Debates of June 13th, 2023

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first is from 30 Canadians who are expressing extreme concern that Louis Roy, of the Collège des médecins du Québec, recommended expanding euthanasia to babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes. The petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada block any attempt to allow the killing of these children.

Human Rights

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from 50 Canadians expressing support for Bill C-257, which would add protection against political discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The petitioners believe that it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and to vote.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to table a number of petitions in the House today.

The first petition is from Canadians who are concerned about the increasing phenomenon of people being bullied in corporate environments over their political views and having pressure put on them to express or not express political opinions that may go against their conscience. The petitioners are in support of a private member's bill I put forward that seeks to protect people from corporate bullying and efforts, in a work environment or other kinds of environments under federal regulation, to discriminate or pressure people on the basis of their political views.

Bill C-257 would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The petitioners want the government and the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of all Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights concerns about the dramatic expansion of euthanasia under the government, and in particular a recommendation to allow euthanasia for infants. The proposal to legalize the euthanasia of infants is a matter of grave concern for these petitioners, and they call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to legalize the killing of children in Canada.

Charitable Organizations

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition deals with a proposal in the Liberal Party's platform in the last election to effectively politicize charitable status determinations, which is again dealing with an issue of political discrimination and discrimination on the basis of political views. The petitioners are opposed to the government applying values tests or political position-based determinations for making decisions about charitable status. They call on the House to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a political and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination, and to affirm the right of all Canadians to freedom of expression.

Human Rights

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition draws attention to the ongoing detention of Huseyin Celil. The petitioners note that although Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were released after 1,000 days of unjust detention, there are other Canadians detained in China, including Mr. Celil, who has been detained for well over 5,000 days.

Mr. Celil is a Canadian citizen and a Uyghur human rights activist who has been detained for supporting the rights of Uyghurs. The Chinese government has, sadly, refused to recognize Mr. Celil's Canadian citizenship and has denied him access to lawyers, family and Canadian officials. He was coerced into signing a forced confession, and he underwent an unlawful and unfair trial. The petitioners further note that evidence makes it increasingly clear that Uyghurs are being subjected to an ongoing genocide and that Canada has an obligation to act to respond to this genocide.

The petitioners want the Government of Canada to demand that the Chinese government recognize Mr. Celil's Canadian citizenship and provide him with consular and legal service in accordance with international law, and to formally state that securing the release of Mr. Celil is a priority of the Canadian government of equal concern as the unjust detention of the two Michaels was. The petitioners want the government to appoint a special envoy to work on Mr. Celil's case and to seek the assistance of the Biden administration and other allies in obtaining the release of Mr. Celil, actions that were taken in the previous cases referenced.

Hong Kong

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, next I am tabling a petition that deals with the situation of Hong Kongers who are seeking immigration to Canada.

The petitioners note that the judicial system in Hong Kong has been compromised through various measures, including through the passage of the national security law. They note that peaceful protesters charged in Hong Kong have not received fair or impartial treatment and that they have been subject to politically motivated convictions for their democracy activism under the national security law but also under other laws. The petitioners want the government to ensure that for people who have faced these kinds of unjust charges and convictions, those convictions will not be barriers to their potential immigration to Canada.

The petitioners call on the government to recognize the politicization of the judiciary in Hong Kong and its impacts on the legitimacy and validity of criminal convictions; to affirm its commitment to rendering all national security law charges and convictions irrelevant and invalid in relation to paragraph 36(1)(c) of the IRPA; and to create a mechanism by which Hong Kong people with pro-democracy movement-related convictions may provide an explanation of such convictions on the basis of which government officials can grant exemptions to Hong Kong people who are deemed inadmissible under paragraphs 36(1)(b), 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) upon an examination of circumstances and a determination that the applicant's criminal record is political in nature.

Finally, the petitioners want to see the Government of Canada work with other like-minded allies, especially the Five Eyes countries, and other democracies to waive criminal inadmissibility of Hong Kong people convicted for political purposes, provided they do not otherwise have a criminal record.

Military Chaplaincy

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the final petition that I am presenting today deals with recommendations of the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel on systemic racism. In its final report in 2022, this panel paradoxically recommended discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation in determinations about chaplaincy and discrimination against religious communities holding views that are not consistent with the Government of Canada's positions on, for instance, various sexuality issues.

