Debates of Nov. 9th, 2017

Election Laws

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask your indulgence because I also have three petitions to present.

The first petition is from citizens of Ontario. It is an electronic petition. It was signed by 703,086 Canadians from across the country. They state that there is currently no election law at the federal level that allows elected politicians to be removed from Parliament, so the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons and Parliament as a whole to pass a bill that allows for recall referendums.

Falun Gong

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with a Falun Gong practitioner who is imprisoned in China. She is a Canadian citizen. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to condemn this individual's arrest in China and to call for her immediate and unconditional release. She is a Canadian citizen and deserves to be properly represented by our government abroad.

Taxation

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition was signed by hundreds of people from Sherbrooke this summer and concerns the fight against tax havens.

It calls on the government to acknowledge this increasingly pervasive and significant phenomenon. It asks the government above all to take steps to actively fight tax evasion and to put an end to amnesty deals such as the one in the KPMG affair.

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. 1189, 1191, 1193, 1197, and 1208.

Question No. 1189

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to government contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of each contribution to the program, including the (i) date, (ii) amount; and (b) what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that contributions are not being used for radicalization or by Hamas?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), since January 1, 2016, there have been four payments from the Government of Canada to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA. The first is providing basic education, health and social services to Palestinian refugees 2016. The funding instrument was signed on November 1, 2016 in the amount of $20 million Canadian. The second is Syria crisis – emergency assistance to Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon 2016. The funding instrument was signed on November 10, 2016 in the amount of $5 million Canadian. The third is providing basic education, health and social services to Palestinian refugees 2017. The funding instrument was signed on August 23, 2017 in the amount of $20 million Canadian. The fourth is Syria crisis – emergency assistance for Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon 2017. The funding instrument was signed on September 18, 2017 in the amount of $5 million Canadian.

With regard to part (b), the Government of Canada does not tolerate any misuse or diversion of assistance to support terrorism. Accountability and safeguards are central to the management of Canada's development and humanitarian assistance in the West Bank and Gaza.

Canada exercises enhanced due diligence for all international assistance funding for Palestinians, including funding for UNRWA. This includes strong anti-terrorism provisions in funding agreements, ongoing oversight, regular site visits, and a systematic screening process. All programming and funding mechanisms are thoroughly examined to be consistent with Canadian values and to meet the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, Global Affairs Canada officials based across the region play a key role in ensuring ongoing oversight on programming. On a near-daily basis, Canadian representatives are in contact with UNRWA in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza to ensure that UNRWA is addressing issues of concern for Canadians. Regular visits are conducted to UNRWA schools, health centres, and other facilities to ensure that they are used only for their intended purposes.

In addition to the enhanced due diligence processes, Canada and UNRWA have agreed to a framework for co-operation that outlines shared commitments and Canada's expectations regarding the implementation of UNRWA's reform initiatives, regular monitoring and reporting, and compliance with Canadian anti-terrorism requirements.

Canada also supports UNRWA in its ongoing efforts to improve neutrality within the agency and its operations. Canadian funding will allow UNRWA to engage a neutrality coordinator to monitor activities related to neutrality, lead the development of neutrality initiatives, respond to allegations of neutrality violations, and uphold UNRWA’s neutrality. This assistance builds on Canadian funding in 2016 to 2017 that provided social media neutrality training to more than 3,000 UNRWA staff with managerial and supervisory responsibilities.

As an engaged member of UNRWA’s advisory commission, Canada works with UNRWA and other donors to advance ongoing reforms related to governance, effectiveness, monitoring, and financial administration. Canada’s active participation on UNRWA’s advisory commission provides an opportunity for oversight, influence, and engagement on key issues.

UNRWA receives widespread support from the international community and Canada’s like-minded friends and allies, including significant funding from the United States and all other G7 countries. Canada works together with UNRWA and other donors to ensure that assistance goes towards its intended purpose.

