House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 336
CONTENTS
Monday, September 16, 2024
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 336
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, September 16, 2024
Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayer
[Translation]
[English]
Vacancy
It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Fillmore, member for the electoral district of Halifax, by resignation effective Sunday, August 31, 2024.
Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
[Translation]
Sustainable Development Technology Canada
Pursuant to the order made on Monday, June 10, it is my duty to table, in both official languages, a letter I have received from the law clerk and parliamentary counsel regarding the order for the production of documents from the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada and the Auditor General of Canada.
[English]
Board of Internal Economy
It is my duty to inform the House that for the purposes and under the provisions of section 50 of the Parliament of Canada Act, Ms. Gould, member for Burlington, has been appointed member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. MacKinnon, member for Gatineau and member of the King's Privy Council.
[Translation]
Message from the Senate
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-17, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, out-dated terminology and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes and Regulations of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Combating Motor Vehicle Theft Act
The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, welcome back. I find that our summers go by awfully quickly, that is for sure.
It is nice to come back and talk about some important issues that Canadians are facing day in and day out. As we see the days proceed ahead of us, we are going to have a lot of good and hopefully healthy debate on the issues that we know Canadians are very much concerned about. As much as possible, we will try to put them into a perspective that gets us a better understanding of where the Conservatives are on a number of policy fronts, because they do send confusing messages.
Let us take a look at Bill C-379 as an example. What we see is a bill that likely Stephen Harper would not have introduced. Why? If we look at his former legal adviser, Ben Perrin, he did not speak very positively about Conservative members of Parliament in regard to the legislation they are proposing today.
When we think of auto theft, we have to realize that not just one jurisdiction is ultimately responsible. Let me give a tangible example. In the province of Manitoba, we had very serious auto theft taking place in and around 2004 to 2008. We had thousands of vehicles being stolen every year, and no province in the country, on a per capita basis, was doing any worse than Manitoba.
What we found was that a provincial initiative made the difference. It was about working with MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance. It was about looking at how Ottawa might be able to complement some of the actions that would help us bring the rate down. However, let there be no doubt that it was not about any single level of government, and the lead government in this situation was in fact that of Manitoba.
I understand and hear about the issue of stolen vehicles in Ontario in particular. I can say that my Liberal colleagues talk about it at great length because they understand how important it is. That is why we had the national summit.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, Conservatives from their seats are shouting as if they are impressed. As well they should be, because it was not until after the national summit that the leader of the official opposition started to raise the issue here in the House. It took a national summit for the Conservative Party, at least its leadership, to wake up and recognize the issue.
That national summit, where we brought different stakeholders together, has made a difference. Not only have we seen tens of millions of dollars being invested by the federal government, but as a direct result, the number of vehicles being stolen has been reduced. The Conservatives might wish the opposite, as they well do. They want to see more crime on our streets. They can wish for it all they want, but at the end of the day, we will continue to be focused on Canadians and on bringing forward budgetary and legislative measures that are going to make a real, positive difference.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by greeting everyone and wishing everyone a happy and pleasant return. I encourage my colleagues to work for the common good and in the collective interest rather than their personal interest. It is a subtle message. Some will hear it; others, not so much. That is where I wanted to start.
We are talking about Bill C‑379, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code to curb motor vehicle theft. The bill seeks to establish a minimum prison sentence of three years for a repeat offence when a person commits that offence three times.
The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle. We will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in committee. Our colleagues know how we work. We will determine whether it is good for Quebec and Quebeckers. If that is the case, we will vote in favour of the bill.
We think this could improve things. However, a lot of questions remain about the bill's current wording, such as the aggravating circumstances. The bill would add another aggravating circumstance: the fact that the offence was committed for the benefit of organized crime. We agree with that, but this part already exists. The Criminal Code already contains a provision on that. Adding it serves no purpose. It is probably more of a political statement, a way to claim credit for doing it, than a material change to the legislation. We will study the matter and, if necessary, we will keep this aspect. However, our research shows that this provision exists in the legislation already.
There is also a provision preventing the use of conditional sentences. We do not necessarily disagree with this, but we would like to sound a note of caution and raise questions in committee. We must always ensure that judges have the discretion to use their own judgment. As their title suggests, these people are supposed to have good judgment. We need to trust them to use it. Throwing a young person in jail for a first offence and having them spend three years behind bars alongside career criminals may not always the best option to foster rehabilitation and reintegration. What we want is to reintegrate these people into society and the job market in a way that is constructive. We will study this. I am not saying we will oppose this clause when push comes to shove, but we have questions about it.
We are also backing the bill because we want to support the people on the ground. Bloc Québécois members are constantly on the ground. We have just come back from spending the summer in our ridings. We were on the ground, myself included. I try to visit a different region of Quebec each summer so I can talk to residents about their realities in connection with my portfolio, which is agriculture and agri-food.
This summer, I visited the north shore. My time there was brief, because I had to go home to deal with events in my riding. My riding was hit hard by torrential rains, so I had to cut my trip short. Nevertheless, I was able to spend a few days on the north shore and gauge the mood in the region. That is important.
In passing, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the people of Berthier—Maskinongé for their resilience. They showed tremendous resilience this summer in the face of these very unfortunate circumstances. I would also like to tip my hat to all the local elected officials, who are on the front lines when such things happen. When a city experiences flooding, they are the ones in the trenches calling for aid. People know me and know that I try to be very present and offer plenty of support. I kept in direct touch with all these people, and I tried to support them as best I could. Anyway, I digress.
I was talking about what is happening on the ground. The Montreal police department is asking for harsher sentences for auto theft under the Criminal Code. It has reported some troubling findings. One is that stealing cars is far more profitable and less risky than selling drugs. Of course, we do not want to encourage criminals to sell drugs either, but when we compare the two, it does not seem like auto theft is being tackled very aggressively, which may explain why this crime is so popular and growing exponentially.
In short, as I said at the start of my speech, as legislators, let us work for the common good. When cars are stolen, manufacturers are not particularly affected because the insurance company pays out the claim and the owner buys another car. That means auto theft may even increase manufacturers' sales numbers. The important thing is that we work for Canadians.
Who is going to pay for all this in the end? It is ordinary folks, who will have to pay more for car insurance. We have all seen insurance premiums shoot up in recent years. If they continue to go up, it is our fault, since we are doing nothing about it. We need to fix the problem.
I heard the parliamentary secretary say that not just one jurisdiction is responsible. That is just a way of shirking responsibility. He also said that the government held a summit on car theft. It was all just smoke and mirrors. When the media started putting the pressure on, it became clear that the Liberals had been doing nothing about this issue for far too long. That is the hallmark of this tired Liberal government. It is a wait-and-see government. It sticks its head in the sand whenever there is a problem, hoping that it will take care of itself. This government only acts when it has its back to the wall. Our job as the opposition is to put it in that position and tell it to do something.
Auto theft is surging, particularly because of technology. Take smart keys, for example. They seem like a magic solution to make life easier, but they have actually made it easier to steal cars. All the thief has to do is use an amplifier or a computer that they plug into the on-board diagnostics socket to clone the key's signal. Then they can easily drive off with the car. They park it somewhere for a few days and wait to see if it is noticed. Once they are sure it has not been noticed, they load it in a container, drive it to the port and ship it out. That is the big problem.
The bill before us is interesting in certain respects, but it fails to address some sizable gaps, such as the inspection of containers prior to export. What is the justification for requiring a warrant to open containers at the port, even when they are suspicious? A judge needs to issue a warrant, so that complicates matters. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials say that the port already has a security service, so they are not patrolling those areas.
For the 871,000 containers that left the Port of Montreal in 2022, how many inspectors were there? I hope members are sitting down before I give the answer. According to the Canada Border Services Agency, there were five. There were five inspectors for 871,000 containers. Then they are surprised that auto theft has become so popular and is happening so much. Sooner or later, something needs to be done.
This is the same Canada Border Services Agency that was responsible for the ArriveCAN scandal. This resulted in a shameful waste of public funds because of cronies who lined their own pockets, their buddies' pockets and the pockets of four or five other middlemen. This is off topic, but I need to point out that the same thing will happen with pharmacare and dental plans that go through private companies. The government needs to transfer the money to Quebec and let us manage these areas ourselves.
Getting back to the topic of auto theft, there is a problem with the Canada Border Services Agency. There is negligence. The media even reported that some suspicious containers were not inspected because someone's shift was over or someone was not working evenings or weekends or had something else to do. I am not saying that all this is true. I know the importance of avoiding populism, unlike some other individuals here in the House, but this does raise some serious questions.
As for the Canada Border Services Agency, the Bloc Québécois is on record as saying, and I would like to reiterate it now, that in light of the ArriveCAN scandal, the CBSA should be placed under third-party management. If the government wants to be serious, it must intervene.
Just look at the way the port of Montreal is managed and inspected. There are five inspectors for 871,000 outbound containers; there was a refusal to provide an inspector for a special squad that would have worked on vehicle exports; and there were requests from Montreal's police chief. The penalties for those who export the cars need to be increased. This is something we could have control over.
There is a lot of work to be done on this file. The Bloc Québécois will go to committee with an open mind but also with a lot of questions and a lot of suggestions for improvements, as we always do in the best interest of Quebeckers.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I wish a good morning to you and to all of my colleagues in the House. I trust that everyone had an enjoyable summer back in their ridings. Here we are on the first day back.
I am pleased to rise today during Private Members' Business as the NDP's public safety critic to share some of my thoughts on Bill C-379. I know that the member for Prince Albert, who introduced the bill, is coming at this issue with sincerity. I think every member in the House, no matter what political party we belong to, understands that the issue of car thefts in Canada is serious. It is not a victimless crime. We all represent communities that have suffered from it. It is certainly something for which we need an all-encompassing policy response to effectively deal with it.
The bill before us today, Bill C-379, is a relatively short bill, as most private members' bills are. Essentially, the main part of the bill is seeking to increase the minimum term of imprisonment for repeat offenders from six months to three years.
Before I get into a discussion of the bill itself, I want to acknowledge the severity of car thefts in Canada. I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. That committee has been conducting a study into this very issue, and we are getting close to when we will be able to hopefully table a report in the House of Commons with recommendations for the government. That report, of course, will be based on the full spectrum of witness testimony we heard at committee.
To put this in context, there has been a significant increase in vehicle thefts across the country. According to Statistics Canada, there were 83,416 vehicle thefts recorded in 2021. Then a year later, in 2022, that number jumped to 105,673, which is a significant increase in just one year's time.
Between February 26 and May 23 of this year, the public safety committee held six meetings, with a total of 42 witnesses, and 11 briefs were submitted. Committee members were also invited to take a trip to the port of Montreal, so they could see in person what CBSA operations are like there and some of the challenges that CBSA members deal with in how they inspect containers, because that is the primary port through which stolen cars in Canada exit our country to find lucrative markets abroad. It is a very big problem.
There is an incredible amount of transnational criminal organization that goes into these operations, and the payoff can be quite significant. For one stolen car, people can fetch a price of anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000, or even higher. It is a significant return on the investments that criminal organizations make to do this. However, I would like to underline this point by encouraging members to wait for that report so that we can review the recommendations within it.
I do believe that, to effectively deal with this problem, we need an all-encompassing and holistic approach, which would rely on not only criminal law but also a variety of policy measures and programs, to tackle it. The main problem I have with the bill is its reliance on mandatory minimums as a cure-all for a very real and complex problem. The reason for that is that, if we look at the evidence, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence out there, it shows very clearly that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control. That is our guiding star in this debate. We want crime control. We want to see it come down.
The evidence, which is very clearly available, shows that mandatory minimums do not have a beneficial effect on that. They represent an intrusion of the legislative branch into an area that is under judicial jurisdiction. They constrain judicial discretion. There is evidence that they deepen racial disparities in the criminal legal system and cause far-reaching harm to individuals, families and communities.
I say this in the context that auto theft, the crime itself, is not victimless. We have to keep it in balance that, when a person experiences a car theft, it is a very real problem we must address, and it causes a significant amount of hurt in our communities. However, I firmly believe, and the evidence bears this out, that sentences must be based on individual contextual factors relating to each offence and each offender, rather than on one-size-fits-all legislated minimum sentences, which often result in ineffective, expensive and unduly harsh periods of incarceration.
The John Howard Society has done a meta-analysis of 116 studies on this subject from both Canada and the United States. It is a massive analysis of the literature and evidence that is out there. One of the main findings is “custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation.”
I do not want to beat a dead horse on this fact. Members here have a variety of tools at their disposal. They have the Library of Parliament and can read that same evidence, but this point needs to be hammered home: It is very clear that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. There is evidence that, if we put in lengthier periods of incarceration, we could actually see an increase in recidivism among offenders, and that is certainly not a result that we are aiming for.
I also want to talk a bit about the cost because, in addition to the fact that mandatory minimums affect indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians in a very disproportionate way, there is also the fact that the cost of housing an inmate in a federal institution has now reached $428 a day. If we multiply that by 365, we see that the cost for an individual in a federal institution, per year, is $156,220. That is an astonishing cost to taxpayers and far more expensive than crime prevention and social outreach programs, which often have much better results and a far better track record.
