Debates of April 29th, 2019

Human Organ Trafficking

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to table a petition in support of Bill S-240. This bill will be up for debate tomorrow, and I hope it is passed quickly.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to table a petition. This petition is calling for the quick and fast passing of Bill S-240, which will be up for debate tomorrow. I look forward to supporting it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which would amend the Criminal Code as well as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad for the purpose of forced organ harvesting.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition today in support of Bill S-240 bearing signatures from Canadians from across this country, including in my riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. This bill would combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting. It is the hope of the petitioners that the bill that is up for debate tomorrow will be passed quickly.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling two petitions today, signed by people from Ontario and Quebec, in support of Bill S-240, which would combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting. The petitioners are hoping that this bill will be passed expeditiously.

Agriculture

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition calling on Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to freely save, reuse, select, exchange, condition, store and sell seeds.

In addition, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to refrain from making any regulations under the Plant Breeders' Rights Act that would further erode farmers' rights and add to farmers' costs by restricting or eliminating farmers' privilege.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am tabling a petition in support of Bill S-240. This bill will be up for debate tomorrow, and I hope it will pass quickly.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on a chronic problem within Saanich—Gulf Islands. Many of the petitioners reside within Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The problem to which I refer is the use of the waters of the Salish Sea as a free parking lot for freighters that back up container ships that back up from the Port of Vancouver.

The petitioners call on the government to suspend the use of these outside-of-port anchorages in the area targeted by an interim protocol put in place by the Minister of Transport until it has come to a final conclusion and that the government require the development of a comprehensive plan to deal with the congestion at the Port of Vancouver and the subsequent backup that is quite destructive to the floor of our ocean and to the quality of life for residents of our areas.

Employment Insurance

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by dozens of people primarily from eastern Quebec. The petitioners are calling for universal access to employment insurance.

The petition mentions that only 35% of unemployed women have access to EI benefits compared to 52% of men. The petition also calls on the government to lower the eligibility threshold to 350 hours or 13 weeks, establish a minimum threshold of 35 weeks of benefits and increase the benefit rate to 70% of salary based on the best 12 weeks of salary, among other things.

I am pleased to present this petition.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of Bill S-240, which we will be debating tomorrow.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of Bill S-240, which will help fight the scourge of forced organ harvesting.

We will be debating this legislation tomorrow, and I hope it passes quickly.

Rail Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, keenly aware that the 42nd Parliament is coming to an end, the people of Trois-Rivières still want to make their voices heard as they call on the government to announce a high-frequency rail project that would contribute to regional economic development, help reduce greenhouse gases and make it much easier to travel between cities.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of constituents, including a family on Rockwood Crescent in my constituency of Thornhill, to table a petition.

The petitioners support Bill S-240, the organ harvesting bill, which seeks to impede trafficking in human organs obtained without consent or as the result of financial transactions.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition in support of Bill S-240, which will help fight against forced organ harvesting. This bill will be debated tomorrow and I hope it will be passed quickly.

Palliative Care

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions to the House of Commons about establishing a national strategy on palliative care.

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. 2281, 2282, 2285, 2304 and 2307 to 2309.

Question No. 2281

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

With regard to the government’s decision to change Status of Women Canada to the Department for Women and Gender Equality on December 13, 2018: (a) did the Minister responsible for the department receive a new mandate letter which indicates the new responsibilities and, if so, when was the letter (i) sent to the Minister, (ii) made available to the public; and (b) what are the details, including total of all costs associated with changing the name of the department?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Minister for Women and Gender Equality did not receive a new mandate letter.

In response to (b), regarding the costs associated with changing the name of the department, business card rebranding cost $692.78 and an update to the department’s web encryption certificate cost $3,558.

Question No. 2282

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

With regard to the new animal transport regulations announced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): (a) why did the CFIA not wait until the research funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada into the issue was finalized prior to releasing the new regulations; (b) what is the CFIA’s reaction to the concerns by industry associations that the new regulations will likely increase stress to cattle and opportunity for injury; and (c) has either Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or the CFIA done any analysis or studies on the impact of these changes to the various livestock or transportation industries and, if so, what are the details, including results?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, recognizes the work and research pertaining to animal welfare that the beef industry has been doing and continues to do. Important research regarding animal welfare during transport is routinely under way on many fronts, both domestically and internationally. The duration of research projects is often measured in years, and outcomes are not predetermined. Such is the case with the cattle industry study funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, which is not scheduled to conclude until 2022. The amendments to the health of animals regulations have been in progress for over 10 years. They were published in the Canada Gazette, part I, in 2016, with a clear forward regulatory plan of final publication in fall 2018-winter 2019. We received an unprecedented number of comments during the public comment period: over 51,000 comments from 11,000 respondents. These comments were taken into account, along with the latest research on animal transportation and international standards. Over 400 scientific articles were examined to help develop clear and science-informed requirements that better reflect the needs of animals and improve overall animal welfare in Canada. These are balanced regulations that, given the existing infrastructure, industry trends and evolving consumer demands, are expected to work for stakeholders while protecting the well-being of animals. It is recognized that any new research will need to be considered and could inform future revisions to the regulations.