Question No. 1191

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

With regard to the Minister of Finance's promise of September 18, 2017, to return the phone calls of Canadians wishing to discuss the government’s consultation paper titled “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations”: (a) how many people have requested callbacks; (b) how many calls has the Minister returned; (c) how many calls does the Minister anticipate returning by the consultation closing date of October 2, 2017; (d) how many calls does the Minister anticipate returning by December 31, 2017; (e) for all requests made in (a), how is the Minister being informed of the requests; (f) for each person in (a), what is their (i) title, (ii) field of work, (iii) province; (g) for each person in (b), what is their (i) title, (ii) field of work, (iii) province; (h) how many government officials from the Department of Finance have been assigned to receive requests for callbacks from the Minister, and what is their position or title; (i) how many Ministerial exempt, or other political staff have been assigned to receive requests for callbacks from the Minister, and what is their position or title; (j) has the Department of Finance requested additional resources to handle requests for callbacks and, if so, what is the cost of these resources; and (k) what is the itemized breakdown of any costs referred to in (j)?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in July 2017, the government released a consultation paper with proposals to address tax planning strategies using private corporations. Over the course of the consultation, many Canadians indicated their support for these proposals, but also raised significant concerns and areas where improvements were required. Over 21,000 written submissions were received by the Department of Finance Canada.

Canadians were engaged through town halls and round tables from coast to coast to coast. Ministers and members of Parliament heard and carefully considered the views and perspectives of small business owners, farmers, fishers, professionals, and experts. The government is committed to addressing unintended consequences. Its focus is on strengthening middle-class small businesses, while targeting unfair advantages that largely benefit the wealthiest of Canadians.

Officials in the department, notably in tax policy branch, have been engaging with stakeholders in developing the proposals. The department does not track phone calls placed to the minister. No request for additional resources has been made.

Question No. 1193

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

With regard to the Atlantic Fisheries Fund, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions made from the fund, including for each the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) project description, (iv) type of contribution (repayable grant, loan, etc.), (v) location of recipient, including municipality and province; (b) what is the total amount which has been paid out from the fund, broken down by province; and (c) for all grants and contributions from the fund which were paid out to a recipient outside of Atlantic Canada, what is the rationale for how that recipient qualified for the Atlantic Fisheries Fund?

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

Mr. Speaker, no grants or contributions were made from the Atlantic fisheries fund between November 4, 2015 and September 26, 2017.

Question No. 1197

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

With regard to Section 810.1 and 810.2 Orders under the Criminal Code of Canada: (a) how many Section 810.1 Orders were requested in each of 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (b) how many Section 810.2 Orders were requested in each of 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (c) how many Section 810.1 Orders were granted in each of 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (d) how many Section 810.2 Orders were granted in each of 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (e) what number and percentage of all individuals convicted of sexual assault and due to be released from their sentence for sexual assault were placed on one or both of Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders during 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (f) what number and percentage of individuals subject to one or both of Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders were charged with breaches of these Orders in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (g) what number and percentage of individuals subject to one or both of Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders were convicted of breaches of those Orders in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (h) for individuals convicted of breaches of one or both Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders, how much was the average, maximum, and minimum jail time extension past the original sentence release date, considering all breaches of Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (i) what number of individuals on one or both Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders reoffended substantively (meaning an offence in the category targeted by the Order, i.e. a sexual offence or serious personal injury offence) in the duration of the Order in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; (j) what number of individuals on one or both Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders were subsequently placed on Dangerous Offender or Long Term Offender Orders in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario; and (k) what number of individuals previously subject to one or both of Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders were subsequently placed on another one or both of Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Orders in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, federal departments, including Justice Canada, and agencies do not track section 810.1 and 810.2 orders requested.

Question No. 1208

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

What protections have been put into place by the government to ensure foreign steel dumping does not occur in Canada?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian producers harmed by unfairly traded, i.e., dumped or subsidized, imports may seek to have anti-dumping and countervailing duties applied to offset the injury caused by these imports. In accordance with the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, duties can only be imposed following independent, impartial, and transparent investigations conducted by the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which determine whether imports were dumped or subsidized, and whether such imports injured Canadian producers.

The steel industry regularly uses Canada’s trade remedy system to address dumped and subsidized imports. As of October 2017, Canada has 69 trade remedy measures in force that apply to 15 different steel products originating from 23 countries. The largest proportion of these measures concern imports from China. In all of the measures on primary steel from China, anti-dumping margins were calculated on a non market economy basis, to account for price distortions in that sector.