If we were to take that cost, which is a fact borne out by the statistics, under the member's proposed Bill C-379 and its mandatory minimum of three years, we are looking at an expenditure of nearly half a million dollars per person convicted under this change to the law alone. Anyone who is sentenced for over two years is automatically placed in a federal institution, whereas those sentenced to two years less a day are under provincial jurisdiction, but those provincial incarceration costs are relatively similar. I am not saying that jail time is not justified in certain cases, but I maintain that this is up to the trial judge to determine, given the facts of the case and the nature of the accused who is before the judge.
We should be putting far more resources into a variety of programs, such as the training resources for youth program or the help eliminate auto theft program, which has had very good success in the province of Manitoba since 2014 and 2015. Those results showed a 30% reduction in gang involvement. The results also indicated that 95% of the people did not receive new charges while in the program, 93% of the property offenders in the program did not receive new charges, there were zero new auto theft charges during the program period and 95% of the participants did not receive new offences against person-related charges. If we look at those results and the cost of these programs, compared to the $156,000 per year to put someone in a federal institution, we see that the cost of these programs ranged anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000 per participant, and they had amazing success rates.
I do not want it to escape the Conservatives that, during their time under the Harper government, there were significant cuts to the RCMP budget and the CBSA budget, which put us in the position we are in now. Just last year, in December 2023, the Conservatives voted against the estimates that provided important funding to the RCMP, the CBSA and Public Safety Canada.
In conclusion, New Democrats want to see action against the auto theft crisis, but we want to see investment in those prevention programs that obviously have a track record and are more cost effective to the taxpayer. On that, I will stick by my principles. Despite all the rhetoric from the Conservatives, they know that the evidence does not support their argument. What is borne out by the evidence is that crime prevention programs are where we need to be putting those smart taxpayer dollars for effective results.
Mr. Speaker, common sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. This bill, which we are talking about today, Bill C-379, will be one step in the stop-the-crime initiatives that we have undertaken.
I do not know if one remembers when one received one's driver's licence, but I do remember when I received my driver's licence. Buying my first car, buying my first vehicle, was a huge milestone in my life. Where I come from, in the country, a vehicle is freedom. The ability to drive is freedom. That is why, from my perspective, auto theft is such a heinous crime. It takes away a person's freedom. Auto theft has been a long-standing problem in northern Alberta. It has more recently reached Toronto, and suddenly, this country is seized with it because of that. Auto theft has been a major challenge, going back a very long time.
Since I have been, probably, three years old, I wanted to be an auto mechanic, and I achieved that goal by the time I was 21. I was able to see first-hand and was able to interact with the auto theft deterrent systems on vehicles quite extensively. I programmed thousands of keys for people who either lost their keys or wanted an extra key, or something like that. I would program them when I worked for Chrysler dealerships. It was called the SKIM program, or “sentry key immobilizer module”.
That system was introduced in 1998. By 2006, every Chrysler product had it. When I quit in 2015, there had never been a case of somebody being able to undermine that system. It had been an incredible system, and it had worked very well. Around 2015, people had figured out a way to beat that system. Here we are, today, with no real way for auto manufacturers to build a system to deter or to make a secure key, without maybe even going back to a hard key again. I do not know about the vehicles that members drive, but most people do not have to put their keys in the doors to make them open anymore. It is not a hard key; it is a digital key. Maybe we have to go back to hard keys. I am not sure about that. Those were relatively easy to get around as well. I have had extensive experience with that, and I have watched the progression of these systems grow. I have enjoyed being part of that sort of thing.
I also had the luxury of being an owner. My very first car, in fact, was a Chrysler Neon. In 1999, that was the most stolen car in Edmonton. I also owned a Jeep TJ, which, in another year, was the most stolen vehicle in Edmonton as well.
For both of those vehicles, the police put out sting vehicles. It did not take very long, and they just had to arrest a few people stealing those sting vehicles, and they went from being the most stolen to the least stolen over just a couple of weekends of doing sting operations and charging people with auto theft. That was bringing people to justice.
We hear a lot from the NDP around mandatory minimums, how they do not work, and things like that. The deterrence effect of the law is a real thing. Bringing people to justice is a real thing. A real thing is ensuring that Canadians understand that if one steals a vehicle, one will go to jail.
For the police to have the backup, to feel that they can pursue this and to ensure that the police have the resources to do this, those are all other things, but private members' bills cannot spend money. This bill is taking one part of the law that we can affect with a private member's bill. I want to thank the member for bringing this bill forward and for ensuring that we can put into effect that deterrence mechanism to ensure that justice can be brought when our vehicles get stolen.
For many people, their vehicle is their lifeline to the world. Their vehicle is often a personal statement. They have a lot invested in their vehicle. To wake up in the morning and to discover one's vehicle missing is a huge insecurity that builds in one's life. In many cases, people work out of their vehicles. Their vehicles are their places of work. To wake up in the morning and to discover that their entire business is missing, that all of their tools and that all of their livelihood is missing because somebody stole their vehicle, is often the case.
Over the last couple of years, we have seen that the Liberal government's soft-on-crime initiatives have led to increases in auto theft. Why is that? It is because there are no deterrents anymore. I have had constituents come in and talk to me about the fact that the people stealing these vehicles are brazen. They know that they are going to get away with it. They know what to say when they are stopped with a stolen vehicle to get out of it. The justice system has been a failure at bringing these people to justice, and because of that, there is no deterrence to auto theft.
The police are more than frustrated with this. They will build a case and make an arrest, only to have the courts slap the person on the wrist and build a revolving door to put the person out on bail. We have addressed this as well in other areas, saying that it should be jail, not bail, for repeat offenders because we see folks who have been charged with auto theft, out on bail and stealing more cars. This has become a major thing. I do not know if members have seen in the news that one of the suggestions as a solution for this is to leave one's keys near the door to ensure that one's family is not violently offended by an auto theft attempt. That does not seem like a solution.
We have seen the cost of living rise across the country, and auto theft is contributing to that. The increases to the insurance rates because of auto theft is making one more thing in our lives more expensive. We are seeing it all around in the distress that people are feeling because they cannot make ends meet. The fuel they put in their cars is one of those things, but their insurance is another thing that keeps on being driven up by the 105,000 cars stolen each year in Canada. All of these things together mean that we need to address auto theft, and I think this bill is a good step along the way.
We hear criticism from the NDP that we need a holistic bill. This is a private member's bill, and private member's bills are not allowed to spend money. We are not allowed to build big national programs that cost a whole bunch of money to set forward a strategy that will need money. Therefore, if we can push the government to do those things, that is great. I think we need that to put forward these sting operations that I experienced back in the early 2000s, when auto theft was also a challenge. There was a focused, concerted effort to bring auto theft down. A lot of levers were pulled to make that happen. That is when we saw the rise of immobilizer systems installed on vehicles as well. The manufacturers, insurance companies, government and community associations got involved, and we were able to bring auto theft down. However, now we see that this lack of deterrence from the soft-on-crime Liberals has driven up auto theft. We have also seen technological advances by the thieves.
I am hopeful that this bill will pass and that we will bring in that deterrence piece of the puzzle to ensure that we have a strong deterrence, that the police have the tools, that prosecutors are able to bring these people to justice and that vehicle thefts go down. However, this bill is just the first small piece on the start. We hope it will inspire the government to take bold action to bring auto theft down across the country. If it is unable to do that, common sense Conservatives stand ready to stop the crime, axe the tax, build the homes and fix the budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we should give careful consideration to this bill and study it in committee. That said, neither the Bloc Québécois nor I are prepared to vote for it in its current form. Make no mistake: We need to tackle the problem of auto theft.
In 2022, according to the reams of figures I have looked over, 10,595 car thefts were reported in Quebec. Over the same period, 70,000 were reported in Canada. That is huge. It means that more than 29 vehicles were stolen per day in Quebec, a 138% increase from 2016. Obviously, this has unfortunate consequences for car owners who have their vehicle stolen, but it also affects all vehicle owners and drivers. Car insurance premiums increased by 50% between 2012 and 2022, mainly due to the increase in car thefts. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed.
We in the House of Commons must deal with many types of crimes. Crimes against the person are something the Bloc Québécois cares deeply about. However, just because auto theft is less serious does not mean we should neglect it, because it is still a major problem.
That being said, the Bloc Québécois is inherently against mandatory minimum sentences. We all know that mandatory minimum sentences have next to no effect on people who commit crimes. The same goes for the ban on conditional sentences. The bill proposes banning conditional sentences and also increasing the minimum sentence from two years to three years. I must say that I do not really believe in all that. This bill was introduced in good faith, I am sure. I think that the people introducing it believe this would have a positive impact. We in the Bloc Québécois do not believe that.
However, we think we need to tackle the problem. In particular, when it comes to increasing sentences, we think that the fact that the theft was committed on behalf of a criminal organization should be an aggravating factor. Everyone in the House knows that we have been pushing for more aggressive and serious action against criminal organizations since 2015. At the time—I think it was in 2016—I tabled a bill to create a registry of criminal organizations to make it easier to identify them, streamline the prosecution of crimes committed for their benefit and possibly consider membership in such an organization or the use of emblems to identify as a member or supporter of a criminal organization a crime. The bill was rejected at the time, but here we are again. We have not given up, we will continue to fight.
When we look more closely at car theft, we can see that the real problem does not lie with the young men or women who go out drinking on a Saturday night and decide to steal a car. This is of course a problem, but the real scourge is the organization behind the thefts, the criminal organizations that pay and encourage often disadvantaged youth to commit these crimes on their behalf. I agree that it is important to punish the individual who actually stole the vehicle. However, as I said earlier, I think that punishing them with mandatory minimum sentences and banning conditional sentences is a bit much, because we are not allowing the judge hearing the case to adapt the sentence based on the particular situation. Personally, I believe in our judicial system. I think that we need to trust the judges who hear the arguments to determine the right thing to do.
We believe that minimum sentences are useful in cases of crimes against the person, since it allows us to send a clear message. Minimum sentences may well make certain individuals think twice, namely those who would otherwise commit crimes against the person on impulse or for all sorts of reasons; we should be tough on them. We need to stop the epidemic of vehicle theft. I would not say that they apply in every case, but in many cases we support mandatory minimum sentences. However, when it comes to car theft, I think it is almost counterproductive to deprive ourselves, as a society, of the assessment a judge can make of a particular situation after hearing all the evidence.
Mandatory minimum sentences are therefore a bit of a problem. Systematically refusing conditional sentences is another problem. We need to trust our judges. However, when there are aggravating circumstances and when the crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization, I agree. It think that is essential. We still have a lot to discuss. We are sitting in the House of Commons and adopting provisions to amend the Criminal Code. That is a federal jurisdiction. Too often, the federal government tries to interfere in the provinces' jurisdictions, and we call it out every time, but this is clearly a federal jurisdiction. In fact, I would say that I still have a hard time understanding why there have been no results after all these years. I am a younger member of the House. I have been here since 2015. For nine years we have been working on this, and nothing has come of it. There have been others before me, but we never managed to tackle criminal organizations severely enough. I think we should be ruthless. Criminal organizations need to be effectively and harshly sanctioned.
That being said, there is another option when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences. We have always looked at crimes to determine whether they merit mandatory minimum sentences. I have shared my thoughts, but could we also consider another way of eliminating crime or perhaps rehabilitating a person who has committed a crime? I think we could. I think that we should look at that more closely. I am thinking among other things about the electronic bracelets used when criminals are released. I wonder whether, instead of sentencing a person who stole a car, for example, to two or three years in prison, regardless of the number of years, we could put them in prison for six months or a year and then have them serve the rest of their sentence out in the community, but wearing an electronic bracelet.
It would be more difficult for criminal organizations to recruit individuals wearing an electronic bracelet. I do not think that many criminal organizations would want to hire people to commit crimes if they are being monitored through an electronic bracelet that can provide information about who and where they are at any given time. That would be risky. This might also help rehabilitate those people, who, rather than going back to their former life of crime might choose—not all but some of them—to try to abide by the rules of our society, the society we ultimately want to have.
This is not a cure-all. I am not saying that it is the only solution, but it is a solution that we could look into. Perhaps I might also change my mind at some point for all sorts of reasons that I am not aware of today, but I do not think that we should cut corners when looking into this issue. Minimum sentencing is counterproductive, but I support alternative ways of rehabilitating individuals. I think that is a good idea.
In closing, we need to be tough on crime committed by criminal organizations, and the Bloc Québécois can be counted on to support these kinds of sanctions. In the meantime, let us study this bill in committee and see how it can be improved in the interest of all Quebeckers and Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone here for giving the bill its due consideration, going through it and providing some good insight into what we should or should not be doing.
I also want to thank the House for the ability to raise this issue on behalf of Canadians; it is a very serious issue. Canadians are saying they want to see action on auto theft. They want to make sure that things are being done to stop this. It is costing them a lot of money, causing harm, affecting personal safety and creating a lot of stress. This is an issue that actually needs to be addressed by the House of Commons, and the bill provides that option.
I have heard members from different parties give their opinions and views. Some had really good ideas. I know the member from the Bloc talked about how he is willing to get it to committee. That is all I was asking for. That is all Canadians were asking for: a chance to get it to committee and then look at it in a very serious manner, bring in the appropriate witnesses, the police chiefs, the police unions, the judges and the appropriate people, including members from the so-called summit that they had. They could bring in the experts from there, if they have data to do that. The NDP talked about some of the programs in British Columbia and Manitoba. They could bring that data to committee and then look at that and see how we can craft it into something that we can make work here in Canada.
Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing means we have not listened to one word our constituents have told us this past summer. Constituents have talked about crime. If members were going door to door, crime would have been one of the top two issues constituents would have talked about.
This could go to committee. It could be massaged and changed. I am open-minded on that. I am the type of person who is not overly partisan. I just like to move the yardsticks and make sure that, at the end of the day, Canadians have benefited. That is the goal of this piece of legislation, to get it there so we can talk about it and look for the best practices.
When I look at the response from the member for Winnipeg North, he talked about the programs they had in Manitoba and how good they were. I will remind him that auto theft is up 62.5% in Winnipeg alone. That is not the rest of Manitoba. From 2015 to 2022, it was up 62%.
We can go right across the board, right across Canada, and these numbers are astounding. This is a real issue that Canadians want to be talking about and want us to work on. This is an example of how parties can actually work together to accomplish something that would benefit all Canadians.
However, we have seen a partisan attack by the Liberals. Basically, they are saying that there is no problem, even though they had a summit on it. Even though they have put it into their budget and started to allocate money next year on this, $14 million a year, they are saying it is not a problem. They are just closing their eyes and putting their head in the sand. It matches the reasons the party is so out of touch.
The Liberal Party has lost touch with Canadians. It does not understand what Canadians are asking them to do. The Liberals do not understand the role they have as a government to represent Canadians and to actually bring in laws to protect Canadians. Do I need to repeat that?
Here is a prime example: We could go to the committee and bring forward different ideas from different provinces, groups and associations. I have no issue with any of that. At the end of the day, we need to have a piece of legislation coming out of the House of Commons that actually attacks the issue and reduces the crime.
What is the best way to do that? If we do not go to committee, if we do not get it there, then we are saying to our constituents that it is not a big enough issue or that we do not care. That is how it is going to be received. That is what they are going to think. When members go door knocking, constituents will ask about crime. Will members say that we had a private member's bill but voted against it? Constituents will ask why. Why would we not get it to committee and talk about it? Why would we not keep an open mind, as I am willing to do, and actually put a piece of legislation forward that may lower auto crime, actual insurance rates and people's feeling that they are unsafe in their homes?
There are lots of options here, but one that should not be considered is the option of not taking it to committee and talking about it. If the government wants to go down that path, it explains why the Liberals are where they are in the polls. They have lost touch with Canada and Canadians. They do not represent what constituents are asking them to do. They have their own opinions, but instead of listening, the Liberals are going back to preaching to them. That does not work, and the next election will prove that.
The question is on the motion.
[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Privilege
Alleged Failure of Government to Produce Documents
[Privilege]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege following my notice under Standing Order 48 concerning the failure of the government to comply with the order that the House adopted on Monday, June 10.
A majority of the House voted that day to compel the government to produce a series of unredacted records concerning Sustainable Development Technology Canada, a body engulfed in Liberal scandal in recent years, leading to its being dubbed the “green slush fund”. For the purpose of making those documents available to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the government has failed to comply and failed to obey this House order, as we learned this summer when the law clerk and parliamentary counsel reported to the House through you on July 17.
Mr. Speaker, you are being put into a situation like your predecessors were so conspicuously placed in, to address a serious impasse over document production. As your well-regarded predecessor, Speaker Milliken, said on April 27, 2010, at page 2042 of the Debates, in a widely acclaimed ruling, “Before us are issues that question the very foundations upon which our parliamentary system is built. In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.”
The current obligation originates from the Conservative opposition motion adopted on the heels of an utterly scandalous Auditor General's report. Over the summer, yet another officer of Parliament, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, also weighed in, finding the former Liberal hand-picked chair of SDTC guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act twice.
There is little doubt the Liberal government must be held to account over this debacle, which is why the House decided to exercise one of its ancient powers to compel the production of papers. Indeed, as a mark of how old the power is, Erskine May treated it as a settled matter in the first edition of his self-titled treatise on parliamentary procedure, published in 1844, at page 309: “Parliament, in the exercise of its various functions, is invested with the power of ordering all documents to be laid before it which are necessary for its information.”
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, elaborates, at pages 984 and 985, upon the scope of that power:
The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format, and that they are located in Canada. They can be papers originating from or in the possession of governments, or papers the authors or owners of which are from the private sector or civil society (individuals, associations, organizations, et cetera)....
No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.
This is a critical point and one to which I will return.
In a May 2019 report on the power to send for papers, the United Kingdom House of Commons procedure committee concluded, at paragraph 16, that “The power of the House of Commons to require the production of papers is in theory absolute. It is binding on Ministers, and its exercise has consistently been complied with by the Government.”
In recent years, our own House has, however, encountered several incidents of government refusals to provide records which it or its committees have ordered to be produced. Most famously, there was the very high-profile, high-stakes decision of your longest-serving predecessor, Speaker Milliken, concerning documents regarding the Afghanistan conflict following a Liberal opposition motion, which the House adopted in December 2009, requiring the public tabling of 40,000 unredacted pages of sensitively classified records about operations in an active war zone, with zero provision for their safekeeping. Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 139, the subsequent events:
the Government refused, citing national security concerns. Questions of privilege were raised based on the House’s absolute right to order documents. The Minister of Justice insisted that as the government had a duty to protect information that could jeopardize national security, that right was not without limits. On April 27, 2010, Speaker Milliken ruled that it was within the powers of the House to ask for the documents specified in the House Order, and that it did not transgress the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of Government. Thus, the Speaker concluded that the government’s failure to comply with the House Order constituted a prima facie breach of privilege. However, he gave the parties two weeks to develop a mechanism that would accommodate the Government's concerns over national security and the House's right to receive the documents.
As a result, three of the four recognized parties negotiated an agreement in principle to have an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians convened to review the 40,000 pages in question and to vet them for future tabling.
Meanwhile, in 2011, another prima facie case of privilege was found in respect of efforts by the Standing Committee on Finance to obtain documents with financial information. Allow me to summarize for the House the pertinent developments there. In autumn of 2010, the finance committee requested certain financial information from the government and ordered the production of various documents concerning economic projections and costing estimates. The government responded that certain of the documents sought constituted cabinet confidences.
In February 2011, the finance committee agreed to report the foregoing events to the House. That report, the finance committee's tenth report, was presented, and a question of privilege was raised. While awaiting a ruling, the government tabled in the House some documents responsive to the finance committee's requests, and in any event, the House adopted an opposition motion ordering the production of the same documents.
Subsequently, on March 9, 2011, Speaker Milliken ruled on the question of privilege, finding a prima facie case of privilege, whereupon a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was adopted. That committee then presented its 27th report on March 21, 2011. While most of the report dealt with the government's invocation of cabinet confidence, something which is an issue in the present case but not a central one, there are still two notable items in the report's summary of the evidence which are relevant to quote.
First, at page 4, Mr. Robert Walsh, House of Commons Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, “indicated that the Speaker had concluded in his ruling that Parliament has the right to receive all the information that it requires, but the government may decide to refuse to provide this information. In that event, the government must convince Parliament that its decision is well-founded.”
Later, at page 9, Mr. Ned Franks, professor emeritus in the Department of Political Studies at Queen's University, “affirmed that he sided with Speaker Milliken and declared that, in his view, the government was not entitled to limit Parliament's power to receive information.”
On March 25, 2011, the House considered and adopted an opposition motion proposed by Michael Ignatieff, which stated, among other things, “That the House agree with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament”.
Where the House subsequently agreed with the 27th report's conclusions, it stands to reason that the House likewise endorsed the analysis leading to it. Most recently, there was the famous 2021 case concerning the Winnipeg lab documents. As most of us will recall, in spring 2021, the then special committee on Canada-China relations adopted two orders for unredacted copies of documents concerning very troubling reports out of Winnipeg's National Microbiology Laboratory.
When those orders were not honoured on June 2, 2021 to compel the production of the same documents, the government persisted in its refusal to comply. That led to a question of privilege on which your immediate predecessor ruled, on June 16, 2021, at page 8548 of the Debates, when he reaffirmed that “at the heart of the parliamentary system, and firmly anchored in our Constitution, there are rights and privileges that are indispensable to the performance of members' duties.”
The House, in turn, on June 17, 2021, adopted a motion to find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey an order of the House, and accordingly ordered its president to attend at the bar of the House to be admonished and to hand over the documents. That led to the historic moment on June 21, 2021, when Iain Stewart, the agency's president, stood at the bar to be admonished by the Speaker in the following words:
The privileges held by the House of Commons are an integral part of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Parliament of Canada Act. These rights include the right to require the production of documents....
The privileges in question, like all those enjoyed by the House collectively and by members individually, are essential to the performance of their duties. The House has the power, and indeed the duty, to reaffirm them when obstruction or interference impedes its deliberations. As guardian of these rights and privileges, that is precisely what the House has asked me to do today by ordering the Speaker to reprimand you for the Public Health Agency of Canada's contempt in refusing to submit the required documents.
In parallel, the Liberal government, quite shockingly, initiated proceedings in the federal court against the House and its Speaker, seeking to block any further attempts to obtain the documents. Our then Speaker quite fearlessly fought back in court against a government of his own party background, seeking to have the government's court application thrown out. The Prime Minister's selfish and self-interested early election call brought an abrupt end to the federal court proceedings.
In the new Parliament, an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians, similar to that in the 2010 example, was eventually established to look at the Winnipeg lab documents. In February of this year, its work on 600 pages of documents was finally tabled, some 35 months after the standoff in the special committee began. In the end, we discovered that most redactions were not about national security but about protecting the government from embarrassment.
There have also been developments in the United Kingdom Parliament in recent years that some of our colleagues may not be fully familiar with. In the 2017 general election, the incumbent Conservative government did not secure a majority in the House of Commons. The Labour Party subsequently devoted some 10 of its opposition days in the first session of Parliament following that election to ordering the production of documents. Half of the motions were defeated by the House, and of the remaining five, four were responded to in a satisfactory manner by the government.
It is the fifth motion that warrants our attention and was a case that prompted the U.K. House of Commons procedure committee to study the matter and issue its ninth report, entitled “The House’s power to call for papers: procedure and practice”, in May 2019, which I quoted earlier.
On November 13, 2018, the U.K. House of Commons adopted the following motion, proposed by Sir Keir Starmer, who is now the country's Prime Minister:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before Parliament: any legal advice in full, including that provided by the Attorney General, on the proposed withdrawal agreement on the terms of the UK’s departure from the European Union including the Northern Ireland backstop and framework for a future relationship between the UK and the European Union.
Subsequent events can be summarized by the following extracts from paragraphs 41 to 43 of the U.K. Parliament's procedure committee's 2019 report:
Ministers advanced arguments against the motion from the Despatch Box, but did not seek to divide the House. The motion therefore passed unopposed. In points of order raised immediately after the House’s decision, Members sought to clarify the obligations on the Government arising from it: no Ministerial statement was made in response.
An agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU was endorsed by heads of state and government at the European Council meeting of 25 November 2018.... On 3 December the Attorney General presented to Parliament a Command Paper which purported to describe the “overall legal effect” of the agreement of 25 November 2018. On the same day he made a statement to the House...neither the Command Paper nor the statement made reference to the resolution of 13 November, and the Command Paper did not purport to be a return to the resolution of the House.
Following the presentation of the government's command paper to the House, Keir Starmer, together with representatives of four other political parties, wrote to the Speaker alleging that the government had not complied with the terms of the resolution of 13 November. The Attorney General also wrote to the Speaker with his observations on the matter. He argued that the government was in considerable difficulty in knowing how to comply with the resolution.
Speaker Bercow ruled, on December 3, 2018, at column 625 of the official report:
The letter that I received from the members mentioned at the start of this statement asks me to give precedence to a motion relating to privilege in relation to the failure of Ministers to comply with the terms of the resolution of the House of 13 November. I have considered the matter carefully, and I am satisfied that there is an arguable case that a contempt has been committed. I am therefore giving precedence to a motion to be tabled tonight before the House rises and to be taken as first business tomorrow, Tuesday. It will then be entirely for the House to decide on that motion.
The following day, after defeating a government amendment, the House voted to adopt the following motion:
That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.
In response, the government produced a complete, unredacted copy of the Attorney General's legal advice the next day. According to the procedure committee's report, at paragraph 68, “The Attorney General later said that he had complied with the order of the House of 4 December 'out of respect of the House’s constitutional position.'” A government that respects the constitutional position of the House of Commons; let us all just imagine that for a moment.
As I mentioned earlier, the Liberal government is, on the other hand, in my submission, in contempt of Parliament yet again. Bosc and Gagnon comment, at page 81:
Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions;...or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands....
On the next page, they articulate the well-established categories of contempt, including:
deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House or a committee;...
without reasonable excuse, refusing to answer a question or provide information or produce papers formally required by the House or a committee; [and]
without reasonable excuse, disobeying a lawful order of the House or a committee....
In the present case, the government has disobeyed a lawful order of this House. It has failed to provide all of the papers that were formally required by this House, and in so responding, many papers were altered or outright suppressed through the redaction process.
On June 10, the House ordered the government to deposit a series of documents concerning SDTC, the Liberal green slush fund, with the law clerk within 30 days. No redactions or other alterations were contemplated by that order, nor was any information permitted to be otherwise withheld, though I would not be surprised if there is a fresh update for us today.