In response to (b), the maximum intervals without feed, water and rest for the different species were based on available science, international standards, consumer expectations, and industry logistics.

The CFIA consulted experts in the animal transportation field from industry and academia. Relevant scientific articles were also examined to ensure that the most current research available on the subject of animal transportation and its effects on animals was used to draft the amendments. The resulting maximum feed, water and rest intervals during animal transport were the outcome of all relevant inputs regarding the relative stress responses of rest stops versus the stress to animals of exhaustion, extreme hunger and dehydration resulting from prolonged feed, water and rest deprivation.

The amendments also contain an option for the use of fully equipped conveyances that meet specific required conditions such as temperature monitoring, adequate ventilation, and feed and water dispensing systems. These conveyances will mitigate but not eliminate the negative effects of transport. As such, those stakeholders that move animals in fully equipped conveyances are exempted from the prescribed maximum intervals for feed, water and rest. This provision will promote innovation and will provide regulated parties with additional flexibility regarding time in transport and confinement. It is important to note that all other provisions, including the animal-based outcomes relating to the effects of feed, water and rest deprivation will require full compliance.

In response to (c), the CFIA sent out two economic questionnaires to stakeholders to assess the economic impact of potential changes to the regulations and the timing of their coming into force. The second questionnaire was sent to over 1,000 recipients with a request to forward the questionnaire to any other interested party that the CFIA may have missed. CFIA economists reviewed the incoming data and provided a detailed summary of the costs and benefits to industry in the regulatory impact analysis statement, which can be found at www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2019/2019-02-20/html/sor-dors38-eng.html, immediately below the regulatory amendment.

Question No. 2285

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

With regard to Canada’s Homelessness Strategy “Reaching Home”, and the February 20, 2019 public announcement of $638 million to address urban Indigenous homelessness: (a) what are the details of the strategy, including, if available, the (i) summary of the rationale of the strategy, (ii) objectives, (iii) goals; (b) what are the specific budgetary envelopes and programs that the government will use to deliver these funds; (c) what are the criterias that will be used to evaluate applications; (d) what is the projected allocation of these funds, broken down by fiscal year; (e) what are the expected policy outcomes; and (f) what are the methods the government will use to evaluate the success or failure of this strategy and the individual projects that receive funding?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, homelessness has an economic and social impact on every community in Canada. The Government of Canada is committed to helping those who are in need and believes that one homeless Canadian is one too many. Everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to call home.

The Government of Canada’s homelessness programs have undergone various reforms and renewals over the years. In recognition of the fact that indigenous people are overrepresented in homeless populations, the programs have provided Indigenous-specific funding. The government’s current program, the homelessness partnering strategy, or HPS, is a community-based approach that aims to prevent and reduce homelessness in Canada. It includes an aboriginal homelessness funding stream.

Reaching Home, the redesigned HPS, was launched on April 1, 2019. The purpose of Reaching Home is to support Canadian communities in their efforts to prevent and reduce homelessness by mobilizing partners at the federal, provincial/territorial and community levels, as well as the private and voluntary sectors, to address barriers to well-being faced by those who are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness. The program is part of Canada’s first-ever national housing strategy, which is a 10-year, $40-billion plan to lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of housing need. The development of Reaching Home was informed by research and broad public consultations, engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and organizations, and advice from the advisory committee on homelessness, which included indigenous representation.

The engagement and advice that informed Reaching Home identified that more funding and a greater understanding of indigenous homelessness was needed. In large part due to the engagement with indigenous peoples, Reaching Home includes increased funding to be directed toward indigenous homelessness supports, and expanded flexibility for first nations, Inuit and Métis-led initiatives.

Reaching Home is providing more than $1.6 billion in funding over the next nine years for services and supports for all Canadians, including indigenous peoples, who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness. In addition to that, a total of $413 million is dedicated for addressing indigenous homelessness. The indigenous-specific funding will provide $261 million through an indigenous homelessness stream over a nine-year period to maintain the community-based approach and continue to address local priorities, and $152 million over nine years that will be invested on priorities determined in collaboration with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners, to be phased in over three years.

Reaching Home is not--with some exceptions in Quebec--a proposal or application-driven program; funding agreements are negotiated between the department and service providers. The eligibility criteria--terms and conditions, and directives are outlined in detail within the program authorities. Reaching Home supports community-based approaches by providing funding directly to municipalities and local service providers, while providing communities more flexibility to design appropriate responses to local challenges. This includes greater flexibility for culturally appropriate responses to help meet the unique needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Funding through the indigenous homelessness stream will continue to flow to Indigenous service providers, and the additional investments for identifying and establishing priorities to help meet the needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis will be determined in collaboration with indigenous partners.

In terms of outcomes, Reaching Home aims to prevent and reduce homelessness across Canada. It supports the goals of the national housing strategy, in particular to support the most vulnerable Canadians in maintaining safe, stable and affordable housing and to reduce chronic homelessness nationally by 50% by 2027–2028. It also supports the goals of “Opportunity for All – Canada’s First Poverty Reduction Strategy”.

