Debates of May 6th, 2024

(Return tabled)

Question No.2480—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

With regard to the federal government’s implementation of new bare trust filing requirements: (a) what is the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) formal definition of a bare trust; (b) what guidance regarding formal and informal arrangements that qualify as a bare trust that requires filing for tax purposes has the CRA provided; (c) how many complaints or requests for information or clarity has the minister and the CRA received to date broken down by (i) number of requests, (ii) medium of request – letter, phone call, webform, (iii) month of inquiry; (d) do parents or children co-signing a mortgage for property qualify as a bare trust requiring a return; (e) does joint ownership of a bank account, investment or security with a value of over $50,000 during the reporting year qualify as a bare trust requiring a return; (f) what are the the CRA’s plans to ensure new requirements regarding bare trusts are communicated clearly and available to all Canadians, including those without access to the internet; and (g) what conditions would exclude a trust from the T3 return requirement?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2481—

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

With regard to the government's participation in the UN Climate Change Conference, the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) in Dubai: (a) what are the total expenditures incurred by the government to date related to the conference, broken down by type of expense; (b) what was the total number of delegates that the Government of Canada paid for, including the (i) official title and department or organization of each individual, (ii) total expenditures incurred for each entity in (b)(i), broken down by type of expense; (c) for the delegations accommodations in Dubai, (i) what hotels were used, (ii) how much was spent at each hotel, (iii) how many rooms were rented at each hotel and for how many nights, (iv) what were the room rates paid at each hotel and the number of rooms rented at each rate, (v) who stayed at each of the rooms in (c)(iv) broken down by room rate; (d) what were the details of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s accommodation expenditures, including the (i) daily rate, (ii) accommodation venue; (e) what are the details of the total hospitality expenditures broken down by (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) name of any commercial establishment or vendor involved in the hospitality activity, (v) number of attendees, (vi) description of event, (vii) description of goods and services; (f) what are the details of all ground transportation expenditures, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) origin, (v) destination, (vi) make and model of each vehicle used, (vii) type of vehicle (gas, electric, hybrid), (viii) whether a chauffeur or driver was included, (ix) names and titles of passengers or individuals who incurred the expense; and (g) what are the details of all expenditures on gifts related to the conference, including, for each, the (i) value, (ii) description, (iii) vendor from whom it was purchased, (iv) who was the recipient?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2483—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With regard to the Minister of Health’s mandate letter and the marketing of food and beverages to children: (a) what are the details of all consultations held since January 1, 2023, including the (i) name of organization consulted, (ii) date of consultation, (iii) format of consultation; and (b) is the government on schedule to submit draft regulations in the Canada Gazette before June 1, 2024?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2486—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

With regard to striped bass (Morone saxatilis) science at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what was the biomass of striped bass, broken down by year since 2010, with the upper and lower reference points, for the combined waters of the St. Lawrence River and all Atlantic Canadian waters; (b) what is the biomass in the St. Lawrence River and its tributaries; (c) what is the biomass in the Miramichi River; (d) what is the biomass in Area 4R and 2J; (e) what framework is in place to support a balance of the striped bass population and rest of the ecosystem; (f) what was the total catch of striped bass per area in Atlantic Canada and Quebec broken down by year since 2010 and what was the total allowable catch; (g) what is the biomass projected to be in each of the next five years and what are the upper and lower reference points, broken down by the St. Lawrence River and estuary, Miramichi River and all Atlantic Canadian waters; (h) what has the DFO's science budget amount been, that has been dedicated to striped bass since 2019 per year; (i) what is the known range of the migration of striped bass and can the DFO display where they are throughout the year on a map with their spawning zones and rivers; (j) why has the DFO not removed the maximum length restriction of 65 cm on striped bass per Recommendation 4 from the 2019 Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans’s report entitled “Striped bass in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and Miramichi River: striking a delicate balance”; (k) have scientific studies been done in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence on striped bass since 2019, and, if so, what are the details, including results; (l) what ectotherm animals feed upon Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar); (m) what is the "at sea" diet of striped bass, broken down by (i) area, (ii) percentage of species consumed in overall diet; and (n) what is the "in river" diet of striped bass, broken down by (i) river studied, (ii) percentage of diet by species?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C‑64—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the second reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. I will ask hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair can have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

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

Mr. Speaker, while you were reading the motion, I was unfortunately distracted by the Liberal government House leader when you were specifying the number of hours allotted for debate on this issue.