We do know, based on the law clerk's July 17 and August 21 reports to you, Mr. Speaker, which you tabled the same days, that the Department of Finance, Sustainable Development Technology Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat each provided only partial responses.
Several government institutions redacted the records they deposited with the law clerk, including the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; the Business Development Bank of Canada; the Canada Revenue Agency; the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency; the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; the Department of National Defence; the Department of Natural Resources; Public Services and Procurement Canada; Western Economic Diversification Canada; Export Development Canada; the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario; Pacific Economic Development Canada; the Privy Council Office; the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; and the Standards Council of Canada.
I would add that the Department of Natural Resources also decided only to provide the House with records from the director general level and higher. For those not familiar with government hierarchy, a director general is a pretty elite bigwig within the government. They are typically at least four layers above a typical frontline worker. Who knows what pertinent information from the front lines, so to speak, was concealed by this manoeuvre? The House order certainly did not contemplate this approach.
Three other organizations fall into both of these categories, by providing incomplete responses and redacting what they did provide: Innovation, Science and Economic Development; the Department of Justice; and the National Research Council Canada. For its part, the justice department brazenly put the House on notice that some 10,772 pages of relevant documents were “completely withheld”. The Communications Security Establishment, meanwhile, simply wrote that it was refusing to turn over any documents, even redacted ones. Then we have the case of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, the body that manages a quarter of a trillion dollars of public sector pension assets, which claimed it is not part of the government. I guess it is not just campaign managers who are distancing themselves from the Liberal Prime Minister.
The Auditor General, for her part, also refused to provide documents, referring to her obligations under the Auditor General Act to honour whatever security restrictions the government imposes on its information. Not only has the government refused to comply with the House's order; it has also shackled the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, from being able to comply as well.
I want to pause here to recognize the Privacy Commissioner's, our former law clerk's, gold standard approach. He provided a set of records with what he called proposed redactions along with a clean copy of the records, because, as he wrote, “these provisions [of the Access to Information Act] do not limit the House of Commons' constitutional authority to seek and obtain information and documents.” At least he gets it.
Regardless, there is clear and convincing evidence before the House today that a contempt was committed by the government's flagrant and systematic disobedience to the House's June 10 order. While I think it is clear-cut, it is, of course, ultimately a decision for the House to take.
In his March 9, 2011, ruling, Mr. Speaker Milliken cited page 281 of Sir John Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition:
But it must be remembered that under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.
From there, the Chair added, at page 8841 of the Debates:
It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge. A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so. However, there is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account.
The U.K. procedure committee, in its May 2019 report, concluded, at paragraph 16, “The way in which the power [to require the production of papers] is exercised is a matter for the House and not subject to the discretion of the Chair.” That committee commented, at paragraph 35, similarly to the views of Mr. Speaker Milliken, on the means of assessing compliance:
There is no recognised procedure to assess the papers provided to the House as a whole in response to a resolution or order, and no means of appeal against non-compliance, short of raising the issue as a matter of privilege.
Where papers have been provided to a body of the House, compliance has been easier to assess. Select committees in receipt of papers have been able to review the information they have received and to determine whether the House's instructions have been complied with.
The U.K. procedure committee concluded, at paragraph 86:
The House alone determines the scope of its power to call for papers. In its consideration of each motion it is able to discern whether an inappropriate or irresponsible use of the power is sought, and whether it is being asked to require the production of information from Ministers on a scale disproportionate to the matter under debate. We expect that in each such case the House will continue to exercise its judgment in favour of a responsible use of the power.
A similar point was also made in the first report of our House's former Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, tabled on May 29, 1991, and of which the House took note on June 18, 1991:
It is well established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information. ... The power to call for persons, papers and records is absolute, but it is seldom exercised without consideration of the public interest.
In our present case, the House has before it, I would submit, a thorough record upon which to take a decision. The law clerk's reports, with the annexed correspondence from assorted deputy heads, lay before the House both sides of the argument. Personally, I side with the law clerk and his defence of the rights of Parliament. For those who would advocate that we must temper the House's authority with a willingness to accept the government's decisions to withhold information, supposedly in the name of the public interest, I would recall that these balancing acts are represented within the House's own self-restraint and not by any veto exercised by an outside authority.
Mr. Speaker Milliken articulated the concept on April 27, 2010, at page 2043 of the Debates:
It is the view of the Chair that accepting an unconditional authority of the executive to censor the information provided to Parliament would in fact jeopardize the very separation of powers that is purported to lie at the heart of our parliamentary system and the independence of its constituent parts. Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded.
As has been noted earlier, procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents, even those related to national security.
Therefore, the Chair must conclude that it is perfectly within the existing privileges of the House to order production of the documents in question.
Having established that it is for the House to decide how to exercise its authority in ordering the production of papers, how can we go about such mechanisms to strike the right balance?
As you recall, in the 2010 case of Afghanistan documents, the House ordered some 40,000 pages of records to be produced in the original and uncensored form forthwith, even though the complete disclosure of them could have prejudiced Canada and her NATO allies' interest in a conflict zone. That prompted Mr. Speaker Milliken to suspend the effect of his ruling to allow a critical gap to be filled.
In 2021, we were dealing with about 600 pages involving professional and counter-espionage investigations while the motion had embedded a series of safeguards, like having the records vetted by the top-secret-cleared law clerk. That gave your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, the comfort to allow a motion to proceed immediately from his ruling. In the present case, the House adopted the motion for the purpose of making these documents available to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's national law enforcement agency.
To ensure adequate confidentiality for information that might be sensitive in any potential criminal investigation, the June 10 order established a procedure whereby institutions would directly deposit the records with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, who, in turn, would transmit them to the RCMP. The documents were not tabled nor were they meant to be tabled. Instead, the law clerk was directed to prepare a report to the House to be tabled by you. In other words, the documents in question are not open to public inspection. Privacy interests are protected. The documents are, literally, simply being transferred within the federal government from one institution to another institution, the RCMP, through the good offices of our own law clerk.
It is incumbent upon us to act, and act now, in the face of this disregard for the House's authority. To quote page 239 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition:
Disobedience to rules or orders represents an affront to the dignity of the House, and accordingly the House could take action, not simply for satisfaction but to ensure that the House of Commons is held in the respect necessary for its authority to be vindicated. Without proper respect, the House of Commons could not function.
I recognize that the government will undoubtedly try to lay the blame at the feet of the public servants who prepared the documents and applied the redactions. However, it is not the public service but the cabinet that is accountable here on the floor of the House of Commons. On September 15, 2021, in preparation for this Parliament, the Privy Council Office provided a briefing note to Paul MacKinnon, then the deputy secretary to the cabinet and a former Chrétien PMO staffer, a former senior staffer for the current Minister of Agriculture and, if I am not mistaken, a brother of the Minister of Labour, to advise that “in the event that parliamentarians press for the release of confidential information, the appropriate minister or ministers should take responsibility for the decision to provide or withhold the information.”
Mr. MacKinnon, in turn, on November 24, 2021, immediately following a question of privilege being raised concerning the Winnipeg lab documents, sent a briefing note to the then government House leader, stating, “Consistent with the principles of responsible government, the ultimate accountability for deciding what information to withhold from or release to parliamentarians resides with the responsible minister. Public servants do not share in ministers' constitutional accountability to the Houses of Parliament but support ministers in this accountability, including by collecting and transmitting documents to Parliament.”
Those are the words of the Prime Minister's own department. We think that it is only fair that the Prime Minister should heed the words of his own officials. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for a whole-of-government failure to respect the will of the House of Commons.
That is why the motion I intend to put forward, should you agree that this is a prime facie contempt, would reiterate the House's June 10 order and direct all government institutions that failed to comply with the original order to get their act together and deposit with the law clerk all of the documents we originally ordered, without any redactions this time, and to do so within one week. For good measure, the motion would also express the House's view to urge the Prime Minister, consistent with the spirit of the principles of responsible government, to make his view clear and known to those delinquent government departments that he expects the House's order to be complied with this time.
In the interim, you have an important decision. The House of Commons, Canadians and hundreds of years of constitutional parliamentary government are looking to you to allow us to stand up for the ancient rights of the people's elected representatives.
I know it is customary to reflect and ponder on arguments made on these types of questions of privilege, but this is a very easy decision. We just have to ask ourselves the following questions. Did the House adopt a production order? Yes, it did. That is not a matter of opinion. That is in the Journals and you know that, Mr. Speaker.
Was the order complied with? No. Some provided partial responses. A few withheld documents. Most of them redacted them.
Again, it is not my opinion. It is not a subjective analysis. That is in a report tabled by you, Mr. Speaker, and written by the law clerk on how the government complied with the order.
The law clerk's reports lay out all of these facts and are there on the table. Mr. Speaker, you could quickly consult with him and make your ruling right now. Thank you.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his substantive and comprehensive question of privilege that he has put before the House. It is my understanding and it is a normal tradition that we would hear from the different party House leaders as to their comments on this and I hope that they will do so forthwith.
I see that the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising.
[Translation]
Welcome back to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker.
I listened with interest from the lobby to what my colleague was saying. The NDP would like to reserve the right to revisit this issue in the near future.
I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments, and I hope that he will do that in the near future, as he said.
[English]
I will turn now to the Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House.
Mr. Speaker, to extend the same courtesy, we would like to be able to review what the opposition House leader has said and then return back to the House once we have had the opportunity to do so.
Again, as I indicated to the other hon. member, I appreciate the intervention and I hope that the parliamentary secretary will do so forthwith so that the Speaker would be able to make a determination to the House.
[Translation]
I do not see any members of the Bloc Québécois rising. I would imagine that the Bloc members listened to the speeches in the House.
I hope to share my ruling with the House soon.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Citizenship Act
moved that Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we return to the House, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathering today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.
I am honoured to rise in this House today to discuss the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act. The legislation would provide a clear framework for citizenship by descent with the immediate goal of restoring and granting citizenship to lost Canadians.
Some of us, like me, were fortunate to be citizens by birth. Others come from far and wide, choose Canada to be their home and earn their citizenship through our naturalization process. There are those who are Canadians by descent, who are born outside the country to a parent who is a Canadian citizen.
[Translation]
Regardless of how someone acquires their citizenship, I think we all agree that we appreciate each Canadian just the same in this great nation of ours. Whether one was born Canadian or chose Canada as their new land, we are united by a common set of principles and mutual respect for our communities and our country. We are all proud to be Canadian.
Since the founding of what we now call Canada, people from around the world have made this country their home. Canadians are a welcoming people who help others and one another. We demonstrate our commitment to others within the community and the world over when we support charities, volunteer our time and extend a helping hand to those in need.
[English]
Canadians are a diverse group, but we share a set of common values and take pride in who we are and what the country stands for. We are welcoming, inclusive, generous; a country that supports human rights, equality and respect for all people. There is no doubt that Canadian citizenship is highly valued and recognized around the world. We want our citizenship system to be fair and accessible and with clear and transparent rules. That is why, when issues arise around our citizenship laws, it is important that Parliament address them.
Given recent challenges to the first-generation limit that Harper Conservatives unfairly introduced, it was clear that changes were needed to the Citizenship Act to address cohorts excluded from citizenship. This is especially relevant for those born outside Canada to a Canadian parent.
[Translation]
It is important that members understand the history of the Citizenship Act in order to better understand how this problem arose. Canada's first citizenship law was passed in 1947. It contained provisions that could revoke some people's citizenship or prevent others from becoming citizens in the first place. Today we view those provisions as outdated, and they were either removed or amended. Those affected by these provisions who lost their citizenship or never became citizens are referred to as “lost Canadians”.
In the past, Canadians could hand down their citizenship to their descendants born abroad not only in the next generation but also beyond the first generation, so long as they met certain conditions and applied by a certain age.
When a new citizenship statute took effect in 1977, children born abroad to a Canadian parent also born abroad were citizens, but they had to act to preserve their citizenship by age 28, or else they would lose it. This requirement was not well understood, so some people lost their citizenship and became so-called lost Canadians.
To wit, my department generally receives 35 to 40 applications for resumption of citizenship per year because of this problem.
[English]
In 2009, several amendments to the Citizenship Act remedied the majority of these older lost Canadian cases by providing or restoring citizenship by their 28th birthday. Since 2009, approximately 20,000 individuals have come forward and have been issued proof of their Canadian citizenship because of these changes.
However, the Harper Conservatives introduced the first-generation limit, which the Ontario Superior Court has deemed unconstitutional on equality and mobility rights. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance, and that they are considering taking away people's rights when it suits the Conservatives. What the Conservative Party did here is a concrete example of taking away the rights of Canadians. When Conservatives say that we have nothing to fear, Canadians need to take note of what they have done in the past.
This is a record where Conservatives, with the Leader of the Opposition as one of their members, took people's rights away. This should speak for itself.
[Translation]
The legislative amendments of 2009 also allowed anyone born after the 1977 act who was not yet 28 years old when the changes took effect to retain their status and remain a Canadian citizen.
However, there is still a cohort of people who self-identify as lost Canadians. These are people born abroad to a Canadian parent after 1977 in the second generation or beyond who lost their citizenship before 2009 because of rules since revoked that obliged them to take action to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday.
Some of these people born abroad were raised in Canada and were unaware that they needed to take steps to retain their Canadian citizenship. We know that the number of people in this cohort is rather small. We know this because the only people affected are those who were born abroad in the second generation or beyond between 1977 and 1981; in other words, only Canadians who had already reached the age of 28 and lost their citizenship before the passage of the 2009 act, which revoked the requirement. As we can see, this is a complicated issue.