To evaluate the effectiveness of its programs, including Reaching Home, the government will be tracking the rate of homelessness along with other socio-economic indicators. The poverty reduction strategy is developing a dashboard of indicators to track progress on the many aspects of poverty, ranging from different measures of low income to the number of Canadians in housing need. Indicators that reflect first nations, Inuit, and Métis concepts of poverty and well-being are being co-developed with indigenous partners for inclusion on the dashboard. The publicly available online dashboard will allow all Canadians to monitor progress, and it will be regularly updated as new information becomes available. Reaching Home is participating in and supports the development of the poverty reduction strategy dashboard.

The Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with indigenous peoples through a renewed relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. Reaching Home includes increased and targeted funding to help address the unique needs of first nations, Inuit, and Métis, and provisions so that the priorities and approaches will be determined in collaboration with indigenous partners. Under Reaching Home, the government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that first nations, Inuit and Métis people across Canada have a safe and affordable place to call home, where they can enjoy a bright future for themselves and their families.

Members should note that as part of the national housing strategy, the Government of Canada announced a total investment of $2.2 billion for homelessness over 10 years, building on budget 2016 funding of $111.8 million over two years. By 2021–22, this will double annual investments compared to 2015–16.

Question No. 2304

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

With regard to the acquisition and construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline: (a) what was the source of funds for the $4.5 billion reportedly paid to Kinder Morgan at the closing date of August 31, 2018; (b) where is (i) that $4.5 billion accounted for in the Finance Ministry’s November 2018 Budget Update and (ii) is the NEB facility of $500 000 also accounted for in that Budget Update; (c) is the outstanding balance of $4.67 billion for the acquisition facility reported by the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV) in its 2018 third quarterly report the final acquisition figure; (d) is the project (i) in compliance with spending benchmarks identified in the Construction Facility, and (ii) if the answer to (i) is negative, what corrective actions are being or will be taken; (e) do any documents exist pertaining to contract extensions and financial costs incurred through construction delays, and, if so, what are the details; and (f) what sources of revenues is CDEV pursuing to finance construction once the credit facility expires in August 2019?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on August 31, 2018, the Trans Mountain Corporation, TMC, paid Kinder Morgan Cochin ULC $4.427 billion in order to acquire the Trans Mountain entities, these being Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC; Trans Mountain Canada Inc., which was formerly Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.; Trans Mountain Pipeline LP; and Trans Mountain Pipeline (Puget Sound) LLC. TMC financed the acquisition with loans and other funds from its parent corporation, Canada TMP Finance Ltd.

With regard to (b), the $4.427 billion TMC paid to Kinder Morgan Cochin ULC and the $500 million facility with the National Energy Board are not specifically reflected in the government’s November 2018 Fall Economic Statement. However, the loans issued by Export Development Canada to Canada TMP Finance Ltd., which were relied upon by affiliates of Canada TMP Finance Ltd. for the acquisition and for the National Energy Board facility, are reflected on pages 93-94 of the Fall Economic Statement.

With regard to (c), as the ultimate parent corporation for TMC, the Canada Development Investment Corporation, or CDEV, will report the final acquisition price for the Trans Mountain entities in its 2018 consolidated financial statements. CDEV’s Q3 financial statements contained a preliminary acquisition price of $4.427 billion.

With regard to (d), Canada TMP Finance Ltd. is in full compliance with the construction credit agreement with Export Development Canada.

With regard to (e), Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC is the applicant and proponent for the proposed Trans Mountain expansion project. The proposed project does not currently have a valid National Energy Board Act certificate or Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 decision statement. The authoritative documents on the expected schedule and costs of the proposed project are those filed by Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC with the National Energy Board as part of the board’s review of the proposed project, including its recent reconsideration. These documents are publicly available on the National Energy Board’s public registry.

With regard to (f), Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC is the applicant and proponent for the proposed Trans Mountain expansion project. The proposed project does not currently have a valid National Energy Board Act certificate or Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 decision statement. Should the Governor in Council approve the proposed project, Canada TMP Finance Ltd. would renew the construction facility for an additional year as per the credit agreement. TMP Finance Ltd. will work with its shareholder to secure long-term funding.

Question No. 2307

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

With regard to biometric data collection procedures: (a) what are the exact criteria that were used to determine that Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon would be exempt from biometric data collection before entering Canada; (b) what are the exact criteria that would constitute an exceptional situation justifying an exemption in other cases; (c) is the procedure for collecting data at the border going to be extended to other countries or territories; (d) why (i) are only Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon exempt and (ii) could the French West Indies not benefit from the same exemption, given their similar administrative status as a French overseas territory near North America; and (e) does the government plan to publish the studies that led it to say that “it is not expected to result in significant declines in demand over the medium or long-term” and that the “implications for Canada’s competitiveness in attracting visitors, business people and students are expected to be overall neutral”, as described in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 152, Number 14: “Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations” of April 7, 2018?