Debates of May 31st, 2022

Auditor General of Canada

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to subsection 7(5) of the Auditor General Act, it is my duty to lay upon the table the spring 2022 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

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)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23”.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Differential Treatment in Recruitment and Acceptance Rates of Foreign Students in Quebec and the Rest of Canada”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

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

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the motion adopted Thursday, April 28, 2022, regarding disability support benefits.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Thornhill put forward a Conservative opposition day motion on ending COVID-related restrictions on travel. Consistent with my prior two votes on February 14 and March 24 in favour of ending all vaccine mandates and COVID restrictions, I logged into the app to vote in favour of this motion and in favour of ending COVID travel restrictions. I did attempt to make the vote, but for technical reasons, the app did not register the vote that I made. I believe it had something to do with the uploading process, but somehow that vote did not get registered, and so I ask that the House update the record to show that I voted in favour of the motion from the member for Thornhill to end COVID travel restrictions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for the intervention. There are a number of other options to be able to log in, but unfortunately we did not have that happen.

I do have to ask for unanimous consent to allow for a change in the record. All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion to let his vote stand will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

Electoral Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just parenthetically say to the hon. member for Carleton that I did not object, but I think he has made his position well known, so perhaps he can rest assured.

On the subject of my petition, on behalf of residents of Kitchener Centre, I am presenting a petition sponsored by the hon. member for Kitchener Centre calling for a review and immediate changes to Canada's voting system. The petitioners point out that the current voting system, known as “first past the post”, is almost unique in the world of democracies in presenting results that are perverse, in that the public will is distorted in the distribution of seats that occurs in the House following an election. They point out that in the 2021 election, the percentage of the popular vote versus the number of seats was quite disparate.

They call for proportional representation as a system that ensures that any government elected with a majority of the seats actually entertains a majority of public support. They call for the immediate move to a proportional representation system to bring credible representation to Canadians.

Animal Welfare

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present today on behalf of 1,391 Canadians, including many of my constituents in New Westminster—Burnaby. The petitioners are drawing the attention of the House to the following: that the shock collars used to train and manage pets can often cause severe pain, suffering and distress, and that many studies have shown that electronic shock collars can actually lead to further behavioural issues, including aggression, endangering both pets and society at large.

These petitioners, 1,391 in total, call upon the House of Commons to amend the federal Criminal Code cruelty to animals legislation to specifically include wording that bans the sale and the use of electronic shock collars on domestic pets. These petitioners further ask that legislation include hand-held remote-controlled shock devices and anti-bark shock collars.

Charitable Organizations

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and share a petition. This particular petition is signed by more than 100 folks from across Canada who call upon the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another “values test”, and to affirm the rights of Canadians to freedom of expression.

This is certainly an issue that I hear often about from constituents. I am pleased to be able to present this petition on behalf of more than 100 Canadians in the House here today.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 461 to 463, 475 and 477.

Question No.461—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

With regard to the government's commitment to be transparent about which media organizations receive funding through its programs providing $600 million in funding for the media: (a) which media outlets has the government designated as a qualified Canadian journalism organization, broken down by type of outlet; and (b) since January 1, 2019, how much funding has each outlet in (a) (i) received to date, (ii) been eligible for, but has not yet received, broken down by specific funding program and type of funding (grant, tax credit, etc.)?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA. In budget 2019, the government introduced three new tax measures to support Canadian journalism: the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of eligible newsroom employees for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019; the digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for qualifying digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, or QCJO, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025; and a new type of qualified donee called a registered journalism organization, or RJO, for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.

To be eligible for any of the three tax measures, an organization must first be designated as a QCJO. Once designated, a QCJO must meet additional criteria for each of the tax measures. Designation as a QCJO in and of itself does not mean that an organization is eligible for any or all of the tax measures.

In response to parts (a) and (b) of the question, the confidentiality provisions under section 241 of the Income Tax Act prevent the CRA from releasing taxpayer information unless an exemption exists. No exemption exists to permit the disclosure of information related to QCJO designations or taxpayer information related to the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. As such, the CRA is able to provide neither a list of organizations that have been designated as QCJOs nor information on organizations that have claimed the Canadian journalism labour tax credit on their income tax returns.

In accordance with subsection 241(3.4) of the act, the CRA has made public the list of qualifying digital news subscriptions. The list includes the names of the organizations that have requested confirmation that the subscriptions they offer qualify for the digital news subscription tax credit, together with the names of the qualifying subscriptions and associated publications.