Senator Martin of British Columbia introduced public bill S-245 in an effort to address the issue. The goal of the bill and the amendments adopted by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is to restore the citizenship of this cohort, of these lost Canadians affected by the age 28 rule.
[English]
When Bill S-245 was studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the bill was amended to include not only a mechanism to restore the citizenship of this cohort but also a mechanism to allow some people born in the second or subsequent generation to be born a Canadian citizen by descent if their Canadian parent could demonstrate that they held a substantial connection to Canada. That is, if a child's Canadian parent had been in Canada for three years before the child was born, they could pass on their citizenship to that child. Bill S-245 also proposes that children born abroad and adopted by a Canadian could also access citizenship. The process for adopted children is a grant of citizenship.
What has changed since we began the review of Bill S-245 is a key decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that determined that the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent was unconstitutional. It is clear that the House must now take immediate action to address the issues the court noted.
Since Bill S-245 went through a number of changes and improvements based on feedback from experts and those impacted, the Conservative Party continues to delay the progress of this bill. Not only that, but Conservatives filibustered Bill S-245 for nearly 30 hours during the actual study. It is obvious, again, that there is little care for Canadians' rights.
During that time, the member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn, who sponsored Senate Bill S-245, as well as the former Conservative immigration critic, recommended the introduction of a private member's bill or a government bill to address the remaining cohort of lost Canadians.
We have a government bill in front of us to do just that. Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2024, establishes a revised framework governing citizenship by descent and restores citizenship to lost Canadians and their descendants. This revised regime would also address issues raised by the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling by providing a pathway to citizenship for those born or adopted abroad. Similar to what is proposed by Bill S-245, this bill expands access to citizenship by descent, but in a more comprehensive and inclusive way.
Like Bill S-245, it would restore citizenship to the last cohort of lost Canadians, but it also proposes that all individuals born outside Canada to a Canadian parent before coming into force in this legislation would also be citizens by descent, including those previously excluded by the first-generation limit.
For those born outside our borders, beyond the first generation, or after the legislation comes into force, they would be citizens from birth if their Canadian parent can demonstrate their own substantial connection to Canada. That means that the parent was in Canada for three years, cumulative, and it does not need to be consecutive, before the child was born.
Any child born abroad and adopted by a Canadian parent before this bill's coming-into-force date would have access to the direct grant of citizenship for adoptees, and that includes those previously excluded by the first-generation limit. Today, we are dealing with fundamental issues of fairness for people who should be Canadian citizens.
When the legislation comes into force, the same substantial connection to Canada test will apply for Canadian adoptive parents who are also born outside the country to access a grant of citizenship. If the adoptive parent was physically in Canada for 1,095 days or three years prior to the adoption, their child could access the adoption grant of citizenship.
Finally, as with previous changes to the Citizenship Act that helped other lost Canadians, this bill would confer automatic citizenship on some people born outside Canada who may not wish to be citizens.
[Translation]
In many countries, dual citizenship is not permitted in certain jobs, including in government, military and national security positions. In some countries, having citizenship in another country can present legal, professional or other barriers, including restricting access to benefits. That is why this bill will provide access to the same simplified renunciation process as the one established in 2009.
Most people who would automatically become citizens when the bill comes into force but may not wish to hold citizenship will be able to use the simplified renunciation process. This mechanism has a few requirements. These individuals must not reside in Canada; they also must not become stateless by renouncing their Canadian citizenship. That is an important point. In addition, people must apply to renounce the citizenship granted to them through the—
One moment, please. The hon. minister can start his last sentence over. I believe the hon. minister's phone is on his desk, and that is causing problems for the interpreters. I would ask him to move his phone, if that is indeed the issue.
The hon. minister can repeat the sentence he was saying before I interrupted him.
Madam Speaker, please let me know if the problem persists because my phones were rather far away.
I will go back to what I was saying about the statutory mechanism allowing those who do not want to become Canadian to renounce their citizenship. A few requirements need to be met. The person must not be a resident of Canada; they must not become stateless as a result of renouncing their Canadian citizenship; and they must request the renunciation of the citizenship that was conferred on them through the ministerial process.
[English]
When the legislation comes into force, the same substantial connection to Canada test will apply for Canadian adoptive parents who were also born outside the country to access a grant of citizenship. If the adoptive parent was physically in Canada for that 1,095-day period or three years prior to the adoption, the child can access the adoption grant to citizenship.
Finally, as with previous changes to the Citizenship Act to help other lost Canadians, this bill would confer automatic citizenship on some people born outside of Canada who may not wish to be citizens, and we will remediate that as the case may be.
[Translation]
This bill introduces changes to make the necessary improvements, to restore citizenship to those who lost it and to expand eligibility beyond the first generation to people who have proven that they have a substantial connection to Canada. These legislative changes address the concerns raised in the recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which calls on the federal government to act.
[English]
Don Chapman, a long-time advocate for lost Canadians, who has met many members of Parliament in fighting for this noble cause, has said, “This bill will be the first time in Canadian history that women achieve the same rights as men in the Citizenship Act.” It will be the first time that the Citizenship Act is actually charter compliant.
There is urgency in this matter. It is crucial that we establish an updated framework as soon as possible. I would hope, given the cross-party support from the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party to restore citizenship, that we are positioned to move the legislation forward quickly.
[Translation]
I look forward to working with members and senators to move this bill forward without delay with the appropriate considerations and reviews.
[English]
Canadian citizenship is integral to who we are, uniting us through shared values of democracy, equality and inclusion. Through this legislation, we are working to provide a more inclusive Citizenship Act and ensure that those who are rightfully Canadian are seen as such under the law.
Madam Speaker, coming back from the summer recess, I was hoping the minister would not start by being so partisan on the bill before us.
I want to remind the minister, because he mentioned it several times, about the Harper government. In the session of Parliament on February 7, 2008, the Liberal Party voted for the first generation limit and then proceeded to vote again for it at third reading. This original ruling, this decision in legislation to introduce a first generation limit, was supported by the Liberal Party at the time.
However, I missed the part today where the minister said how many people would be impacted by the legislation in its multiple parts, which is the key criteria here. It is reckless to continue to forward legislation when government officials have told us at committee repeatedly that they do not know how many people would then be eligible for citizenship by descent.
How many people would be eligible for citizenship by descent through Bill C-71?
Madam Speaker, what the member opposite fails to note is that this is a question the rights of Canadians, people to have the right to be Canadian, the right that was denied to them by the Harper government. He wants to talk about numbers, and perhaps that is important from a logistical planning perspective, I do not deny that, but please do not continue to deny the rights of Canadians who duly should be Canadian today.
On the 2009 amendments, as an indicative matter and as I mentioned in my speech, about 20,000 people were affected and became Canadians. We routinely, as a matter of people who apply to our department, have about 40 to 45 people per year who ask us for the restoration of their rights.
There will be more to this, and we will need an organized way to do this. This is why we are responding in an organized fashion to a ruling of the Ontario Superior Court. If the member opposite is concerned with numbers, he will take heart in the fact that we will have a three-year naturalization limit for people to prove that substantive connection to Canada.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I want to wish everyone a warm welcome back to Parliament.
The Bloc Québécois will support the bill in principle so that it can be studied in committee. We understand that the bill's ultimate aim is to right a wrong. Of course, that is no easy matter. I have the same question as my Conservative colleague. How many people does the government estimate are involved? I understand that the aim is not to put quantity ahead of quality. Still, the numbers matter.
When you decided not to appeal the decision, you also said that the people likely to be affected would have a lot of questions about what it means for them personally and their families, and that you would take the time to explain the process.
Would the minister tell us how he intends to explain this situation?
The hon. member used the word “you” several times while addressing the government directly. I would remind her to kindly address her comments to the Chair.
The hon. minister.
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Bloc Québécois members for their support. They are not necessarily the biggest advocates of Canadian citizenship, but they are supporting us in correcting an injustice related to Canadian citizenship. This is a fundamental matter of justice and rights, as they so clearly said, and I thank them for their support.
The first step will be to pass the bill and get royal assent. Then, we will have to implement an internal process, which, obviously, we have started doing, because we have to respond to several questions from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding the process and the mechanism for ensuring that these individuals can obtain Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time frame. Obviously, several tests will be required, as set out in the bill. I would be happy to talk more about this in committee or in person.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing Bill C-71 to the floor. The New Democrats have fought for this ever since John McCallum. It has been more than a decade, at least for me, in this fight.
With Bill C-71, the minister touched on the issue around royal assent. In the bill, there is the commencement provision which confers discretion on the Governor in Council, meaning the cabinet, to determine when to proclaim the act into force, but does not set a specific date.
Could the minister advise the House, and families that are waiting to have their rights restored, how long it will take for the bill to become law. Would it be a proclamation and royal assent?
Madam Speaker, I would expect that to be the case.
Again, I want to thank the New Democrats for their support. This was a modification that we made relatively recently, simply to ensure that the court did not feel like it was constrained to a certain number of days by our legislative process. We have told the court time and again that we plan to put this into force as quickly as possible. Otherwise, it is a bit more of an open application process where I would have the discretion to grant citizenship.
I would implore Parliament to move quickly if members do not feel that my discretion should not be fettered by Parliament. It absolutely should in this case and there should be a number of reasons and concrete bases for people to get their citizenship. The naturalization test is a perfect point.
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking members in other parties, and in particular the Minister of Immigration for bringing Bill C-71 forward.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has been tireless, as have many citizen champions, including, as mentioned by the minister, Don Chapman. The work to restore the rights to lost Canadians is urgent.
With all due respect to the minister, I would like to repeat the question from the member for Vancouver East. When might we see this pass into law? It is obviously urgent that it be done as expeditiously as possible, through the House and the Senate.
Madam Speaker, as soon as possible, obviously.
This question is best answered by the Conservative Party. A lot of us in the House would like to see it approved at all stages and get it enforced, so we can get these rights recognized by Canadians who are waiting, and have waited for a hell of a long time, to become citizens.
Madam Speaker, I did shout out to the minister, because there seems to be a will to see this legislation advanced. I was yelling out to say that we should call the question.
What is clear from the official opposition is that for the Conservative Party of Canada, whether under the current leader or under Prime Minister Harper, there has always been two classes of Canadians and a change that they made left certain Canadians behind. One of the reasons I ran for office was that the Conservatives never wanted people like myself to have their voices heard.
I would ask the minister the following. What is it about the legislation and the constitutionality? We know that there have been a couple of rulings. On the comments of Don Chapman, I worked for the Hon. Andrew Telegdi when Don Chapman was leading this charge to ensure that their rights and their abilities were also advanced. It was important that it happen then but it did not, and here we are today. What is the importance of this legislation and is there a willingness to have the question called so we can see the legislation advance as quickly as possible?
Madam Speaker, this is fundamentally about rights. The court case that generated this is a pretty short one. I would invite members to take a quick read of it.
One of the telling statements by the judge in the case was to highlight the fact that women, in particular, were unduly burdened as to where they would have to decide to have their child, failure of which to have them in Canada would result in the the individuals in question losing their citizenship. These are not faraway examples. My children were not born in Canada. Their next generation could possibly have been in jeopardy. Therefore, it hits home in a lot of ways.
It is not about people who have never been to Canada. Obviously, this is about Canadian citizenship; it is not for all. There are tests to become a Canadian citizen. We know, or at least I and my department know, how important it is to ensure there are rigorous rules to decide who becomes a Canadian citizen or not.
This is a question of rights, and the court case in question is about women's rights. As Don Chapman said, and as the court said, this will perhaps be the first time where the Citizenship Act is charter compliant when it comes to women.
First of all, I will debunk a bunch of things that were said that are incorrect. They are not true. If we look at the record, as I said in my question, on February 15 and February 7, 2008, in the original debate on Bill C-37 on the first-generation limit that introduced the rules that existed between 2009 and the end of 2023, when the Ontario Superior Court ruled that there were two charter violations, the Liberals voted for it, supporting a motion to move forward with the legislation at the next stage. They did not do that once such that we could perhaps say they were not paying attention, but they did it twice. They accepted the logic of it.
Not only did they accept the logic of it, but there is a report from the 2005 immigration committee that recommended putting something like a first-generation limit rule in legislation. In 2005, former prime minister Paul Martin was in charge, which means there was a minority government and a majority on the committee decided to push forward that recommendation. It was then adopted in 2007 by Diane Finley, the immigration minister at the time.
The ridiculous claim that we on this side are taking away rights or that rights are being taken away is absolutely false. All Liberals supported it. In fact, even the NDP supported the motion at the time. There are some members sitting here today who were in their seats at the time they supported the Bill C-37 motion, not once but twice. Let us start with that.
Nobody would lose their citizenship through this legislation. That is not what we are talking about. The Conservatives believe that everybody has a right, if they meet the rules, to apply for citizenship, but new rules would be created for citizenship by descent with a substantive connection clause that a judge said was necessary. We disagree with how the substantive connection test is created and what the rules for it are. That is a substantive reason to oppose this legislation at second reading, something that all other parties knew about because, as the minister mentioned, we were going through this during the Bill S-245 debate.
