Omar Alghabra

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 5th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (e), Marine Atlantic Inc. is an independent Crown corporation that operates at arm's length from the Government of Canada and is responsible for managing its business decisions and operations, including those related to procurement.

For the capital work that is done for its vessels, Marine Atlantic continues to conduct its refits and maintenance in Canada, as operationally feasible, to support the regional economy.

With regard to part (a), the bareboat charter has a cost of approximately $100 million.

With regard to part (b), Marine Atlantic pursued a competitive procurement process open to domestic and international bidders for the five-year charter of a newly constructed vessel. Stena North Sea Ltd. was the highest ranked proponent. The economic impact of the shipyard selected by Stena to construct the vessel was not considered within the competition.

With regard to part (c), the competition was open to domestic and international suppliers experienced in the operation and chartering of Ro-Pax vessels. Stena North Sea Ltd. was the highest ranked proponent based on the established evaluation criteria.

With regard to part (d), Marine Atlantic’s procurement processes are subject to domestic and international trade treaties.

With regard to part (f), Marine Atlantic does not anticipate being required to pay import duties.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 5th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, as of April 2023, and since the coming into force of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act in July 2019, 105 vessels of concern situations were resolved with the collaboration of the owner. Transport Canada has issued only one penalty to an individual since 2011-12. The fine was issued in 2020-21 and was for $ 5,000. The account/debt has been registered with the Canada Revenue Agency, but no payment has been received. Transport Canada did not forfeit, retain pending payment of a fine, or dispose of for the purpose of payment of a fine, any vessel since 2011-12.

[The Environment, June 5th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the Prime Minister announced the renewal of the oceans protection plan, which is the largest investment Canada has ever made in protecting our oceans and our waterways. Part of that plan is working collaboratively with coastal communities and indigenous communities to make sure that we maintain the health of our waterways, including collaboration on removal of abandoned vessels. We have been dedicating the resources to work with indigenous communities to do so, and we will continue to do so.

[Air Transportation, June 1st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, our government understands the importance of accessible and affordable air transportation to many regions of Canada, including the north. We have been working diligently with the airline and the territories to ensure that the airline is able to maintain viable, efficient transportation. This will ensure that people who live in the north are able to access that critical service.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 15th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada is the safety regulator of air navigation operation services in Canada whereas NAV Canada is the service provider. In its role, Transport Canada does not generate the type of data being requested. This type of data relates to operations and, as such, most of the information being sought may be available from NAV Canada.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 15th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. Transport Canada concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 15th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (i), the joint project office, a joint venture between the Canada Infrastructure Bank and VIA Rail, led the assessments of the different delivery models for the high frequency rail, HFR, project. The assessments were supported by the joint project office’s advisers, including ARUP and AECOM, owner's engineer, Steer, ridership and revenue, Agentis Capital, financial modelling, DLA Piper, legal, and Ernst & Young, EY, which acted as a strategic financial, market and commercial adviser on the project to Transport Canada.

With regard to part (ii), in general, two traditional public-private partnership, P3, procurement options were analyzed for the HFR project, one in which the private sector partner would be responsible to design, build, finance and maintain the project, DBFM, and another in which operational responsibility would also be transferred, DBFOM. Within these two general strategies, different levels of responsibility transfer were further examined, for example, identifying specific components of maintenance or operational responsibility. Transferring responsibility for collecting revenues was also examined as an aspect of operational transfer.

An analysis of these options, including an assessment against a traditional design-build procurement model, indicated that a DBFOM model, inclusive of revenue transfer, showed the most promise for HFR.

An important enhancement to the procurement strategy of the DBFOM model is the inclusion of the co-development approach. Rather than defining the entirety of the project up front before engaging the private sector, the co-development approach sees the private sector participating as a partner in developing the project. This brings in private sector expertise and innovation earlier, which is of particular value for a project with the size, complexities and long-term nature of HFR.