In addition, the CRA also makes public the names of journalism organizations that are registered journalism organizations, through the list of registered journalism organizations. The disclosure of this information is permitted by subsection 241(3.2) of the act.

Question No.462—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

With regard to measures taken by the government in response to the SNC-Lavalin affair: (a) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken to prevent future political interference or favouritism; and (b) what are the details of each measure related to (a), including, for each, the (i) title of the measure, (ii) date the measure was announced, (iii) date the measure came into force, (iv) summary of the problem being addressed, (v) summary of how the measure addresses the problem?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in August 2019, the Prime Minister accepted the report prepared by the hon. Anne McLellan on the dual role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and committed to carefully reviewing her recommendations to determine how best to implement them. She made a total of eight recommendations in her report, all aimed at addressing concerns around the dual roles and, in particular, concerns around prosecutorial independence and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The government has either addressed or is working to address all the recommendations in the report. For example, changes to the oath of office were completed in the fall of 2019, and the new oath was first used on November 20, 2019, for the swearing in of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. This new oath directly addresses concerns around the independence of the Attorney General of Canada by stating that the Attorney General will “uphold the Constitution, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and of the prosecutorial function”.

Question No.463—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With regard to the government’s response to COVID-19: (a) on what date did the government first become aware that COVID-19 vaccines could not prevent infection and could not prevent transmission; (b) did the government change the definition of the terms (i) vaccine, (ii) herd immunity, (iii) fully vaccinated, in 2021; (c) if the answer to any part of (b) is affirmative, what are the details of each change, including the (i) term whose definition has changed, (ii) date of the change, (iii) scientific basis for the change, if any; (d) why did the government change the long-standing definition of “case” from a “sick person” to “anyone who tested positive on a PCR test”, even individuals who remained perfectly healthy; and (e) what was Health Canada's guidance about cycle thresholds for the PCR test and what specific scientific evidence was this guidance based on?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was first reported in southern Africa in November 2021 and officially designated by the World Health Organization as a variant of concern with the Greek letter omicron on November 26, 2021. Within days of its appearance, preliminary analysis suggested that the variant may have a transmission advantage as compared to the delta variant of concern, though it would be some weeks later that vaccine effectiveness in terms of preventing transmission of omicron could be confirmed. By mid-December 2021, the Public Health Agency of Canada had sufficient evidence, including from international sources, that vaccine effectiveness against omicron infection and symptomatic disease after an mRNA primary series was lower than that for the delta variant.

As regards parts (b)(i), (b)(ii), (b)(iii) and (c) of the question, COVID-19 vaccines are defined by the manufacturer, and their intended use described in the product monograph, or label, as part of the information required when seeking regulatory authorization for these products in Canada. Health Canada, as a regulatory body, determines the terms and conditions under which a COVID-19 vaccine may be authorized for sale in Canada, based on an evaluation of the safety, efficacy and quality of that vaccine. There is no federal definition for a COVID-19 vaccine outside of what the product label describes, and as authorized by Health Canada.

Given the frequently changing context of COVID-19 variants of concern globally and the evolving science, which affects the understanding and measurement of immunity of individuals and population protection against COVID-19, including the variable and changing duration of immunity conferred by vaccination and infection-acquired immunity, the Government of Canada does not have a definition of herd immunity specific to COVID-19. The Canadian Immunization Guide, developed based on the recommendations and statements of expert advisory committees, including the National Advisory Committee on Immunization and the Committee to Advise on Tropical Medicine and Travel, refers to herd immunity in general for a number of viruses; it was developed prior to COVID-19 and is not specific to or directly applicable to COVID-19.

The Government of Canada’s definition for a fully vaccinated person entering Canada considers a traveller fully vaccinated if they have received at least two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine accepted for travel, a combination of accepted vaccines, or at least one dose of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and have received a second dose at least 14 days before entering Canada. The government first established the definition of fully vaccinated as part of the quarantine, isolation and other obligations emergency order under the Quarantine Act in the context of border entry measures, to provide for a return to some degree of normalcy by facilitating the travel corridor for vaccinated travellers while retaining additional measures such as mandatory 14-day quarantine for unvaccinated travellers. The definition of a fully vaccinated person for border entry purposes into Canada came into force on July 5, 2021 and has not changed; it remains in effect until further notice.