Could you please remind the House of the number of hours specified in this time allocation motion to discuss the bill? This will illustrate the lengths to which the government is going to prevent us from talking about it any longer and debating it as much we would have liked.

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

The time allotted is five hours.

The hon. member for New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, was the leader in actually bringing the bill to bear, with pharmacare being so vitally important for so many Canadians. He basically said, last week, that the Conservatives had up until noon today to remove their blocking amendment.

The Conservatives put an amendment forward that would block pharmacare. What that means for each and every Conservative MP is that 17,000 people, on average, who depend on vital diabetes medication would still have to pay for it out of pocket, in many cases $1,000 a month. That is an unbelievable charge on their ability to put food on the table or keep a roof over their head, and the Conservatives did not care. The reality is that 25,000 women who are looking to take care of their reproductive health in terms of birth control or contraception are also being denied by the Conservatives' blocking this important legislation.

My question very simply—

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

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, has the question and answer period on the time allocation motion started yet?

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

Yes, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has started asking his question.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby may continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should have stood up and should have the guts to actually defend the unbelievably negative things that they have tried to do around pharmacare.

My question to my colleague is very simple. When 17,000 of their constituents need access to diabetes medication and 25,000 need access to their reproductive health prescriptions, which are part of this bill, why are Conservatives blocking the ability of Canadians to access these medications?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his work on this legislation. Specifically, I want to take an opportunity to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his work as well.

Canadians expect parliamentarians to work together to get results, to get the services and the care that they need. It is fine that the Conservatives are going to vote against dental care or vote against pharmacare, which means they are voting against medication for diabetes and against women getting access to the contraceptives they need. It is bad enough that they would vote against it, but to block it actively, to block the elected will of the House to be able to get care to people, is extremely disturbing.

I will talk about dental care. It was really revealing to talk to dentists across the country who had been filled with misinformation, and who were shocked by how easy it is to use the dental care plan. The reason that confusion, in many cases, exists is because of the confusion deliberately being pumped into it.

Again, I would say this to the Conservatives: It is fine that they do not want people to get diabetes medication, they do not want seniors to get dental care and they do not want people to be able to get access to the contraceptives that they need. That is one thing, but they should allow the House to do its work, allow us to move the legislation forward and allow us to make sure that those people who need care get care.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the minister when he said to allow this House to do its work. Allowing the House do its work also means not limiting debate. I know the minister to be a reasonable man. Is he not embarrassed to be limiting debate?

Bill C‑64 includes some extremely important powers. There is a danger. No one will be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois is against encroachment, against jurisdictional overlap, against what will likely be a waste of public funds on administrative redundancy. I think it is important to take the time to debate this properly.

Is the minister not embarrassed to be limiting the time for debate?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there will be time for the committee to conduct a study. After committee, there is still going to be time for the report stage and third reading. After that, there will be time in the Senate. It is important to keep the debate going, one step at a time. We need to make sure we can have a conversation with the Quebec government.

I had a good conversation with Minister Dubé. Quebec is ready to move forward. If the House takes too long, it affects people who really need medication, whether it is diabetes medication or contraceptives.

Yes, it is important to debate. However, there is plenty of time for debate in committee and during the rest of the House process. It is time to get on with it and move forward.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about pharmacare, in particular, the contraceptive angle of this and the supports it is going to provide.

At the heart of this is really a woman's right to choose. I found it very alarming that, on Friday, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes stood up in the House and said, “A common-sense Conservative government would use the notwithstanding clause only on matters of criminal justice.”

It was in the nineties when it was actually made a crime to perform an abortion. What we have seen is that the Supreme Court, using those charters rights, overturned that law. We now have Conservative members saying that, in terms of criminal justice, which that law was, Conservatives would consider using the notwithstanding clause. In theory, Conservatives could bring back a similar law to that which was in the nineties, using the notwithstanding clause to make sure that it stuck, something that the Supreme Court would not be able to overturn.

I find it alarming that, only a year after the United States reintroduced legislation regarding a woman's right to choose and preventing it, Conservatives are now toying with and basically laying out the framework for how they would restrict those rights in the future. I am wondering if the Minister of Health would like to comment on that.