I think I have shown that this is not anything new. Other parties supported the first-generation limit at the time. They were all onside to push through Bill C-37. Our belief is that naturalized Canadians like me are treated exactly the same in the Citizenship Act and the law as Canadians who were born here. My children were born here and I am a naturalized Canadian. We are considered generation zero for the purposes of current legislation.
I am not the only one saying that. It is a judge saying that. In paragraph 9, he said, “gen zero: the applicants belonging to gen zero are Canadian-born citizens who had children abroad, or naturalized Canadian citizens who had children abroad after their naturalization, and whose children acquired Canadian citizenship automatically by descent.” We are really talking about grandkids.
The critical question that government officials have been incapable of answering is about sound logistical planning, the words the minister used just now. As sound logistical planning indicates, when we are passing legislation and proposing it to the House, members in the House should know how many people would be affected by it and how many people would be included, because this is about grandkids who are born abroad to parents who were abroad when they get citizenship by descent. That is the critical question here, and the Liberals have not been able to answer it. They have not been able to answer how many people this would apply to.
With all the benefits we give out to Canadian citizens, which Parliament has voted on, such as transfer payments, the ability to travel on a Canadian passport, one of the strongest passports in the world, and the ability to be evacuated from certain countries when there are issues and problems overseas, as we saw during the pandemic, we would think the government would take the summer to do its homework. However, the minister did not do his homework. Instead, he came here to accuse the Conservatives and anybody who disagreed with him and, frankly, did not even read the record from 2008 to know how his own party voted. The Liberals were in support of the same rule that the Superior Court in Ontario found for two reasons is not charter-compliant. That should have resulted in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On a matter as important as the Citizenship Act, I would have liked to see the government appeal it. The minister refused to explain to the House why he did not seek that appeal, why he chose not to go forward with it.
As found later in the ruling, which I am going to read from partially because I think it is important, one of the reasons that the legislation was found not to be charter-compliant is the bureaucratic incompetence at the immigration department. That is entirely on the back of the minister. He is responsible for the logistical planning, which are his words, to make sure there is no backlog, that applications have the correct information in them and that officials are held accountable.
I am going to read from sections 263 to 265 of the ruling, which are different parts. The judge noted:
On cross-examination he testified that his source for this information were various unnamed IRCC case managers. However, the information Mr. Milord obtained from these case managers was replete with inaccuracies. With respect to Ms. Maruyama, these include misidentifying the year Ms. Maruyama’s father was naturalized as a Canadian citizen, Ms. Maruyama’s mother’s citizenship, the reason for rejection of Ms. Maruyama’s children’s application for permanent residency.... There were also errors in Mr. Milord’s evidence about how Mr. Chandler’s child acquired Irish citizenship.
Paragraph 264 states:
I note that in addition to these errors, at the outset of the hearing, I was advised that Mr. Burgess had been told that his child, QR—
This is to hide the identity of minors.
—had been granted permanent residency or citizenship status. However, counsel for Mr. Burgess was unable to confirm exactly what was going on, because in the mail, the Burgess family had received citizenship documents pertaining to someone else entirely, unrelated to the family or this application.
In paragraph 265, the judge found in a very small sampling that there was an error rate of 50% in these particular case files. I think for many of us in our constituency offices in our ridings, about 80% to 90% of the work is immigration case files. I hope members will agree with me that we find them replete with errors time and time again. It was because of errors on the bureaucratic side by the minister and the department he runs and is responsible and accountable for that the judge found there were charter violations. That is not a problem with the original idea that the Liberal Party of Canada supported. I am going to repeat that to them: They supported it not once by accident but twice. They knew exactly what they were doing at the time.
The minister talked about the substantive connection test without referring to it directly, saying that there would be a three-year naturalization limit. That is an incomplete statement. It is an incomplete answer. The suggestion to use the same rule that we have for permanent residency is found in three out of five applications for permanent residency to Canada. I do not think that is enough, and I made that case at the immigration committee during the Bill S-245 debate. The reason I do not believe it is enough is the way it is going to be calculated.
The rule would be applied if the parent of a child can demonstrate 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada at any time before the birth of the child. If someone is having children later in life, they would have more time to prove the 1,095 days to pass on their citizenship by descent. If they ever travelled back to Canada, they could obviously give birth to their children in Canada. As a Canadian by descent, they could do that here, and they would have birthright citizenship, just as my children did when they were born in Calgary. All four of them were born in Calgary.
For the 1,095 days, we proposed to make them consecutive so that someone could prove a substantial connection to Canada. The Conservatives agreed at committee that three years seemed like a reasonable amount. If someone went through a K-to-12 system or went to school for a few years and then their parents left Canada for whatever reason, such as for work opportunities or take a year off, three years consecutively would be a good demonstration of a substantial connection to Canada.
That was voted down by the Liberals. In fact, they voted down nearly all of our amendments. We proposed over 40 of them, and let it not be said that we are unreasonable. We actually voted with the Liberals on 10 of their amendments. We said that we could see the wisdom of them. There are sections in Bill C-71 that we agree with, like treating adopted children of Canadians equally to those who are naturalized or born Canadians. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. For the faster revocation rules for citizenship, if someone does not want their citizenship and wants to give it up, we agree that there should be a simpler process.
The example the minister gave is incomplete. The best example to give would be members serving in the Australian Parliament, who cannot be dual citizens. That is directly in their constitution. Certain members here might have Canadian citizenship eligibility by descent, and we do not want to make them ineligible. In my case, I am a dual citizen. I am a citizen of Canada by naturalization and a citizen of the Republic of Poland by birth. They would charge me about $565 to give up my citizenship, and I am not giving up one red cent for that. There are still some red cents in circulation, and I will not pay one red cent to the republic to give up my citizenship. The application is entirely in Polish as well. Our rules for individuals to renounce their citizenship if they do not want it would be much simpler. I find it interesting that the minister did not even know that about his own legislation.
We also support another important part, which was in the original Senate bill, Bill S-245. It came from our colleague on the Conservative side, Senator Yonah Martin, who wanted to address 50 months of lost Canadians between 1977 and 1981. We agreed. That is why the legislation came here. At the time, we asked if we could pass it quickly enough to look after the section 8 lost Canadians. We agreed that they should have their citizenship restored because they missed the cut-off date. In fact, one of our members from Saskatchewan almost became one of those lost Canadians. He only found out within a few months that he needed to apply to maintain his citizenship. We agree with the principle that this group of Canadians should have their citizenship restored and protected.
The other changes the government is proposing are not what I would call proper logistical planning, to use the minister's term. Why should we believe that the minister is capable of managing the new applications that would result from people seeking their proof of citizenship documents? That is why I asked how many people there would be and how many resources would be needed to process them. Are they in the thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands? Are there more than that? That would be a huge burden on the department.
Back in September 2022, the former minister announced that we would have all digital applications. The claim was made at committee, in both public and private, that it would help to reduce the backlog of immigration applications. It has not done that. We are still at over two million backlogged applications in the system, and some of the wait times are just as long if not longer than they used to be for some of the major PR programs.
I will read a few of the headlines about this from different commentators and immigration consultants. The first one, by Sergio R. Karas, is from Law360 Canada: “Bill C-71 depreciates Canadian citizenship”. Here is another: “First reading: How the Liberals keep dropping the barriers on who can become a Canadian”. This is by Jamie Sarkonak: “Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians”. “Government bill will allow Canadians to pass citizenship rights to kids born abroad” is a Canadian Press article. Here is another one, from Brian Lilley: “Trudeau Liberals making moves to cheapen Canadian citizenship”. Another says, “Canada Introduces New Bill to Restore Citizenship by Descent”.
We should go into the provisions on the substantial connection test, about which I have, again, a lot of concerns. At committee, we proposed a change to make it 1,095 consecutive days.
[Translation]
I am sorry to interrupt the member. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville is rising on a point of order.
We were having problems with the interpretation, but I am told that everything is working properly now.
[English]
The hon. member was reading titles and mentioned the Prime Minister's name. I would ask him to say “Prime Minister” as opposed to his name.
Madam Speaker, forgive me for the error of reading the Prime Minister's name into the record. Thank you for reproaching me for doing so.
[Translation]
I see that I have about six minutes left to address the backlog of applications at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We always forget that it is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. These are two matters we are dealing with at the same time.
If we look at the backlog in the department, we see that it is over two million applications. At the same time, the minister insists that he knows what he is doing. He spends far too much time on Twitter, or X, fighting with anonymous users and others and taking cheap shots at other politicians who disagree with him. That is what he is doing instead of managing his department.
On the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we often see a number of issues. There is a one-, two- or three-year backlog. Sometimes it could even take five, six or seven years. These applications should be easy to process in the allotted time.
Let us talk about the commission that is responsible for asylum claims. This is an excellent example of what happened in this country under this government and this minister in particular. Today, the department has a backlog of more than 220,000 asylum claims. More than 300,000 applications are on hold, and the waiting period is three and a half years before a file is reviewed and an answer is given. There is a backlog of 220,000 applications.
In 2016, an estimate published online indicated that there was a backlog of 17,000 applications. Under the Liberals, the backlog in the asylum management system went from 17,000 to 220,000, with more than 100,000 applications currently being processed. Some 220,000 people are waiting. These people came to Canada through another immigration program or crossed at Roxham Road. They applied for asylum, for refugee status. One would have thought that the government would have allocated enough resources to manage the number of people in the system in order to protect their rights. That is what the minister says.
Every year, the numbers grow. I have them here. In 2022, when the minister took office, there was a backlog of 70,223 applications. In 2023, the backlog was up to 156,023 applications. In July 2024, it was 218,593 applications. Today I received an answer to an access to information request, which I read very closely. It states that almost 18% of people who request an answer to their asylum claim are international students. Their applications are now part of the department's backlog.
[English]
When the minister is talking about not knowing the numbers so that he could not respond to the question, this is critical to how immigration and citizenship and refugee systems are managed in Canada. The minister does not know the impact of his own legislation. It greatly worries me that he is not aware of the details.
We Conservatives had a private member's bill, which was proposed from the Senate side, that offered to fix section 8 regarding lost Canadians. For those 50 months, we were on side. We proposed substantive amendments, once the scope of amendments was expanded, to the substantive connection test, and we proposed to introduce what I think was the most critical requirement, which was to have a police record check, to actually do a security record check. That was one amendment, I will say, that the Liberals voted against, with their allies in the NDP, at committee.
We have now seen, over the last six to 12 months, many security issues with different types of visa applicants who have been approved and who have come to Canada. I think the security of Canadians is incredibly important. The integrity of our citizenship system is critical. I do not trust the minister. I do not trust the Liberal Party. I do not trust its ally in the NDP, either, that it would be able to manage the new flow of applications because it just does not know how many people would be eligible, through Bill C-71, for citizenship by descent.
As the judge found in his own ruling, the reasons for charter non-compliance were not that there was an overall violation of it but that there was incompetence of the minister and the bureaucracy, which failed to provide accurate information. There were 50% errors in applications being processed: dates were wrong; names were wrong; and some even received a citizenship document for someone who was not even related to the same family. Those are serious errors in administration that the minister should have had fixed.
Therefore, we will be opposing this piece of legislation. We will then propose amendments. We are going to put forward amendments at committee to try to fix the legislation, and if we can fix it, then we will revise our position. I think that if we can fix it by providing the substantive connection test, the 1,095 or more consecutive days, we can come to some type of agreement on what Canadians expect. Also, a security record check is an absolute requirement.
We already have chaos in the immigration system. The immigration minister and the government he is part of have destroyed the consensus in Canada that immigration is a great thing. I think it is a great thing, but I was sad to see so many Canadians come up to me during door knocking and at town halls to say that they do not agree with it anymore. Therefore, because we cannot trust the Liberals with something as important as our citizenship, we are going to vote against them.
Madam Speaker, I found it really fascinating listening to that member's comments. It is interesting that, in Canada, we have an elected House, so Canadians get to choose who they vote for. However, we also have an independent judicial process, and that independent court ruled the Harper legislation unconstitutional on multiple grounds. The member, rather than actually respecting our independent court processes, is suggesting that the government should have appealed that decision rather than give Canadians their rights. Members of the Conservative Party today, no different from those under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, believe that they can pick and choose Canadians' rights. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
I would like to understand from the member, when he challenges the substantive clause, why he believes a second-generation born abroad should need to do the substantive clause, yet people born prior to that should not. Why does he believe he has the ability to determine who should be a Canadian and who does not have the right to be a Canadian?
Madam Speaker, to the point I think the member was making, nobody would lose their citizenship through Bill C-71. There is no new person who would lose their citizenship.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Tom Kmiec: Madam Speaker, the member is heckling me now. If she would allow me, I will give a thoughtful answer, as best I can.
Her own party voted for this legislation twice, back when it was Bill C-37, the first-generation limit—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
The hon. member has had her opportunity to ask a question.
I want to remind members that if they want to have other conversations, they should take it outside so as not to disturb the member who has the floor.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Waterloo.
Madam Speaker, I know that I do sometimes speak in the House when it is not my turn, but when I do not speak and I am given that credit, I do not appreciate it. In the case the member referred to, it was actually not me speaking.
I am sorry, but the hon. member was having a conversation with someone across the way. I would just ask her to step out and have that conversation, if she wishes to speak, because it does disrupt, as there is an echo in the House; therefore, we can hear what is going on at the other end.