Petitioners believe that Canadian Armed Forces chaplains serve all members of the armed forces without discrimination, and they should not be facing discrimination. This proposed discrimination would affect the Muslim community, the Christian community, the Jewish community and other religious communities in Canada. They call on the Government of Canada to reject the recommendations on chaplaincy in the Canadian Armed Forces in the final report of the Minister of National Defence's advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination, as well as to affirm the right of all Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces chaplains, to freedom of religion.

I commend all these petitions to the consideration of my colleagues.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by a number of Canadian citizens, including those in my riding. They call on the Government of Canada to publicly and unequivocally support a private member's bill, Bill C-314. This bill is sponsored by my colleague from Abbotsford; it would clarify that MAID, medical assistance in dying, should not be available to those whose only underlying health condition is a mental illness.

The petitioners point out that there is no consensus among health experts regarding what constitutes the irremediability of mental illness. They also point to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the right to life, liberty and the security of the person, in support of a petition that mental health supports should be made available, particularly to vulnerable Canadians, to counsel against medical assistance in dying for those who are suffering with a mental illness.

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. 1446, 1453, 1455 and 1456.

Question No.1446—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

With regard to government subsidies for Volkswagen (VW) and the announcement in St. Thomas: (a) when was the timeline of decisions related to VW made and when were the offers sent or received; (b) did the government consider alternative companies to receive subsidies, and, if so, what (i) expressions of interest were received from other companies in this regard, (ii) monetary and non-monetary demands were received in each expression of interest; (c) what were the decision-making factors that the government weighed when making the VW commitment; (d) what additional non-monetary commitments were made to VW; and (e) has the government imposed any conditions on VW in relation to the sourcing of critical minerals and other raw materials from within Canada, and, if so, what are the conditions?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker,with regard to parts (a) through (e), the government cannot release commercially sensitive details of the Volkswagen, PowerCo., project, including details concerning the negotiations, beyond what has already been made public. Additional information in response to the various parts of the question can be found below.

With regard to part (a), generally speaking, the government must complete several steps before it can fund a project. First, it conducts technical, financial and market due diligence of all projects for which applications were submitted. Once a project passes the due diligence assessment, officials engage with applicants to determine the conditions of agreed-on funding and create two key documents: a term sheet and a contribution agreement. Through these discussions, the government and the applicant agree upon a description of a project’s fundamental characteristics and identify expected commitments and benefits resulting from the project, such as job creation, research and development, R&D, and capital investments, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, IP preservation and employment targets related to gender, diversity and equity.

With respect to key milestones for PowerCo., Volkswagen announced on March 13, that it had chosen Canada as the location for its first overseas Gigafactory of its battery company PowerCo, SE. This news was shared on the Government of Canada’s web page: Canada and Ontario welcome historic investment from Volkswagen.

Following this announcement, on April 21, Volkswagen, PowerCo., Canada and the Province of Ontario released additional information about the project and the level of support agreed to secure this investment. More information on the PowerCo. project can be found on the web page: Volkswagen’s new electric vehicle battery plant will create thousands of new jobs.

With regard to part (b), before moving ahead with a project, the government conducts a project assessment covering key areas of consideration, such as the benefits the project can deliver in relation to the growth of Canadian firms, clusters and supply chains, while also evaluating the financial and market risk of proponents and their potential to meet demonstrable market demand.

To date, Canada has attracted 110 projects with $62.6 billion in total project expenditures. Of these 110 projects, 24 are in the auto and batteries sectors, and 21 are in the advanced manufacturing sectors. This information is publicly available on the web page: Projects: Strategic Innovation Fund.

With regard to part (c), decision-making factors are specific to agreements with PowerCo. They are subject to cabinet confidence, and the release of this information would negatively impact future negotiations. Overall, each project is assessed based on the Government of Canada’s priorities and the potential for the project to benefit the Canadian economy and Canadians at large. For example, under its business innovation and growth project segment, the strategic innovation fund, SIF, focuses on funding innovation projects that involve activities related to R&D and commercialization of innovative products, processes or services; support the expansion or material improvement of existing industrial or technological facilities; and support the establishment of new facilities or bring new ventures and production capabilities to Canada.

