or repositioning in its assessments of investments in residential or retirement real estate?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, as a non-agent crown corporation, the public sector pension investment board, or PSPIB, upholds an autonomous, arm’s-length operating mandate. PSPIB is subject to disclosure requirements as set out in the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act and the Access to Information Act and reports to the President of the Treasury Board. Information concerning the activities of PSPIB is presented in the annual report tabled in Parliament by the President of the Treasury Board.

The PSPIB’s “2024 Annual Report” is available at the following link: https://www.investpsp.com/media/filer_public/03-our-performance/annual-report-2024/pdf/PSP-2024-annual-report-en.pdf

Question No.2853—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to the decision to alter the remote work policy for federal employees to require them to appear three days in-office: (a) what are (i) the names of all individuals involved in the decision making process, (ii) the criteria used to justify the change, (iii) the needs assessments and office capacity assessments conducted, (iv) productivity indicators used to make the decision; and (b) how do these productivity indicators compare to those in the departmental plans?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of the question, the “Direction on prescribed presence in the workplace”, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/staffing/direction-prescribed-presence-workplace.html and as introduced in December 2022 and fully implemented since March 31, 2023, required employees who are eligible for a hybrid work arrangement to work onsite a minimum of two to three days per week, as determined by the deputy head of each department. The updated direction of May 1, 2024, now confirms a minimum requirement of three days per week as of September 9, 2024.

This decision was taken by the then secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Catherine Blewett, and the chief human resources officer, Jacqueline Bogden, following close consultations with and the endorsement of deputy ministers from across departments and agencies.

The direction was updated to maximize the benefits of presence in the workplace. These include in-person connections, collaboration within and among teams, enhanced opportunities for peer learning, and effective onboarding of new talent. Human connections, strengthened through in-person presence, contribute to a strong culture of performance and service to Canadians in alignment with the values and ethics of the public service. The direction was also updated to bring greater fairness and consistency to how hybrid work is implemented, so that the experience of working in the public service or receiving services is the same across the government and across the country. This approach is consistent with many provincial and territorial governments and private sector organizations.

In response to part (a)(iii), TBS consulted broadly on the updated direction, notably with Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, to ensure that the adjustment to onsite work requirements aligned with the government’s commitment to reduce its office footprint by 50%. Departments and agencies continue to work with PSPC to ensure that workplaces can accommodate the common hybrid work model, namely by implementing unassigned workspaces.

In response to part (a)(iv) and part (b), the performance of individual employees is measured and managed annually at the departmental level, based on pre-established work objectives and competencies, through performance management processes. Individual performance targets are typically different from and not directly comparable to measures presented in departmental plans, which examine performance at a broader program or activity level.

Question No.2854—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to the decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) that “recreational fishing for Chinook salmon will be closed on the Skeena River watershed and all rivers and lakes in Region 6 flowing into PFMAs 3 to 6, not including the Kitimat River and Nass River watersheds,”: (a) how does this decision relate to the DFO’s allocation policy; (b) on what empirical data was this decision based; (c) given previous seasons since 2018 have also seen similar closures, what evidence does the DFO have regarding the efficacy of this measure; (d) given the DFO forecasts a 2024 Skeena Chinook return of 28,000 fish, which is lower than last year’s return and far below the historic average, how is the DFO improving management to ensure both conservation and recreational opportunities in future seasons; (e) what does the DFO estimate the impact of the Alaskan commercial fishery’s interception of Skeena-bound Chinook salmon will be in 2024; and (f) what conservation measures are being imposed on other fisheries that catch Skeena Chinook?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, that “recreational fishing for Chinook salmon will be closed on the Skeena River watershed and all rivers and lakes in Region 6 flowing into PFMAs 3 to 6, not including the Kitimat River and Nass River watersheds”, (a) DFO relies on “An Allocation Policy for Pacific Salmon (1999)” as the guiding framework to determine allocations among harvest groups for anadromous Pacific salmon in British Columbia and Yukon. As per the policy, directed recreational fisheries for Chinook may be permitted when abundance is sufficient to meet conservation objectives and subject to the priority for first nations food, social and ceremonial fisheries. As with many northern British Columbia and southeast Alaska Chinook salmon stocks, the population of Skeena River Chinook salmon has experienced a prolonged decline in abundance over the last two decades. The number of adult fish returning to the watershed to spawn in the past six seasons has been particularly low. In support of conservation and first nations allocation priorities, the department has implemented restrictions and/or prohibited retention of Skeena River Chinook salmon in recreational and commercial fisheries during this period.