With regard to part (iii), for the DBFM approach, the key advantages included a potentially faster procurement process due to less complexity, avoiding duplication of operating roles between VIA Rail and a new operator, reliance on VIA Rail's strong track record of controlling costs and their experience in operating rail in a complex operating environment, as well as lower costs of financing overall. Disadvantages included reduced fiscal certainty by transferring less risk and responsibility to the private sector, a smaller scope for the private sector to drive innovation on a large and complex project, and more difficulties in interfacing between the "operations" and the "infrastructure" than if these had different responsible entities. Also considered was that a unique project with the magnitude and transformational potential of HFR would benefit from a broader exposure of responsibilities to the private sector.

In the case of DBFOM, key advantages included higher fiscal certainty by transferring costs to the private sector, simpler infrastructure-operations interface risks by having a single responsible entity, that responsibility for operations and revenues would improve the incentive to build a project that operates successfully over the long term and would encourage innovative thinking, and the drawing in of external expertise to increase ridership and revenue, as well as be ready to adapt to change. Market outreach also suggested that there was more likely to be interest by the private sector in bidding on a DBFOM than a DBFM. Disadvantages included the higher cost of capital, in particular when that capital is taking on more responsibility and risk, as well as the requirement for a more complex oversight approach to ensure the project achieves public interest objectives.

With regard to part (iv), the following transportation projects were analyzed when evaluating different procurement models and approaches: HSL Zuid, high-speed rail, Netherlands; Ottawa LRT, light rail, Canada; Eglington LRT, light rail, Canada; Denver Eagle FasTrack, commuter rail, U.S.A.; Waterloo LRT+A21, light rail, Canada; Hurontario LRT, light rail, Canada; Canada Line, rapid transit, Canada; Brightline, higher speed rail, U.S.A.; Gautrain Rapid Rail, higher speed rail, South Africa; Zaragoza Tramway, tram system, Spain; REM, express rail, Canada; North East Link Program – Central Package, tunnel, Australia; Sydney Metro City & Southwest, rail, Australia; Sydney Metro Northwest, rail, Australia; London South Eastern Railway, passenger rail, England; United Utilities Haweswater Aqueduct, pipeline, England; Thames Tideway Tunnel Project, tunnel, England; Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project, rail, U.S.A.; Potrero Bus Yard Project, bus yard, U.S.A.; and Maryland Traffic Relief Plan – Phase 1, road, U.S.A.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 10th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada undertook to respond to the question in the time frame allotted. The department concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

With regard to part (j), the Canadian Transportation Agency has a mandate to keep the national transportation system running efficiently and smoothly for all Canadians. The agency makes air regulations and consults the air industry, the Canadian public and consumer organizations about this work.

The agency’s air activities include the following: providing licences and charter permits needed to operate an airline in Canada; making sure airline tariffs are reasonable and follow rules and international agreements; providing consumer protection for air passengers and helping to resolve air travel complaints; removing undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities when travelling by air; and helping to negotiate and put in place international air transport agreements.

The agency’s air mandate does not include reporting on flight delays as they relate to runway maintenance, air traffic congestion or security incidents at airports.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 8th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, India is an important and growing air market for Canada and for Canadians, for business, tourism, trade and visiting family and friends. The Canada-India air transport agreement, which dates to 1982, was last amended in 2012. It allowed operations by multiple Canadian and Indian airlines, with permission for 35 passenger flights per week for each country, but each side had limited a maximum of 14 flights per week to and from the same city. Canadian airlines were authorized to serve Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Kolkata, Chennai and Hyderabad. Indian carriers were authorized to serve Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Vancouver and two other cities to be selected by India. The air transport agreement also allowed unrestricted all-cargo services and the right to code-share.

