Debates of June 8th, 2023

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I often stand to table documents, and I have been asked what happens when I say that a document will be tabled in an electronic format. To answer that question, by tabling a document in an electronic format, members are afforded the opportunity to receive the response to the petition through email.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format. That is why I provided the explanation.

Amendments to Standing Orders

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken note of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in its 20th report, entitled “Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons”, presented to the House on Monday, January 30, 2023. In accordance with the government's response to the report on May 30, 2023, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, which aim to enshrine hybrid proceedings as a permanent fixture of the Standing Orders.

Official Languages

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Government Measures to Protect and Promote French in Quebec and in Canada”.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to thank each member of the committee, who went above and beyond to produce a fine report. We heard from tons of witnesses and read many reports and briefs. I would also like to thank those who are often overlooked: the analysts, the clerks, the interpreters and the translators. Basically, I thank the whole team. It is an excellent report.

Competition Act

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, An Act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to present my first private member's bill.

Competition is a myth in Canada. Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for a lot of different monopolies that dominate Canadian marketplaces: cellphones and Internet, banking, airlines and even beer. What a travesty that is. Why? The culprits are many, but a lacklustre and surprisingly pro-monopolistic Competition Act is among the biggest reasons.

My private member's bill would eliminate the most glaring anti-competition section of the act, section 96, the efficiencies defence. Canada is the only G7 nation to include the efficiencies defence in its competition laws, and it currently allows an outdated Competition Act to fulfill its most glaring anti-competitive mandate to allow companies to merge, no matter how bad the merger may be for competition, if they can find efficiencies. Most of the time, those efficiencies are as simple as job losses.

This was created at a time when Canada embraced an industrial policy in the 1960s. It was not at a time with free trade but when we wanted companies to get as big as possible to compete internationally. It is a relic of the old. This deletion will not alone fix competition, but it will go a long way to start.

I am happy to bring this bill and the debate on competition to the floor of the House of Commons, and I want to thank the member for Abbotsford for seconding it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Climate Change

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition that was spearheaded by the incredible team at Ecojustice, an organization that continues to show amazing leadership in our collective fight to protect the planet.

The petitioners calls on the government to implement a total ban on thermal coal exports. They draw attention to the fact that coal power plants produce more greenhouse gases and subsequent warming than any other single source, yet the Liberals continue to allow Canada to mine and export thermal coal to be burned overseas. They note that during the last election, the Liberals promised to phase out thermal coal exports by no later than 2030. It is now two years later and nothing has been done to support this commitment. Emissions do not know borders, and coal burned anywhere in the world contributes to a climate crisis that affects us all.

The petitioners are calling on the government to show real climate leadership and ban thermal coal exports.

Justice

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the eighth time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

The common people of Swan River are demanding a common-sense solution to repeal the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies, which have fuelled a surge of crime throughout their community. People used to travel around the town freely and safely in Swan River, and now they fear leaving their own homes.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Climate Change

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is timely that I table this petition on behalf of youth from Qualicum Beach in my riding. They cite that children born in 2020 will face, on average, two to seven times more extreme weather events than their grandparents. Clearly, we are on the higher end of that. In a 2021 report in The Lancet, 83% of children worldwide reported that they think people have failed to take care of the planet. Those most affected by climate change are the youngest generation, as they will live to see the worst effects of this crisis.

Youth discussion has proven crucial to successful climate action and policy creation. However, dozens of climate-related decisions are made without input from youth. Statistics around the world show that if youth were making these decisions, the representation in Parliament outcome would be different. Children under 18 are not legally allowed to vote and are therefore without legal voice or action.

They are calling on the Government of Canada to require all members of Parliament, regardless of party line, to consult with secondary or elementary school leadership, a student council or an environmental youth group in their ridings before Parliament holds the second reading of any bill that directly affects Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of the consultation will be to listen to the viewpoints of those directly affected by the specified bill who do not already have representation in Parliament.

Seniors

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I table a petition signed by the residents of Winnipeg North. They are calling upon parliamentarians to advocate for and promote senior activities and different types of seniors programs. They cite specifically the importance of the guaranteed income supplement and OAS, and want members of Parliament to look at ways of being ongoing advocates for and supporters of programming and supports for seniors from coast to coast to coast, in particular, obviously, for the residents of Winnipeg North.