In response to (b), DFO develops and implements management measures for Pacific salmon on the basis of pre-season forecasts and, where available, in-season information on abundance. Due to changes in large-scale environmental conditions, the variability between pre-season and in-season estimates of abundance has increased. For Skeena River Chinook salmon, pre-season forecasts of expected abundance are developed utilizing information on prior year parent spawning abundance and the relationship between adult spawners and returning adults four and five years later. When the estimated pre-season abundance indicates that the number of Chinook salmon may not be sufficient to achieve conservation or first nations food, social and ceremonial allocations, restrictions are implemented to reduce or avoid interception in lower-priority recreational and commercial fisheries.

In response to (c), declining and variable rates of survival observed between the egg to adult life stage of Chinook salmon in northern British Columbia over the past two decades, referred to as the spawner recruit relationship, indicate that fewer Chinook salmon are surviving to adulthood than in the past. During periods of declining recruitment, ensuring that sufficient numbers of Chinook salmon are allowed to reach their spawning grounds is a primary fishery management objective intended to support future production. Prohibiting retention of Chinook salmon in recreational and commercial fisheries allows fish that would otherwise have been captured to pass to spawning areas or provide opportunities for first nation food, social and ceremonial fishery harvest. Restriction of fisheries and/or prohibition of retention of Chinook salmon is the primary means of protecting Chinook salmon that have reached maturity and are migrating to spawning areas.

With respect to part (d), over the past six seasons, in response to the two-decades long decline of Chinook salmon in the Skeena River watershed, DFO has implemented a precautionary approach to the administration of fishery opportunities directed at Skeena River Chinook salmon. In accordance with “An Allocation Policy for Pacific Salmon (1999)”, opportunities for recreational fishery harvest of Chinook salmon are permitted if conservation needs and first nations food, social and ceremonial fishery allocations are likely to be met. During periods of poor Chinook salmon production and/or survival, the opportunity to harvest Chinook salmon in recreational fisheries will be reduced to achieve these priorities.

In response to part (e), management of the U.S. southeast Alaskan commercial fishery harvest of Skeena River Chinook salmon is administered through the Pacific Salmon Treaty, or PST, chapter 3. The treaty establishes conservation objectives and harvest parameters for both Canadian and U.S. fisheries on the basis of aggregate abundance indices for mixed stock fisheries and indicator stocks. U.S. commercial fisheries do not specifically target Skeena River Chinook salmon; rather, fish are intercepted in mixed-stock fisheries targeting southeast Alaska, southern U.S. and British Columbia Chinook salmon stocks. Declining abundance of Chinook salmon in northern British Columbia and southeast Alaska has resulted in lower total allowable harvests permitted in these fisheries under PST harvest provisions. In other words, as abundance declines, more restrictive, precautionary measures have been implemented in both U.S. and Canadian fisheries for Chinook salmon administered pursuant to the PST. The total annual harvest of Chinook salmon in southeast Alaskan commercial fisheries has declined by about 50% in the past two decades. The majority of Chinook salmon captured in southeast Alaskan commercial fisheries originate in the southern U.S. Columbia River, non-Skeena River British Columbia and southeast Alaska Chinook salmon stocks. Of the total annual southeast Alaska aggregate abundance-based management, or AABM, fishery Chinook salmon harvest, approximately 1.7-3.0% is estimated to be comprised of Northern B.C.- Chinook salmon. Of the total annual mortalities of Skeena Chinook, harvest in AABM southeast Alaska fisheries accounts for approximately 15% of total Skeena Chinook mortalities.

In response to part (f), for 2024, the following measures are being implemented to reduce impacts to Skeena River Chinook: The Skeena River in-river recreational fishery is closed to the retention of Chinook salmon, and for the marine area and approach waters adjacent to the Skeena River, a series of recreational harvesting restrictions are being implemented to reflect the fact that any Chinook salmon present are of mixed-stock origins, with tighter restrictions being implemented around the historical peak timing of Skeena Chinook salmon migration. That is, from June 14-22, 2024, the retention limits for Chinook salmon were reduced from two per day to one per day; from June 23 to July 17, 2024, no retention of Chinook salmon was permitted; from July 18 to August 10, 2024, retention was limited to one Chinook salmon per day; and from August 11, 2024 to March 31, 2025, retention is limited to two Chinook salmon per day. Further, there are no targeted commercial fishing opportunities for Skeena Chinook salmon; retention of Chinook salmon in any commercial gillnet or seine fisheries as bycatch is not permitted; and the area F commercial troll fishery start date is delayed to mid-August and will occur after Skeena Chinook have historically transited the fishing area.

Question No.2859—

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

With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what are the available funding streams that (i) support Indigenous veterans’ mental health, (ii) support Indigenous Veterans in finding employment after service; (b) of the funding streams in (a), what is the total amount of funding that remained unspent, uncommitted, or undelivered; and (c) what criteria or justifications were used to evaluate and reject the Burns Way Program which has been established to improve mental health services for Indigenous, non-Indigenous and minority veterans and their family members?