To ensure there continued to be enough air capacity within the air transport agreement to meet the demand of Canadians, the Government of Canada was committed to pursuing a more liberalized agreement with India, including unlimited flights instead of a capped weekly amount, and access to more cities within the Indian market, including in the Punjab region. As part of this negotiation process and due to the importance of this file for Canadians, the Minister of Transport was heavily involved, including through an in-person meeting on May 3, 2022, with Minister Scindia, India’s Civil Aviation Minister. In this meeting, the Minister of Transport directly requested from his counterpart unlimited weekly flights and access to Amritsar for Canadian airlines.

For months, negotiations continued between officials from Canada and India. On November 15, 2022, Transport Canada announced an important expansion of the Canada-India air transport agreement. The expanded agreement allows designated airlines to operate an unlimited number of flights between the two countries, whereas the previous agreement limited each country to 35 flights per week. During negotiation of the expansion, Canada also actively sought access to all cities in India, Amritsar included, for Canadian airlines, and access to all cities in Canada for Indian airlines.

Air transport agreements are negotiated between two countries and one partner cannot choose to unilaterally expand its rights. Until agreement can be reached regarding access to additional cities in India, including in the Punjab region, Canadian airlines cannot be authorized to fly there.

However, India is well aware of Canada’s and the Minister of Transport’s interest in this matter. Officials of both countries have agreed to remain in contact to discuss further expansion of the agreement and the rights of Canadian air carriers. Other cities than those listed in the air transport agreement in both countries, including in the Punjab region, can be served indirectly through code-share services.

Canada is committed to continuing to negotiate new and expanded agreements to promote the interests of Canadians, as well as the trade and tourism sectors.

[Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21, May 8th, 2023]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be disposed of as follows:

(a) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order, to:

(i) address unlawfully manufactured, unserialized and untraceable firearms, electronic in nature or otherwise, including their parts, that can be purchased online and/or assembled at home by amending the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act,

(ii) address the illegal acquisition of cartridge magazines by requiring a Possession and Acquisition License to purchase cartridge magazines,

(iii) amend the definition of “prohibition order” and provisions relating to prohibition orders (sections 109 and 110) to include prohibiting a person from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, firearms part, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance, or all such things,

(iv) amend the definition of “prohibited firearm” in the Criminal Code to include a further technical description for an assault-style firearm and criteria that includes any unlawfully manufactured firearms,

(v) allow for an amendment that will ensure a statutory review of the technical definition proposed in paragraph (iv) above,

(vi) amend the Criminal Code as it relates to the proposed definition of prohibited firearm,

(vii) add a definition of “firearm part”, which means to include a barrel for a firearm, a slide for a handgun and any other prescribed part, but does not include, unless otherwise prescribed, a barrel for a firearm or a slide for a handgun if that barrel or slide is designed exclusively for use on a firearm that is deemed under section 84(3) not to be a firearm,

(vii.1) add new offences, and exceptions to the offences, relating to a firearm part or relating to computer data and provide for their enforcement and provide for the court to impose restrictions in relation to firearm parts;

(vii.2) expand the concept of orders under section 117.011 to include orders in respect of access to a firearm part,

(viii) add a new definition of “semi-automatic”, which, in respect of a firearm, means that the firearm to include a firearm that is equipped with a mechanism that, following the discharge of a cartridge, automatically operates to complete any part of the reloading cycle necessary to prepare for the discharge of the next cartridge,

(ix) add a non-derogation clause affirming the rights enshrined under section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

(x) allow for the addition of a regulation-making authority and definition respecting unregulated firearms,

(xi) make any consequential or technical amendments;

(b) during consideration of the bill by the committee:

(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,

(ii) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(iii) not more than 20 minutes be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved, to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment, and at the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the Chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment, forthwith and successively without further debate,

(iv) the committee shall meet between 3:30 p.m. and midnight on the two further days following the adoption of this order,

(v) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on the second day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,

(vi) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Acting Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1);

(c) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage and on that day the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and, not later than 11:59 p.m. or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, 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;

(d) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage and on that day the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and that, not later than 11:59 p.m. or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, 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; and

(e) on the sitting days the bill is considered at report stage and the third reading stage, after 6:30 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.