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. 1420 to 1422, 1426, 1427, 1430 and 1432.

Question No.1420—

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

With regard to the funds allocated for future Arctic offshore oil and gas development in budget 2023 and the 2016 moratorium on oil and gas activities in Canada’s Arctic waters: (a) what are the details of the proposed funding; and (b) are future Arctic offshore oil and gas developments and an end to the moratorium being considered?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), funding announced in budget 2023 will support evidence-based oil and gas decision-making in the Arctic offshore to ensure that any future oil and gas development in Canada’s Arctic waters is consistent with the highest safety and environmental standards and with Canada’s national and global climate and environmental goals.

The funding will support the co-development of a five-year climate and marine science-based assessment of Canada’s Arctic waters. The climate and marine research projects will complement the science-based research carried out as part of the initial five-year science-based review. The Government of Canada will commence work with northern partners to identify gaps in climate and marine-based research in the Arctic offshore, with a focus on climate change impacts across the region. The funding will also support work with northern partners to prepare a final report on the findings of the science-based assessment for consideration by the Government of Canada in respect of whether to maintain the moratorium.

With regard to part (b), the Arctic offshore oil and gas moratorium announced in December 2016 is indefinite and will remain in force until such time as it may be repealed.

Question No.1421—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

With regard to the report in the Washington Post that the Prime Minister has told NATO officials privately that Canada will never meet the military alliance's defence spending target: (a) what did the Prime Minister tell NATO officials about whether Canada will meet the spending target; and (b) when does the government anticipate it will reach NATO's spending target of at least two percent of the GDP on defence?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, Canada remains committed to maintaining the defence budget increases that were set out in Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. This will increase Canada’s total defence budget from $18.9 billion in 2016-17 to $32.7 billion by 2026-27, an increase of more than 70%.

This is an ongoing process and figures on planned spending continue to be refined. Indeed, at any given time, projected calculations can fluctuate based on changes in defence investments, capabilities and needs. Further, Canada’s defence spending and procurement will be based on threat analyses and assessments of needs.

For capabilities more specifically, Canada will begin exceeding the 20% guideline on military equipment spending in 2023, reaching approximately 33% by 2026.

In addition, Canada continues its steady and reliable commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO missions, operations and activities. Canada has been leading enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup Latvia since its inception, and working on a significant expansion of it, in line with the commitments made in Madrid. Canada has recently led one of the Standing NATO Maritime Groups. Canada will host a NATO Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence in Montreal. Halifax had been proposed as the location for the North American regional office of NATO’s defence innovation accelerator for the North Atlantic, DIANA.

Annual reports on defence expenditures of NATO countries, including Canada, are published in March of each year, and can be found at the following web page: NATO - News: Defence expenditure of NATO countries (2014-2022), 21-Mar.-2023.

Finally, as announced in budget 2022, National Defence is undertaking a review of its defence policy, which will include considerations for defence spending.

Question No.1422—

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

With regard to the legislative review of the Cannabis Act launched by Health Canada in September 2022 and the related online questionnaire: (a) how was the online questionnaire advertised to the public; (b) over what time period did each of the advertising methods in (a) take place; (c) how many individuals provided feedback through the questionnaire; and (d) what is the breakdown of the responses to each question in the questionnaire?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the online questionnaire was first communicated to the public on September 22, 2022, when Canada’s federal health ministers, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, announced the launch of the legislative review of the Cannabis Act at an in-person event alongside the chair of the independent expert panel.

As part of this launch, the opportunity to participate in online engagement was announced, thereby commencing the 60-day online public engagement period. On this day, Health Canada published two discussion papers online, one for the general public and stakeholders, including a supporting questionnaire to receive feedback, with a closing date of November 21, 2022, and the other one specific to first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, which originally was slated to also close November 21, 2022 but was extended to January 15, 2023, due to requests from indigenous peoples that they required more time to provide feedback. Announcement activities were supported by a news release, social media and the launch of a dedicated web page that included links to participate in the consultation and provide feedback to the questionnaire. Emails from Health Canada were also shared directly with stakeholders and indigenous partners, inviting them to participate in the online engagement process.