As indicated above, Canada also seeks commitments with respect to economic, public and innovation benefits when entering into a funding agreement with a company, such as job creation in Canada, R&D, capital investments, reduction of greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions, gender, diversity and equity targets, and preservation of intellectual property, IP, in Canada. Additional information can be found on the web page: Program Guide – Strategic Innovation Fund – D) What are eligible supported costs?

With respect to PowerCo., the decision to support both capital expenditures and production follows the government’s public commitment to facilitate the industrial transformation of the automotive sector to a net-zero future and take the actions needed to remain competitive.

With regard to part (e), as indicated, the government does stipulate expected commitments and benefits when negotiating funding agreements, including but not limited to job creation, R&D and capital investments, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, if applicable, IP preservation and targets related to gender, diversity and equity.

Question No.1453—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

With regard to Employment Insurance sickness benefits, broken down by month since April 2020, and by province and territory: (a) how many claims have been received from individuals impacted by the long term effects of COVID-19; and (b) how many of the claims in (a) were granted?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement under the Employment Insurance Act to provide the nature of an illness in order to receive sickness benefits and Service Canada does not request this information. As such, this information/data is not available.

Question No.1455—

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

With regard to the statement by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on April 25, 2023, in the House that "The law dictates what is an essential service, and passports are not considered essential under the law.": what is the specific law and subsection which dictates that passports are not considered essential?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act defines an essential service as follows: “Definitions 4 (1) The following definitions apply in this Part:

Essential service means a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada that is or will be, at any time, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public.

Essential services agreement means an agreement between the employer and the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit that identifies: (a) the types of positions in the bargaining unit that are necessary for the employer to provide essential services; (b) the number of those positions that are necessary for that purpose; and (c) the specific positions that are necessary for that purpose.”

As such, essential services were identified, and an essential service agreement reached, with the applicable bargaining agents using the above noted Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act definition.

Essential services remain available for clients in the U.S. and abroad and domestic clients experiencing humanitarian and/or emergency situations defined as: passport clients at risk of financial hardship; passport clients who rely on travel as a source of employment, and their income security will be jeopardized; passport clients who must travel for medical reasons, or have had a death or illness in the family; and passport clients whose situation is deemed urgent on compassionate grounds.

Requests that do not meet the definition of humanitarian and/or emergency situations are not considered essential as they are not necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public.

Question No.1456—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

With regard to claims made by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in the House related to child care: (a) what specific data and information was used to make the claim on November 16, 2022, that "Ontario has had 92 percent of licensed child care providers sign on"; (b) what specific data and information was used to make the claim on January 30, 2023, that "almost all of them have reduced fees by 50 percent" in reference to the provinces and territories; (c) what specific data and information was used to make the claim on February 6, 2023, that "an additional 20,000 child care spaces, which are going to be created in Alberta. That is in addition to the 42,500 that were already announced"; and (d) what is the list of providers that (i) have, (ii) have not, signed on in Ontario to suport the claim in (a)?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), in budget 2021, the Government of Canada committed to providing provinces and territories with over $27 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care, ELCC, system. As part of this system, the Government of Canada negotiated a series of Canada-wide ELCC agreements with each of the provinces and territories, including an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec, that would provide federal funding to help provinces and territories work toward achieving the goals of the multilateral framework on ELCC within their jurisdictions.

The specific implementation of these ELCC agreements falls within the legislative authorities of the provinces and territories, in accordance with their own unique ELCC systems. In the case of Ontario, the provincial government offered licensed child care operators the choice to opt in to a series of provincially developed regulations in order to qualify for funding under Ontario’s Canada-wide system. The deadline for licensed child care operators in Ontario to opt in to this provincial system was originally September 1, 2022, later extended by the province to November 1, 2022.

Subsequent to the November 1 deadline, in the course of regular discussions between officials, Ontario’s Ministry of Education informed the Federal Secretariat on ELCC that an estimated 92% of licensed child care providers within the province had opted in to the provincial Canada-wide program. While it was this direct communication from the Government of Ontario that formed the basis of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development’s knowledge, it is worth noting that this 92% figure was also reported publicly by the Canadian Press on November 7, 2022, more than a week in advance of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development’s statement in the House. Since then, Ontario has also published its Early Years and Child Care Annual Report for 2022, which confirms that as of November 1, 2022, 92% of licensed providers had opted into the Canada-wide program.

