Debates of June 11th, 2021

Question No.649

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

With regard to the government's decision to require airline travellers arriving from outside of Canada to quarantine at a designated airport hotel: (a) how many travellers refused to stay in a government approved quarantine hotel; (b) how many fines or tickets were issued by the Public Health Agency of Canada related to the refusals in (a); and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by airport of entry?

(Return tabled)

Question No.651

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

With regard to immigration removals and the 2020 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada: (a) what is the current national removal inventory; (b) how many removal orders have been confirmed removed in the past year; (c) what are the current working and wanted removal order inventories; (d) of the inventories in (c), how many are criminal cases; (e) which of the Auditor General’s recommendations are currently being acted upon; (f) what is the proposed timeline for fulfilling these recommendations; and (g) has COVID-19 adversely impacted the Canada Border Services Agency's ability to complete removal orders in any way, and, if so, what are the specific details?

(Return tabled)

Question No.652

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and individuals presenting COVID-19 test results at points of entry, since testing requirements were put into place in January 2021, broken down by type of crossing (land, air): (a) how many individuals did the CBSA intercept with a suspected fraudulent or false test result; (b) how many individuals did the CBSA intercept with a test result that was otherwise deemed unsatisfactory, such as the wrong type of test; (c) of the individuals in (a), how many were (i) admitted to Canada, (ii) denied entry; (d) of the individuals in (a), how many were (i) ticketed or fined by the CBSA, (ii) had their cases referred to the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies; and (e) of the cases in (b), how many were (i) admitted to Canada, (ii) denied entry?

(Return tabled)

Question No.656

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

With regard to the stated intent of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) “to commit all funds before March 31, 2021” of the Rapid Housing Initiative’s projects stream: (a) what was the (i) total number of approved projects, (ii) total number of approved housing units, (iii) total dollar value of federal funds committed; (b) what is the breakdown of each part of (a) by (i) municipality and province or territory, (ii) federal electoral constituency; (c) what is the breakdown of funds committed in (a) by (i) individual application, (ii) contributor source, (i.e. federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous government, non-profit, other agency or organization), (iii) province or territory; and (d) what are the details of all applications in (a)(i), including the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) number of proposed units, (iv) date the application was submitted to the CMHC?

(Return tabled)

Question No.661

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

With regard to the Development Finance Institute Canada (FinDev): (a) what are the details of all equity stakes in companies FinDev has acquired an equity stake in since January 1, 2018, including the (i) name of the company, (ii) location, (iii) description of work being done by company, (iv) date the government acquired an equity stake, (v) number of shares and percentage of company owned by FinDev, (vi) value or purchase price of equity stake at the time of purchase, (vii) current estimated value of equity stake; and (b) for each acquisition, if applicable, what is the timeline for when the government expects to sell or dispose of the equity stake?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth on a point of order.

Bill C-6―Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

A majority of the members want to see this legislation through. It is only the Conservatives who do not, so we do not need to act on this notice if the Conservatives can respect the majority of members and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think the key element there is the notice. In any case, I am sure the House appreciates the notice on the part of the minister.

We will now go back to the previous item.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When this bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Joliette had five minutes remaining for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his speech.

He spoke in particular about the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which was used a lot in my riding to help businesses like those in the Granby industrial park get through the crisis.

I would like to come back to a somewhat troubling statement made by a Liberal colleague. He said that a political party can be compared to a business that is struggling during the crisis. He was attempting to justify the fact that political parties got to put their hands in the cookie jar as if they were no different from businesses that were going through a difficult crisis and that needed the subsidy to survive.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this very troubling statement by the Liberal Party.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Shefford.

What the political parties in the House did, with the exception of Bloc Québécois, was despicable and inexcusable.

In a time of crisis, the government decided to implement a program to support workers and businesses that might not be able to make it through the crisis. That money will have to be paid back through taxes and the collective debt.

The Liberal Party and the other political parties are distorting the spirit of the bill by claiming that political parties are like non-profit organizations. The Prime Minister ordered the agency administering this program to cast the net wide. He got what he wanted. The Liberal Party made $1 million from it, when it already had a record fundraising year. That is unacceptable, and the amendment that the government is proposing to Bill C-30 is despicable. As of this summer, the political parties will no longer be eligible for the Canada emergency wage subsidy, but they have already emptied the cookie jar. That is shameful and inexcusable. I would be ashamed to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his speech. His passion for securities is remarkable. That was very interesting.

I would like to raise a more long-term issue.

Although there are some good things in this budget, there is a lot missing. I will get into that later during my speech.

I think this budget is short-sighted. We are emerging from a pandemic, but I do not see any long-term planning in this budget for the next health or economic crisis. There will be more viruses. There will be more pandemics.

Did the government learn anything from COVID‑19 about our social safety net or our health care system? Will it make the same mistakes next time? A more aggressive, deadlier virus could strike and make our lives even more difficult.

Does my colleague from Joliette think the government is making that transition?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my regards to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and I thank him for his intervention. I look forward to listening to his speech because his remarks are always very constructive.

I completely agree with him, and I will give an example. The Standing Committee on Finance heard testimony from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses. The organization's spokesperson, Pierre Céré, told us to be careful because, as of September, employment insurance will once again have two blind spots that have been around since the 1990s and that need to be fixed, because no one has done it yet.

We tried to change that in committee, with the member's colleague from Burnaby South, but our request was not deemed receivable. The government does not want to fix the problem. We are therefore stuck with an EI program that has to be changed. The crisis revealed that it does not work, but we are back to the Axworthy reforms of the 1990s, with all the problems that entails. It is a somewhat short-sighted budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 is a continuation of what the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus committed to back when this all began a year ago; that we would have the backs of Canadians and be there in a very real and tangible way. We developed a suite of programs and supports so Canadians would be in a better position to get through the pandemic, and this is a continuation of that.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the passage of the legislation and how it would continue to provide ongoing support for Canadians?