The government is committed to ensuring that Canadian producers injured by unfair trade have adequate remedies under domestic law, while ensuring consistency with Canada’s international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization, WTO. Since budget 2016, the government has taken steps to modernize and strengthen Canada’s trade remedy system to provide Canadian producers with a more rigorous response to unfair trade and better align Canada’s trade remedy system with those of our major trading partners.

In budget 2016, the government amended SIMA to extend the duration of anti-dumping and countervailing duties by up to eight months before being reviewed and to allow trade remedy investigations to continue to their final phase even if the margins of dumping found at the preliminary stage are insignificant. The government also committed to undertake public consultations on further measures to improve and enhance Canada’s trade remedy system.

In budget 2016, the government amended SIMA to extend the duration of anti-dumping and countervailing duties by up to eight months before being reviewed and to allow trade remedy investigations to continue to their final phase even if the margins of dumping found at the preliminary stage are insignificant. The government also committed to undertake public consultations on further measures to improve and enhance Canada’s trade remedy system.

These measures include creating a new anti-circumvention proceeding that would allow the CBSA to investigate allegations that anti-dumping and countervailing duties are being circumvented and, where warranted, to extend duties to address the circumvention.

The measures include creating a new scope proceeding that would establish a transparent process to allow interested parties, including domestic producers, to request a binding and appealable ruling as to whether a particular product is subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

The measures include providing the CBSA with new tools to use alternative methodologies for calculating margins of dumping where price distortions in the country of export render those prices unreliable.

The measures include providing unions the right to participate in trade remedy investigations.

The legislative amendments to SIMA required to implement these measures received royal assent on June 22, 2017, as part of Bill-44, Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No.1. The government is working expeditiously on the regulatory amendments that are required to operationalize these new tools. Moving forward, the government will continue to work closely with Canadian industry in responding to the challenges of unfair trade.

The challenges of steel dumping and the underlying issue of global steel excess capacity are addressed in the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, CIIT, report entitled “The Canadian Steel Industry’s Ability to Compete Internationally”, which was tabled on June 15, 2017. The CIIT report contains a number of recommendations to improve Canada’s trade remedy system and address the underlying problem of global steel excess capacity. The government tabled a detailed response to the CIIT report on October 17, 2017.

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 responses to Questions Nos. 1188, 1190, 1194, and 1199, as well as starred Question No. 1224, could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1188

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

With regard to funding applications from dairy producers submitted to the Dairy Farm Investment Program (DFIP) during the first application window, which ended August 29, 2017: (a) what is the total number of applications received from producers, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (b) how many applications for large investment projects have been received, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (c) how many applications for small investment projects were received, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) applications approved per province and territory, (iii) applications rejected per province and territory, (iv) applications put on a waiting list per province and territory; (d) how much of the total $250 million in DFIP funding has been allocated, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project, (iii) province and territory; (e) what is the total value of funding applications that were rejected, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project, (iii) province and territory; and (f) how much of the total amount has already been allocated to Quebec producers, broken down by (i) large investment project, (ii) small investment project?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1190

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to the protection of Canadian journalists working abroad: (a) has the Canadian government raised any concerns with the Chinese government regarding freedom of the press in China following the detention of Globe and Mail journalist Nathan VanderKlippe; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including (i) the date, (ii) who raised the concerns, (iii) with whom, within the Chinese government, were the concerns raised; and (c) what response, if any, has been received by the Canadian government in response to any concerns raised?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1194

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

With regard to correspondence received by the Minister of Finance from Liberal Members of Parliament in relation to the proposed tax changes which were announced on July 18, 2017: what are the details of all such correspondence, including for each piece the (i) date, (ii) Member’s riding, (iii) title, (iv) date response was sent by the Minister of Finance, if applicable, (v) file numbers?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1199

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

With regard to the legal settlement paid to Omar Khadr: (a) on which date was the settlement between the parties signed; (b) what was the date of the settlement’s payment; (c) what is the average processing time between the settlement and the payment regarding out-of-court settlements paid by the government; (d) were there any orders given to expedite the payment to Omar Khadr; and (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, who gave the order

(Return tabled)