With regard to part (b), as of January 30, 2023, four provinces and territories were delivering regulated child care for $10 a day or less within their jurisdictions. This included Nunavut, which achieved the milestone on December 1, 2022, Newfoundland and Labrador, which achieved the milestone on January 1, 2023, as well as Yukon and Quebec, both of which were already providing $10-a-day or less regulated child care prior to the signing of their Canada-wide agreements.

Of the remaining provinces and territories, only one had not achieved an average fee reduction of at least 50% by January 30, 2023. A list of fee reduction averages and their public announcement date as of January 30, 2023, is as follows: Manitoba: 30% reduction on average, February 3, 2022; Nova Scotia: 50% reduction on average, November 28, 2022; Prince Edward Island: 50% reduction on average, December 16, 2022; New Brunswick: 50% reduction on average, April 25, 2022; Ontario: 50% reduction on average, December 19, 2022; Alberta: 50% reduction on average, November 26, 2021; British Columbia: 50% reduction on average, December 2, 2022; Northwest Territories: 50% reduction on average, March 3, 2022; and Saskatchewan: 70% reduction on average, August 11, 2022.

While the methods used to achieve these fee reductions vary based on the unique characteristics of each province and territory’s ELCC system, such as fee caps, direct subsidies to parents or a combination of methods, the determination of reduction level is based on a comparison to fee levels in 2019, or 2020 for Ontario, in accordance with its agreement. In each case, provinces and territories provide data to the Federal Secretariat on ELCC in advance of each announcement.

With regard to part (c), on January 31, 2023, a week prior to the February 6 date cited in the written question, the governments of Canada and Alberta publicly announced the successful completion of a cost control framework and for-profit expansion plan for child care within the province of Alberta. The information can be found at the following web page https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2023/01/new-cost-control-framework-to-support-the-growth-of-22500-additional-quality-child-care-spaces-in-alberta.html.

This framework was designed to build upon the province’s existing, successful approach to working with the private sector to guide how federal funds would be used to support the development of an additional 22,500 new child care spaces among Alberta’s for-profit child care providers over the remainder of the Canada-wide ELCC agreement. In total, Alberta has now committed to the creation of a total of 68,700 new licensed child care spaces by the end of March 2026, which will greatly enhance the availability of affordable, high-quality child care spaces in the province. The framework was formalized as an amendment to the Canada-wide ELCC agreement with Alberta, and can be found at the following web page: https://www.canada.ca/en/early-learning-child-care-agreement/agreements-provinces-territories/alberta-canada-wide-2021/amendment.html#h2.03.

With regard to part (d), as ELCC is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, the Federal Secretariat on ELCC does not track data below the provincial or territorial level. A list denoting which of Ontario’s more than 5,500 child care centres and 139 licensed home child care agencies have opted in to the Canada-wide system would fall within the constitutional authority of Ontario’s Ministry of Education. Some of this information could also be available at the municipal level, for example, the City of Toronto provides on its website a list of licensed child care centres participating in the Canada-wide system, at the following web page: https://www.toronto.ca/data/children/dmc/a2z/a2za.html. This is likewise a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

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 response to Questions Nos. 1447 to 1452, 1454 and 1457 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.1447—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

With regard to the COVID-19 vaccine doses procured by the government: (a) how many doses purchased are known to have (i) been lost or stolen, (ii) expired, broken down by manufacturer; and (b) what are the details of each instance where doses were lost or stolen, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) number of doses, (iii) manufacturer, (iv) location, (v) incident summary?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1448—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and Health Canada (HC): (a) did PHAC or HC receive or become aware of documents related to Pfizer-BioNTech which were the subject of a court order requiring their release to the public starting around January 6, 2022; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) when did the government receive them, (ii) which department or agency reviewed them, (iii) what conclusions and recommendations were arrived at, (iv) was a risk versus benefit analysis conducted after the review, and, if so, what were the findings, (v) when did the review commence and finish; (c) did PHAC or HC receive or become aware of the document titled: “5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021”, and, if so, (i) on what date did PHAC or HC review the document, (ii) what were the conclusions and recommendations that resulted from the review of the document, (iii) when did the review commence and finish, (iv) which Canadian federal health agency was assigned to review this document and when; (d) what are PHAC’s and HC’s latest warnings or instructions to health care professionals who advise Canadians about the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine; (e) do the warnings or instructions in (d) consider the adverse events of special interest identified in the Pfizer study; and (f) will the government notify Canadians about the events in (d)?

(Return tabled)