Debates of May 3rd, 2017

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 11 petitions.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act (maternity benefits).

I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands and his staff, especially Steven Patterson, for all their hard work on this bill. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

Conveyance Presentation and Reporting Requirements Modernization Act

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill, seconded by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, into the House of Commons.

Bill S-233 proposes to enact amendments to the Customs Act that will exempt certain persons from presenting themselves to a customs officer if they are merely transiting through Canadian waters with no intention to stop. It has been passed by the Senate, and I hope members of the House will agree to pass the bill through this House to remove a major irritant along the border between Canada and the United States.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time)

Journlaistic sources Protection Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-231, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code (protection of journalistic sources).

Mr. Speaker, with the support of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I am very pleased and proud to introduce this bill today, which happens to be World Press Freedom Day.

Our Senate colleagues passed this bill unanimously. It is a remarkable piece of legislation introduced by Senator Claude Carignan. When he found out about unacceptable situations happening in Quebec and elsewhere, he decided to take the bull by the horns and introduce a bill. Our Senate colleagues did some very thorough parliamentary work, and every member of the upper house voted in favour of the bill.

As a former journalist, like the members for Thornhill, Foothills, and Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I can say that today is a historic day. Let us hope that this House will pass the bill unanimously, as the upper house did.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time)

Business of the House

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion among the parties and I believe you will find consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House proceeds to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions scheduled to take place immediately before the time provided for private members' business today, the first vote to be taken up be the motion on the question of privilege (denial of access of members to the parliamentary precinct raised on March 22, 2017).

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

(Motion agreed to)

Animal Welfare

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from residents in and around Calgary.

The petitioners ask that the government direct funding toward the protection of animals during disasters. They note that in many impoverished parts of the world animals are a source of milk, food, and asset wealth. Their survival increases the chances of a successful and speedy recovery.

Algoma Passenger Rail Service

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise one more time on petitions to the Minister of Transport regarding the Algoma passenger train.

The petitioners remind the government that for over 100 years the Algoma passenger train offered safe, affordable, all-season access to the Algoma wilderness, while supporting a strong tourism economy along its route.

The $2.2 million subsidy that they were getting was netting them over $48 million a year in economic return. It is an extremely difficult time for these communities. They ask that the Minister of Transport to put the Algoma passenger train back in service to ensure its mission to serve the public interest through promotion of a safe and secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible transportation system in Canada.

Taxation

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling this petition with 29 signatures.

The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the recent changes by the CRA to categorize private campgrounds and independent storage facilities as specified investment businesses instead of active businesses. This change means these businesses are facing a crippling tax hike.

The petitioners also remind the government that running these businesses is not passive. It means earning money similar to investments, and suggesting this is an insult to the owners and employees who put in many hours of hard work. They also draw to the attention of the government that many of these businesses are family owned, that it requires dedication every day to operate them, and that it is an active business.

Organ Donation

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of my colleague from Calgary Confederation's private member's bill, Bill C-316, which was submitted by Tara Winthers-Norris of Calgary.

Petitioners from Calgary and Airdrie are calling on the House to improve the organ donation system in Canada. This would be achieved by making the process to register as an organ donor easier by adding a simple question to our tax returns.

Becoming an organ donor is the easiest way to save the life of a fellow human being. These are signatures of Canadians who want to see our organ donor system work better so we can save more lives every day.

Species at Risk

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the residents of British Columbia, who point out that mountain caribou are designated as an endangered species under the Species at Risk Act, that the provincial crown lands adjacent to Wells Gray Provincial Park in the Clearwater Valley have been designated as critical habitat for that species, and that British Columbia is continuing to allow this critical habitat to be logged. The citizens are asking Parliament for a protection order under the Species at Risk Act to halt the destruction of this habitat.

Justice

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today on behalf of the family of the late Thomas Running Rabbit, members of the Siksika Nation, and communities surrounding Siksika, Alberta. The petition has to do with the Canadian family members of Thomas Running Rabbit, who was viciously murdered by Ronald Allen Smith, who is on death row in the State of Montana. They wish him to stay in Montana and serve his sentence.

Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by campers who stayed at the Sid Turcotte Park in Mattawa, Ontario, located on the scenic Mattawa River in the riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming. The petitioners call on Parliament to ensure that campgrounds with fewer than five full-time, year-round employees be recognized and taxed as small businesses.

Labelling of Food

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today.

The first petition has over 200 signatures from residents of Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta asking for Parliament to take action to ensure the labelling of those products that contain genetically modified organisms. They ask Parliament to adopt legislation, so that citizens and consumers will be able to make an informed choice about the products they buy.

Cruelty to Animals

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the ongoing concerns before Parliament of issues of animal cruelty. Petitioners call on Parliament to recognize animals as being more than property, capable of feeling pain, and moving animal cruelty crimes from the property section of the Criminal Code to sections that actually recognize that this is a threat that can escalate to be a threat to human life as well.

The Environment

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the voice of coastal communities, Nanaimo, Ladysmith, and Nanoose Bay, calling again on the government to act on the long-standing problem of abandoned vessels.