In response to part (d) of the question, the Government of Canada’s national surveillance case definitions can be reviewed at www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/national-case-definition. The government uses standard definitions for confirmed, probable, reinfection, deceased and resolved cases of COVID-19. These national case definitions use the standard terminology of “case” for national surveillance of COVID-19; the case definitions do not refer to a definition for “sick person”, and this was not included in previous case definitions.

Concerning part (e) of the question, the cycle threshold value is specific to each test. It is established by the company that developed the test to ensure that the test performs accurately. Health Canada does not set recommended cycle thresholds and has not published specific guidance related to cycle thresholds.

Question No.475—

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

With regard to the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, since its inception: (a) why was the second phase of the program, which included a joint $128-million fund from Canadian financial institutions, dropped from the program’s total loan fund; (b) what efforts did the government make to ensure that financial institutions fulfilled their portion of the initial $291.3 million investment; (c) how many applications submitted (i) received full funding, (ii) received partial funding, (iii) were denied funding; and (d) how many entrepreneurs were expected to receive funding as part of the second phase of the fund?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada has convened transformational conversations with all of Canada’s major financial institutions to fundamentally change the way our country supports Black entrepreneurs, and we’re seeing the results. Since the launch of the Black entrepreneurship program, or BEP, in September 2020, many financial institutions, FIs, have launched their own initiatives targeting Black entrepreneurs, totalling over $230 million. This exceeds the $128 million collectively committed during the announcement of the program. The objectives of these initiatives align with those of the Black entrepreneurship loan fund, the BELF, and demonstrate the continued commitment of FIs to supporting Black Canadian business owners and entrepreneurs.

With regard to (b), following the announcement of the BEP in September 2020, financial institutions voluntarily committed to provide additional lending of $128 million to support the BELF. Since launching their respective initiatives, officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, have held bilateral meetings with FIs to better understand these initiatives and to encourage them to continue to ensure transparency in their reporting on these initiatives and to continue collaboration with a view of furthering the objectives of the BEP.

With regard to (c), the loan administrator, the Federation of African Canadian Economics, FACE, has autonomy over the adjudication of and decisions on loan applications, in partnership with the Business Development Bank of Canada, the BDC. This process and the resulting decisions are independent of any government intervention or input. Consequently, this question would be best directed to FACE, which could provide the very latest data on applications received and loans issued.

With regard to (d), the government continues to work with FACE, the BDC and other financial institutions to find opportunities to increase access to capital for Black Canadian business owners and entrepreneurs.

Question No.477—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

With regard to measures put in place by the government to curb violations by Canadian companies overseas: is there evidence that voluntary approaches have had an impact on mending the damaged reputations of Canadian mining companies operating overseas, and, if so, what data shows the impact of these measures?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada expects Canadian companies active abroad to respect human rights, to operate transparently and in consultation with host governments and local communities, and to work in a socially and environmentally responsible manner while respecting applicable laws. Companies are also expected to adopt best practices and internationally respected guidelines on responsible business conduct and to take measures to meet anti-corruption objectives.

Canada pursues a balanced approach to responsible business conduct, RBC, which includes prevention, legislation and access to remedy.

In terms of prevention, the Government of Canada provides guidance on preventive measures that Canadian companies can take to mitigate risks in various markets and builds awareness about tools available to support company efforts. The Government of Canada endorses and promotes RBC standards and guidelines, including the OECD’s “Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises” and the UN’s “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”.

With respect to mandatory measures, Canada has adopted legislation addressing critical issues related to RBC, such as corruption, transparency and forced labour. For example, Canada has made it a criminal offence to offer a bribe to a foreign public official under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act; under the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, Canada requires extractive companies listed in Canada to declare all taxes paid and where they are paid; and, in July 2020, amendments to the Customs Tariff made it illegal to import products manufactured wholly or in part through forced labour. This prohibition applies to imports from all foreign sources and is enforced at the border by border services officers. Importers are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with the prohibition and are encouraged to work with their foreign suppliers to ensure that any goods being imported into Canada have not been mined, manufactured or produced wholly or in part by forced or compulsory labour. Canada has also committed to enacting supply chain legislation.

Canada provides access to remedy through two dispute resolution mechanisms: The Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise and the national contact point for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s “Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises”. If a Canadian company does not co-operate in good faith with Canada’s dispute resolution mechanisms, a recommendation may be made to withdraw or deny trade commissioner service support. A recommendation may also be provided to Export Development Canada and the Canadian Commercial Corporation to also withhold future support.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 464 to 474, 476 and 478 to 488 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Mrs. Alexandra Mendès]

Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for returns and that they be tabled immediately?