With regard to part (b), social media was issued frequently throughout the duration of the engagement period, including a push near the end of the consultation period to remind Canadians to participate in the consultation prior to its closing date.

As per the response to part (a), on the day of the consultation launch, September 22, emails from Health Canada were shared directly with stakeholders and indigenous partners, inviting them to participate in the online engagement process. Emails reminding these same groups to participate were also sent midway through the consultation and just before the closing date.

The consultation was also posted on the “Consulting with Canadians” page on Canada.ca.

With regard to part (c), the public engagement gathered feedback from more than 2,300 individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders. A total of 2,158 individuals responded to the questionnaire. Additionally, a total of 211 email and mail submissions were received

With regard to part (d), the questionnaire consisted of 17 open-ended and 11 closed-ended questions, nine of which were demographic questions. The results of the online public engagement, including responses to the questionnaire, are being analyzed and will be summarized in a report and published online in 2023.

Question No.1426—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to national sport organizations (NSOs) with contribution agreements with Sport Canada (SC), and that have or had non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with athletes: (a) is SC monitoring which NSOs have NDAs with athletes; (b) for each NSO, what are the details of each NDA, broken down by the year or years in place; and (c) for each NSO in (a), has the agreement ever been used, and, if so, when, and for what purpose?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Sport Canada, through the athlete assistance program, reviews agreements between athletes and national sport organizations to ensure they are inclusive of specific references as required by the athlete assistance program policies and procedures. Sport Canada is not monitoring which national sport organizations have non-disclosure agreements with athletes. However, in her May 11 announcement to foster a safe and sustainable culture change in sport, the Minister of Sport reiterated that non-disclosure agreements or non-disparaging clauses should never be used to prevent athletes and other sport participants from disclosing maltreatment they have experienced or witnessed. To this end, all national sport organizations shall use the text of the athlete agreement, developed by AthletesCAN with input from national sport organization leaders and legal experts, and recently revised, which states that under the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, UCCMS, athletes’ rights cannot be restricted. Consistent with national efforts to this end, Sport Canada, through its funding agreements with national sport organizations, will prohibit any national sport organization contract, policies, procedures or actions that restrict participants’ rights under the UCCMS.

With regard to part (b), since Sport Canada does not monitor non-disclosure agreements, it is not able to confirm which national sport organizations might have them and what the details might be.

With regard to part (c), as per the answer to part b) above, these details are not available.

Question No.1427—

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

With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) and the funds provided for energy retrofits: (a) what is the amount provided, broken down by (i) number of units, (ii) province, (iii) type of recipient (Real Estate Income Trust, private corporation, non-profit, etc); (b) what measures are taken, and what assurances are required from recipients, to prevent renovictions as a result of these funds; (c) does the government track evictions triggered by renovations supported by these funds, and, if so, how many evictions have been recorded; and (d) for the evictions in (c), what measures are in place to ensure that tenants (i) have alternative accommodations with the same rent, (ii) are informed about the progress and completion of renovations, (iii) are able to return to their home with the same rent once the renovations are complete?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the CIB and the funds provided for energy retrofits, the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s building retrofits initiative, BRI, provides financing for energy retrofit projects. With buildings currently accounting for 18% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, modernizing these assets is critical to meeting Canada’s climate change goals. The BRI invests in the decarbonization of buildings to finance capital costs of retrofits, using savings from energy savings, efficiencies and operating cost savings for repayment. The private sector under the BRI includes privately owned commercial, industrial and multi-unit residential buildings. The CIB’s financing is eligible for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings through decarbonization retrofits, including energy efficiency; fuel switching, such as electrification, renewable natural gas or hydrogen; on-site renewable energy and storage; and electric vehicle, EV, chargers. The CIB’s financing is not available for building renovation projects that are not decarbonization retrofits. Ultimately, savings from energy savings, efficiencies and operating cost savings are passed on to building owners and tenants.