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
Madam Speaker, to continue what I was saying, when we had Bill C-37, the first-generation limit was introduced, and the Liberal Party of Canada voted in favour of those changes, twice. The Liberals cannot now claim that it is a charter violation and that they have changed their minds. They supported it then for the reasons they had, and I do not know exactly what those were, but they did, twice, so it was not a mistake.
I believe that with this legislation, the key is what the impact would be on our citizenship system and our immigration system, and how many people it would impact. The minister is incapable of answering, and I think it is a critical question that Canadians need to know the answer to.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard. We get along very well, he and I. We are able to work together. I think we are both able to set aside partisanship and work on improving bills sent to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on which we sit.
I agree with some of the points my colleague made in his remarks, particularly when he said that the situation at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is chaotic. This department is probably the most dysfunctional of all the federal government apparatus. On that point, I think we see eye to eye. When he talks about politicians who should stop being aggressive and insulting people on X, I agree with him. I think this is the right way to view things. Here again, I agree with my colleague.
As for the bill itself, the only thing I have trouble understanding about the Conservative position, which I respect, by the way, is that my colleague plans to table amendments to improve the bill if and when it is sent to committee. My understanding is that we must solve this problem. We agree on the principle of the bill. Now, it is possible to improve the bill, so why would my colleague not vote in favour of sending it to committee? We will work on these amendments, and then we will vote yea or nay on the bill based on the amendments that will have been adopted.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague. We work together on the committee as much as we can. Sometimes we are on opposite sides, but I do not make it personal when we have differences of opinion or political differences. It happens. We are in different parties. People in our ridings voted for us because we belong to different parties.
The problem is that the last time we studied this issue in committee, we put forward nearly 40 amendments to change various parts of the Citizenship Act, including requiring that the 1,095 days be consecutive. There was also the need to run security checks to be able to say, yes or no, whether any of the applications received by the department raised any national security concerns.
The governing party, namely the Liberals, joined the NDP in voting against. For us, that was very important. We see the same thing happening in committee. We will vote against the bill at second reading.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the Conservatives actually filibustered Bill S-245 for 30 hours at committee. Even after it had gone through the committee and had been referred back to the House at third reading, they traded down that bill in the order of precedence eight times so that we would not get to debate it at third reading in the House and vote on it.
The leader of the official opposition's office wrote to family members who were concerned about their rights being taken away and about their constitutional rights being violated stating, “Conservatives will...preserve what it means to be a citizen of this country and fundamentally what it means to be a Canadian. Please be assured we will continue to support and advocate for this legislation to reach its third reading in the House of Commons.” That is in reference to Bill S-245. This is blatantly false. If that is the case, why did the member for Calgary Forest Lawn trade the bill on the order of precedence eight times so that it cannot come to the House for a third reading debate?
Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the NDP complain about committee work because they always want to send things to committee. I want to do the work at committee, and when it is presented to me, I do it. We proposed well over 49 amendments. I am looking at them because I have them with me. Ten times, we voted with the Liberals in support of their amendments that we agreed with, so we were willing to do—
An hon. member: It was 30 hours.
Mr. Tom Kmiec: Madam Speaker, I am being heckled again.
Again, I want to remind members who have had an opportunity to ask a question, if they wish to ask more questions, that they please wait until the appropriate time.
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that this is the first day back, and I think I have been heckled more as a member today than I have, probably, in the entire last session. I am not a member who does the heckling. I hope you will agree. I try to restrain myself. I am not always perfect. I have a member next to me who sometimes does the same.
With respect to the committee work and the amendments, we proposed substantive amendments that would improve the bill. I told the members of the committee that if we could seek consensus on our amendments, we would vote in favour of the legislation, but we could not find it.
Police record checks are important. Making sure a person has a substantive connection to Canada is important. At the very minimum, it should be consecutive, not just spending a few days in a year. There is also the question of how would one prove 1,095 days in the previous 40 years of their life if they started having kids when they were 40? These are important administrative questions. The minister recognized that, but he could not answer how many people would be impacted.
I will just remind the NDP that they voted for Bill C-37, with a first-generation limit, back in 2008.
Madam Speaker, I think there is a very simple question that many Canadians are concerned about. The leader of the Conservative Party has no issue raising the notwithstanding clause. We have a former Conservative government that tried to establish the first-generation limits, and we have a superior court in Ontario that says it is unconstitutional.
Will the critic for immigration give clear indication to the House that the Conservative Party, the official opposition, would never use the notwithstanding clause in order to invoke its will with respect to Canadian citizenship? Will he give us that assurance?
Madam Speaker, the member well knows, as the parliamentary secretary on the government side, who speaks often in the House, that we will only use it with respect to justice bills. This is not a justice bill; this is the Citizenship Act.
I want to remind the member, because again he implied or basically said that there is a taking away of rights here, that the Liberal Party of Canada, on February 7, 2008, voted in favour of Bill C-37 at second reading and referred it to a committee. On February 15, it was again the same thing, seeking unanimous consent. It was not for unanimous consent and a vote on division, but for unanimous consent to simply proceed with the motion at third reading, to pass it at report stage and to have it concurred in. The Liberal Party supported the 2009 first-generation limit at the time, so it cannot now back away from it.
We just want legislation that is reasonable, not reckless, where the numbers are provided to parliamentarians so that we know what we are voting on and we know what the impact would be on Canadian citizenship and on Canadians in general.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, some might find it strange for a Bloc Québécois member to speak on a Canadian citizenship bill, but it will be easier for these “lost Canadians” interested in reclaiming their Canadian citizenship to acquire their Quebec citizenship once Quebec becomes a country. I am therefore pleased to speak on this question.
A few months ago, I stood in the House to speak to Bill S‑245, which sought to right a historic wrong by granting citizenship to Canadians whose cases had slipped through the cracks. I spoke about children of Canadian parents who had been born abroad and had lost their citizenship because of changes in the federal rules or for reasons that struck me as hard to justify at the time. In fact, what Bill S‑245 basically said was all these people who had lost their status due to overly complex and often unjust provisions of previous Canadian laws should have their citizenship restored.
This is the idea behind Bill C‑71, which we are dealing with today. In fact, the bill replicates all of the proposed amendments in Bill S‑245, which sought to rectify the Citizenship Act's well-known injustices and mistakes.
Bill C‑71 responds to the decision handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, which ruled that the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent for children born abroad to Canadian citizens was unconstitutional. As we are seeing yet again, the Bloc Québécois is defending the rule of law and a Canadian Constitution that Quebec did not sign. That should come as no surprise, since we will one day have our own.
At that time, the government had six months to amend the act. Bill C‑71 was tabled as a fallback, because Bill S‑245, unfortunately, could not get across the finish line. Why is that? Part of the reason is the partisanship at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Speaking of which, I would like to bring up a point. As everyone knows, and as my colleague pointed out earlier, despite my differences of opinion with members from other parties in the House, I do not indulge in partisanship. What is more, I believe that being cross-partisan often helps me better do my job as a parliamentarian and better represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, who trusted me enough to elect me to work in the House of Commons. Whoever I am dealing with, from whatever party, if I can move a matter forward, I will, with no regard to political stripe. I do that for my people and on principle, because that is how I was raised. I often find the partisan-driven comments I hear in the House disheartening.
Today I will speak not only for Quebeckers, but also for a good number of Canadians whose files at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have fallen through the cracks for far too long. Today, as the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration, citizenship and refugees, I want to talk about Canadian citizenship, because this affects everyone here. I am also the critic for international human rights, so obviously, matters of justice are also of concern to me.
Today, more specifically, we are talking about Bill C‑71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I want to focus primarily on those individuals who are commonly known as “lost Canadians” because of a little-known but truly ridiculous provision. According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's estimates, there are still between 100 and 200 people who have still not regained their citizenship. They are the last group of “lost Canadians”. This bill corrects an oversight in the 2009 act, which missed a golden opportunity to do away with the requirement for these people to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28.
At the risk of ruining the surprise and mostly for the sake of consistency, something that is often sorely lacking in the House, I will say that I was in favour of Bill S‑245. Obviously, I am also in favour of Bill C‑71, as are all the Bloc members here. We will vote in favour of the principle of Bill C‑71 when the time comes to do so.
If we think about it, this bill is perfectly in line with what our contemporary vision of citizenship should be. Once citizenship has been duly granted, it should never be taken away from an individual, unless it is for reasons of national security. Only a citizen can freely renounce his or her citizenship.
Like all parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois supports and defends the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that all are equal before the law. In fact, citizenship is an egalitarian legal status granted to all members of the same community. It confers privileges as well as duties.
In this case, the Canadian government has failed in meeting its obligations to its citizens. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. As I was saying, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citizenship must apply equally to all. This is simply a matter of principle. I do not believe I am alone in thinking that it is profoundly unfair that, in 2024, people can lose their citizenship for reasons that they probably do not even know exist. These provisions are from another time, a time long ago when there were questionable ideas about what it meant to be a citizen of Canada. Since time has not remedied the situation and since the reforms of the past have not been prescriptive enough, then politics must weigh in. That is what we are doing.
As we know, the process to regain citizenship is quite complicated. As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is probably the most dysfunctional federal government department. Even my colleagues on the other side of the House, who currently form the government, must agree. They too have constituency offices, and most of the telephone calls they receive are about complex immigration cases. Even the Speaker probably agrees with me. Despite the fact that she has to remain neutral, I am sure that her constituency office probably gets a lot of calls about cases that are too difficult to resolve.
Everyone knows that that department is broken. There is sand in the gears and water in the gas. There is clearly a structural problem within the department itself. It is already complicated enough to deal with that department, so there is no need to be so secretive. The problem must be resolved as quickly as possible. We must at least identify the problem and find a solution. I think we have a pretty clear consensus to send Bill C‑71 to committee.
A look at what has previously occurred shows just how thorny this matter is. The act was reformed in 2005. It was reformed in 2009. It was reformed once again in 2015. How many reforms do we need? There are now a large number of Canadians who have been overlooked. Men and women, soldiers' wives and children, children born abroad, members of indigenous communities and Chinese-Canadians have been overlooked through every reform. People have been left behind because we have not properly fixed the act. With Bill C‑71, we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
I therefore urge my Conservative friends to propose their amendments. The Bloc Québécois members will study them, as they always do. If they are good, we will vote in favour. If they are bad, we will vote against. We are easy people to talk to. We do thorough work on our files, and we will carefully study the amendments that our Conservative friends send us.
The bill seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to, among other things:
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation...;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted...to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved;
Normally, Bill S‑245 would have gotten royal assent a long time ago, but we did not quite get there because of filibustering. That is what brings us here today. Constituents are having to wait because of petty politics. That is the way it has been over the past year in this Parliament on many files, in many committees. Both sides of the aisle are just the same. I have seen filibustering from the government side and from the official opposition. They are all just as bad. Unfortunately, there are people caught in the middle of all this. People are being held hostage by political or even electoral stunts. That is even worse.
As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois is here to work for our people. We are here working for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to our electoral ambitions. According to the polls, things are going very well for the Bloc Québécois. We are here to work for our people. If it is good for Quebec, then we will vote for it. If it is bad for Quebec, then we will vote against it. Bill C‑71 will be able to give us far more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes sovereign.
When I hear members of the federal parties arguing and then shouting nonsense at each other in the House or playing politics like they did with Bill S‑245, I imagine what it must be like for those who have been waiting impatiently and for far too long for royal assent. There are specific examples in Quebec. Take Jean‑François, a Quebecker born outside Canada when his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old and spent his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was not automatically eligible for Canadian citizenship. This type of situation causes undue stress for families who should not have to deal with the federal government's lax approach.
Right now, the government is dealing with more and more delays every time we check. Every single immigration program is guaranteed to be backlogged. A new program has been created, and it is already behind schedule. There are already people on the waiting list. When we look into it, it is a mess. This is very hard for people. These are human beings. These are men, women and children who are caught up in the administrative maze of a department that seems to have forgotten that it should be the most compassionate of our departments; it is probably the least compassionate. It is frustrating. We are seeing horror stories every day. As the immigration critic, I see it all the time.
My point is that we will be there. We are there for people. We put people first. That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-71 in principle. We will work hard. We will look at all the amendments brought to the table. I think that is why we are here. That is why we were elected, despite our differences and despite the fact that the Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be independent. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. We will get there one day. The people who send us here to Ottawa know that we are separatists. They know that it will happen one day. They know that one day, with Bill C-71, we will have more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes a country.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I think we need to put it in perspective, as the member made reference to, in terms of the people it actually affects. There are many individuals in the different regions of the country whose ability to get their citizenship recognized is being challenged. Whether it is Senate legislation or, now, government legislation, it is imperative that we try to see the legislation at least get to the next step.
Conservatives say that they have amendments, and I would welcome seeing the types of amendments they have. Maybe we can come up with some sort of unanimous support in getting the legislation through.
Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to advocating for getting the bill out of second reading and into committee, where we would at least be able to advance it?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, that rarely happens. I get the impression that my colleague took my speech and summed it up as a question. He is repeating the question back to me as if it was a short, one-page summary of my speech. That is exactly what I said.
The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-71, just as it supported the principle of Bill S-245. We are working hand in hand with the NDP and the Liberals. If the Conservatives propose amendments that make sense, of course we will look at them. If the amendments make sense, of course we will vote for them. We are here to work. I do not think that Bill C-71 should stir up any partisan wars. It is not an issue that should get us yelling and calling each other names. When we take a good look at it, the bill is fairly simple. Its underlying principle is clear, namely, that an injustice must be fixed through a bill. That is pretty much a parliamentarian's most basic job.