The petitioners urge this Parliament to end the runaround to make the Coast Guard responsible for directing the removal of abandoned vessels, to fix vessel registration, to build a coast-wide strategy in co-operation with local communities, to act before vessels become an oil spill risk, and to create good, green jobs by working with local marine salvage companies.

This is based on decades of resolutions from the Union of BC Municipalities, and, based on Sunday's announcement, is consistent with the platform of the British Columbia New Democratic Party which is ready to work in co-operation with this Parliament if this issue is addressed.

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. 919 to 921.

Question No. 919

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

With regard to the Canada Development Investment Corporation: (a) how many competitors participated in the procurement process that resulted in the selection of Morgan Stanley Canada to provide financial advice to the government related to the recommendations from the report of the Honourable David Emerson concerning ports; (b) who were the competitors that participated in the competitive procurement process; (c) based on what criteria was Morgan Stanley Canada selected; (d) what is the specific mandate of Morgan Stanley Canada, including the exact instructions and exact tasks given to Morgan Stanley Canada; (e) has the study commissioned from Morgan Stanley Canada been completed; (f) if the answer in (e) is in the affirmative, when was the study commissioned from Morgan Stanley Canada completed; (g) is the Morgan Stanley Canada study available; (h) what are the findings of the study commissioned from Morgan Stanley Canada; (i) what is the Department of Finance’s response to each of the recommendations mentioned in (g); and (j) what is the cost of the study commissioned from Morgan Stanley Canada?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), five firms submitted proposals.

With regard to (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and as a result, the competitors that participated in the procurement process have been withheld on the following grounds: competitive position of a government institution and material financial loss or gain to, and prejudice of the competitive position of, a third party.

With regard to (c), Morgan Stanley Canada was selected by the Canada Development Investment Corporation, CDEV, on the basis of the following considerations: firm experience and resources committed, methodology and deliverables, work plan and scheduling, and fee schedule and financial proposal.

With regard to (d), Morgan Stanley Canada’s scope of work from CDEV included analysis on the following areas: review and assessment of port models in Canada and worldwide, applicability of models to Canada, market analysis, valuation, and structuring considerations.

With regard to (e), the answer is yes.

With regard to (f), Morgan Stanley Canada delivered a draft report on December 12, 2016. Revisions to the report were delivered on February 28, 2017, and March 20, 2017. Supplementary analysis was delivered on March 29, 2017.

With regard to (g), the report is not available publicly.

With regard to (h) and (i), In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and information pertaining to the findings of the Morgan Stanley Canada study has been withheld on the following grounds: competitive position of a government institution; economic interests; financial, commercial, or technical information of a third party; material financial loss or gain to, and prejudice of the competitive position of, a third party; and potential interference with contracts or other negotiations of a third party.

With regard to (j), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and information pertaining to the cost of the Morgan Stanley Canada engagement has been withheld on the following grounds: competitive position of a government institution; and material financial loss or gain to, and prejudice of the competitive position of, a third party.

Question No. 920

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

With regard to the Canada Development Investment Corporation: (a) how many bidders participated in the competitive procurement process leading to the selection of Credit Suisse Canada to provide financial advice to the government on the recommendations concerning airports in the report by the Honourable David Emerson; (b) who were the other bidders in the competitive procurement process; (c) on the basis of which criteria was Credit Suisse Canada selected; (d) what specific mandate, directives and tasks have been given to Credit Suisse Canada; (e) has Credit Suisse Canada completed its study; (f) when did Credit Suisse Canada complete its study; (g) is the study by Credit Suisse Canada available; (h) what are the recommendations of Credit Suisse Canada; (i) what was the response of the Department of Finance to each of the recommendations stated in (h); and (j) what is the cost of the study carried out by Credit Suisse Canada?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), eight firms participated and six proposals were received, including two joint proposals.

With regard to (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and, as a result, the bidders that participated in the procurement process have been withheld on the following grounds: competitive position of a government institution; and material financial loss or gain to, and prejudice to the competitive position of, a third party.

With regard to (c), Credit Suisse Canada was selected by CDEV on the basis of the following considerations: firm experience and resources committed, methodology and deliverables, work plan and scheduling, and fee schedule and financial proposal.

With regard to (d), Credit Suisse Canada’s scope of work from CDEV included analysis on the following areas: review and assessment of airport models in Canada and worldwide, applicability of models to Canada, market analysis, valuation, and structuring considerations.

With regard to (e), the answer is yes.

With regard to (f), the Credit Suisse Canada study had no official completion date; however, the Credit Suisse Canada contract ended on January 31, 2017.

With regard to (g), the report is not available publicly.

With regard to (h), Credit Suisse Canada did not provide recommendations to the Government of Canada.

With regard to (i), as no recommendations were provided by Credit Suisse Canada, this question is not applicable.

With regard to (j), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and, as a result, information pertaining to the cost of the Credit Suisse Canada engagement has been withheld on the following grounds: competitive position of a government institution; and material financial loss or gain to, and prejudice to the competitive position of, a third party.