With regard to part (a), the CIB has made one investment towards building retrofits to multi-unit residential buildings to date. This investment with Avenue Living Asset Management, Avenue Living, an owner and operator of properties primarily in Alberta and Saskatchewan, will enable retrofits at approximately 95 properties in their portfolio consisting of 240 buildings to optimize energy performance in more than 6,400 residences. The CIB’s investment commitment is in the amount of $129,871,754.71. As of this date, no funds have been transferred to Avenue Living in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement.

The CIB does not track evictions triggered by building renovation projects and, therefore, does not have a response with respect to parts (b), (c) and (d).

Question No.1430—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

With regard to security cameras and closed-circuit video equipment in use at bases and facilities operated by the Department of National Defence (DND) or the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) is any such equipment manufactured in China, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) description, (iii) manufacturer, make, and model; and (b) for the equipment in (a), has DND or CAF received any warnings, including from our Five Eyes partners, about the use of such equipment due to China's National Intelligence Law, and, if so, what are the details of the warnings and what was the response?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), for large-scale infrastructure projects that require security cameras or closed-circuit video equipment, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, or Defence Construction Canada, DCC, act as the contracting authority and enter into a service contract with a company on behalf of the Department of National Defence. In these instances, the company awarded the service contract is responsible for the procurement and installation of security equipment, including security cameras or closed-circuit video equipment, based on the technical standards set out in the contract.

The security requirements of a project are assessed through the security requirements check list, SRCL. Any company that enters into a service contract for a large-scale infrastructure project must meet and adhere to the security requirements, such as the level of personnel security level that a company and its employees require as applicable. The installation of security systems in sensitive areas would require a higher security clearance, up to and including secret. The SRCL is validated by security authorities.

For small-scale purchases of security cameras or closed-circuit video equipment, including those used for Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, training purposes, National Defence may procure equipment directly from a vendor that meets the technical and security standards of the requirement.

National Defence does not centrally track the manufacturer origin of security cameras or closed-circuit video equipment in use at bases and facilities operated by the Department of National Defence, DND, or the CAF. A manual search of individual contracts, in concert with other implicated government partners, would be required and could not be completed within the allotted time.

With regard to part (b), National Defence works closely with Five Eyes partners on a range of defence and security issues; however, further details cannot be shared for operational security reasons.

Question No.1432—

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

With regard to environmental assessments of natural resource projects submitted under the Impact Assessment Act: (a) how many submissions have been received since June 21, 2019; (b) how many submissions has the minister approved since June 21, 2019; (c) how many submissions have been made but later withdrawn since June 21, 2019; (d) how many projects whose submissions were approved since June 21, 2019 have commenced construction; (e) how many projects whose submissions were approved since June 21, 2019 have completed construction; (f) what was the shortest processing time for a submission which was approved since June 21, 2019; and (g) what was the longest processing time for a submission which was approved since June 21, 2019?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, timelines for project decisions are predictable based on the requirements in the Impact Assessment Act. The act indicates that the impact statement phase conducted by proponents is up to three years. Government planning and decision-making is approximately one and a half years, which includes the planning phase, impact assessment phase and decision-making.

Project timelines are often contingent upon the timing, quality and sufficiency of the information and studies provided by proponents throughout an assessment process, including the project descriptions and the impact statement.

It is possible for the entire process to be closer to three years, and experience has shown that when proponents invest in the front end, in the pre-planning and the planning phase, it helps save time later.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has searched its records since June 21, 2019.

With regard to part (a), the Impact Assessment Act, IAA, came into force on August 28, 2019, and since that date the Impact Assessment Agency has accepted initial project descriptions from proponents for 17 natural resource projects, mining or oil and gas.

With regard to part (b), one natural resource project has completed the impact assessment process under the Impact Assessment Act since coming into force. On March 15, the government announced that the project was determined to be in the public interest by the minister and is allowed to proceed.

With regard to part (c), one natural resource project was terminated by the proponent.

With regard to part (d), zero.

With regard to part (e), zero.

With regard to part (f), 1273 days, or 3.5 years.

With regard to part (g), 1273 days, or 3.5 years.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 1283, originally tabled on April 17, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1423 to 1425, 1428, 1429, 1431, 1433 and 1434 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?