Madam Speaker, if this bill goes to committee, would the member be willing to support a Conservative amendment that would require a criminal record check for everyone who applies for citizenship by descent?
Madam Speaker, I will discuss it with my team, as they say.
I would be happy to study such an amendment, but in order to propose such an amendment, we must vote in favour of the principle of the bill and send it to committee. I therefore humbly suggest that my Conservative friends vote along with everyone else in favour of the principle of the bill so that it can be sent to committee.
Then we will study those amendments. I am sure we can find common ground.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his collaboration and co-operation at committee on Bill S-245. I was delighted to work with him and to see that he supported the NDP amendments. That is the right thing to do, to restore the rights of Canadians, the rights that the Conservatives took away.
I want to ask the member a question. He may not have been elected at that time, and neither was I, but to my understanding and to the knowledge of Don Chapman, who is an extremely knowledgeable guy on the lost Canadian file, when the Harper government brought in Bill C-37, it actually put forward an edict for all the parties that, if they did not support it in its entirety, it would take away the bill. That meant that the Conservatives were able to put a poison pill in that bill with the first-generation cut-off rule.
Would the member agree that is the wrong thing to do on an issue as important as people's basic fundamental rights?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I was not in fact elected at the time. However, Meili Faille, who was the Bloc Québécois member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, worked on the file and knew Mr. Chapman very well. This is important.
We in the Bloc Québécois have a lot of expertise when it comes to Canadian citizenship. As I said, that will be useful when it comes time to work with Quebec citizenship.
Right now, I do not want to talk about what happened in the past. My colleague will understand why. Anyone watching the debate might be surprised to note that the Bloc Québécois is probably the only adult in the room right now. I am not badmouthing anyone. I do not want to cause friction with the other parties over a bill that I feel would be easy to work on if everyone did their part. I am not going to badmouth anyone.
I think that we could quite easily send it to committee, since we know that three parties so far will vote for it in principle. Then we will study the Conservatives' amendments.
I am willing to work with everyone here, because we in the Bloc Québécois are responsible people. When we study a bill, we set electioneering aside. We simply want what is best for the people who elected us to represent them.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his intelligent and constructive attitude and his open-mindedness.
Of course, he talked about the prospect of Quebec citizenship. We are currently talking about Bill C‑71, which solves some of the problems. Does the member not think that the entire immigration and citizenship process needs a solid overhaul and that we could commit to contributing to it in a constructive and intelligent way?
As he mentioned, it would be good practice for us for Quebec citizenship.
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑71 is a good start for correcting a flagrant and absurd injustice. It is a good start and it can also give us a guideline we can follow should there ever be a complete reform of citizenship status, in terms of what it means, what it represents and what being a citizen of a country entails.
It is indeed a good idea that we should all be working on. Bill C‑71 is a step in the right direction. It is something that many people want. Many people want this to be resolved at last. It has been dragging on for far too long.
The Bloc Québécois will collaborate on this.
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member's speech.
I get the impression from today's debate that the Conservatives want to present amendments in committee. The Bloc Québécois has its position and also wants to debate the issue in committee. We will listen to what the NDP wants to say, but from their questions, it seems as though they support this bill.
Does the member think it is important that we proceed with the vote so that we can debate this bill in committee, ask experts and witnesses questions and study the amendments that will be proposed by the Conservatives and perhaps by other parties as well? Is it time to vote so that we can move forward on the other bills that are before the House?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to emphasize that achieving one's citizenship is very significant. I have had opportunities, as no doubt others have had, to witness the swearing-in for citizens. We should not be taking it for granted.
One of the things that is quite upsetting, and I made reference to it in the question I asked of the Conservatives, is the idea that the Conservative Party feels very easy and relaxed in using the notwithstanding clause. We have a superior decision from the Province of Ontario that says that the first-generation issue that the Harper government brought in is, in fact, unconstitutional. Can I get the Bloc's perspective on having the Citizenship Act in compliance with the Constitution?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the notwithstanding clause is back on the table.
As I was saying, there is a strange atmosphere in Parliament at the moment. I just gave a speech, but I am not sure whether my colleague was listening. When he asked his first question, however, he seemed to have understood my remarks to the House.
Earlier on, I said that when it comes to a bill like Bill C‑71, there should not be any mudslinging. That is basically what I said. As I said, we should work together, and most people are generally in agreement about Bill C‑71. In asking a question about my speech, my colleague was really trying to get in a dig at the official opposition. He did not understand what I was trying to say at all.
Here is what we want. It is Monday morning. Parliament has just resumed. Could we behave like responsible people, like parliamentarians representing the people of our ridings, without slinging any mud or setting any partisan parliamentary traps?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to enter this debate on Bill C-71. Because the House will be getting ready for statements and question period, I will be interrupted in my speech, so I am going to put a few things on the public record.
To the member from the Bloc's point that this is not about partisanship, I think it is important to put on the public record the history of what happened with respect to lost Canadians. Members will know that, 15 years ago, the Conservatives brought in Bill C-37 for an act that was supposed to fix a lot of the lost Canadian issues. It did fix some of those issues, but in that process, the Conservatives also put a poisoned pill in the bill, which was the first-generation cut-off rule deeming those of the second generation who were born abroad would not be able to receive their citizenship from their parents. That was incorporated into Bill C-37.
At the time, I was not here, but those who watched that debate saw what happened. The Harper government was clear to say that, unless Bill C-37 passed in its entirety, the bill would die. They would get rid of it and kill it. That is information from Don Chapman, who is the king of experts on lost Canadian issues because he has dedicated his life to addressing this injustice. That is the knowledge that he brings to this floor by sharing with me what happened. That is why the NDP and the Liberals had to vote for it.
They voted for it because they had no choice. If they had not, what would it have meant? It would have meant that thousands upon thousands of Canadian World War II vets, along with tens of thousands of Canadian war brides and their children, would have gone to their graves disenfranchised from their own country. A 20-year-old war bride in 1946 would be 98 years old today. Most of the Canadian brides and their World War II soldier husbands are now dead. If they had not accepted the first generation cut-off limit under Bill C-37, all these folks would have died without citizenship, all because Harper would have killed Bill C-37.
That is the reality. That is why people were jammed to do that. Despite that, the critic for the NDP at the time, Olivia Chow, put this on the public record: “We could get this bill done very quickly and accommodate this element by doing something very simple, by just amending subclause 2(2), or actually taking it out of the bill, because right now it limits citizenship to the first generation born to, or adopted by, Canadian parents.”
The NDP tried to raise the issue, and Olivia said that we should get rid of the first-generation rule that the Conservatives brought in, but that was not allowed to take place because it was the poison pill that the Conservatives put in the bill. Otherwise, they would have taken away all of those rights for war veterans and the war brides. That is the reason, and that is the history.
Is this partisan politics? No, it is not, but it is an important part of the history to know what happened, where the lost Canadian issue stems from, why we are here and why the Superior Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to take away those rights.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Local Broadcasting
Madam Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the end of an era for local television and radio in Kingston. CKWS, now Global Kingston, and its local radio stations have been more than just news outlets. They have been trusted friends, reliable sources of information and a valued part of our daily lives. I want to thank the dedicated professionals who have worked tirelessly to bring us the news, weather and stories that matter the most. These people include Bill Hutchins, Bill Welychka, Julie Brown, Bill Hall, Doug Jeffries, and so many more.
These are the trusted voices that have made a lasting impact. I say to all the reporters, anchors, producers and behind-the-scenes staff that their commitment to excellence and their passion for journalism have enriched our lives in countless ways. As the local news scene evolves, we will continue to rally to bring back the spirit of connection and information sharing they fostered for decades.
The Economy
Madam Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. Hard work should always be rewarded, but life has never been so hard for Canadians. Workers cannot afford to put gas in their tanks to get to work; moms and dads are struggling to put food on the table, and a generation of Canadians has lost hope in the dream of home ownership.
Fortunately, there is hope on the horizon. A common-sense Conservative government will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We will turn the hurt the Prime Minister has caused into hope so that hard work is rewarded, food is affordable, neighbourhoods are safe and every Canadian has a fair shot at a good life. It is time for a carbon tax election.
Bangladesh
Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned about violence targeting religious minorities, including Hindus, Buddhists and Christians, in Bangladesh. Every time there is instability in Bangladesh, religious minorities, particularly Hindus, face the brunt of it. The share of religious minorities in the population has significantly decreased since Bangladesh achieved its independence in 1971. From 23.1%, including about 20% Hindus, it has now come down to just about 9.6%, including about 8.5% Hindus. Canadian Hindus who have family in Bangladesh are concerned about the security and safety of the people, their temples and their properties.
They will be holding a rally on Parliament Hill on Monday, September 23, to highlight the current situation there. They will be joined by Canadian Buddhists and Christians who have family in Bangladesh.
[Translation]
Marcel Tessier
Mr. Speaker, we have lost a great patriot. My friend Marcel Tessier, who shaped the imagination of Quebeckers for several decades, passed away on August 26.
Some heard him sing opera with gusto. Others watched him charm audiences on television or read some of his books. The really lucky ones had him as a teacher. Without exception, anyone who spent time with him would be left spellbound, hanging on his every word.
Marcel was exceptionally charismatic, but above all, he was a historian with a vast knowledge of history and the ability to teach it. One thing he used to say was that if Quebeckers knew more about their history, Quebec would have been an independent, free and sovereign country a long time ago. Even among friends around a table, he was a fascinating storyteller and communicator.
Marcel will be missed, but not forgotten. May my friend rest in peace.
Return of the House
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome members back to the House, and I also want to wish all students in Orléans every success in the classroom as they kick off a new school year. Many thanks to all the teachers and staff at our schools for guiding and supporting them in their achievements.
On August 29, I was extremely pleased to welcome over 600 residents of my community to my annual corn roast and barbecue on Petrie Island. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of the Orléans Lions Club, who every year keep the grilling station running smoothly. It was also a privilege to welcome 21 young cadets from the 632 Phoenix Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron, who came out to lend a helping hand during the event.
[English]
Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, after nine years under the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up, but now the Prime Minister has doubled down on his carbon tax by appointing Mark Carney as his new de facto finance minister.
As a jet-setting member of the global elite, carbon tax Carney has spent his entire career promoting a costly carbon tax. He supports the Prime Minister's plan to quadruple the carbon tax and opposed removing the carbon tax from home heating. Carbon tax Carney has no issue lecturing working-class Canadians while being wined and dined by the global elite. He has so many conflicts of interest that the Prime Minister is shielding him from Canadian disclosure laws. Carney remains beholden to corporate boards, meaning that Canadians' interests are an afterthought for him.
Conservatives are demanding Mark Carney be sworn in as a public office holder so that he follows Canada's conflict of interest laws. No Liberal is above the law.
Joseph Day
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour the memory of Senator Joseph Day; sadly, he passed away earlier this year.
Joe Day was a distinguished lawyer and a remarkable and much loved parliamentarian. Representing the Province of New Brunswick for almost two decades, he held an exceptional 18-year tenure with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, culminating in his election as the assembly's vice-president, a position he held from 2016 to 2018. Joe had a deep love for the NATO Parliamentary Association and its mission. He worked tirelessly to advance and promote the mandate of the Defence and Security Committee. As the committee's general rapporteur, Joe was a leading voice for NATO to strengthen its deterrence and defence position after Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Today he is remembered not only for elevating Canada's position within the NATO alliance but also for his achievements, as well as his kindness and sunny character. We thank Joe for his leadership, his contributions to Canada and his commitment to peace and security in the world.
Community of Mississauga—Erin Mills
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be back in the House after a productive summer in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills.
Over the summer, I attended more than 100 events and met with 180 organizations and businesses from my riding to discuss the issues most important to them. We welcomed thousands of residents to my seventh annual Mississauga—Erin Mills barbecue. Our Women's Council and Youth Council hosted a health symposium, as well as a mental health panel, to highlight important issues that have an impact on the well-being of youth and women in our community.
I met with hundreds of residents to talk about important issues, such as housing and grocery prices. I hosted a round table discussion with Canadian Palestinians to listen to them and better understand their lived experiences with anti-Palestinian racism.
We have considerable work ahead of us on many important issues. I am looking forward to working with all members in the House to deliver for Canadians.
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, after nine years under the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. Criminal gangs active in illegal lobster poaching have been terrorizing communities in Nova Scotia, and the incompetent Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is nowhere to be found. This is dereliction of duty by the same minister who ignored expert advice and reopened the northern cod fishery ahead of time.
We are a nation of laws founded on the principles of peace, order and good government. However, right now, Atlantic Canada's fishing communities do not have any of those blessings and feel completely abandoned by Ottawa. The president of the Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance has described the situation as total lawlessness. The lobster fishers in Pugwash have reached out to me directly and told me just how concerned they are about the lack of enforcement.
Unchecked illegal poaching must be stopped, and help is on the way. Common-sense Conservatives will end lawlessness in the fishing industry and restore order and safety to Atlantic Canada.
Mahsa Amini
Mr. Speaker, today marks the second year since the tragic murder of Jina Mahsa Amini. We commemorate her life, her story and the names of countless others, amplifying the Iranian people's persistent call to end all forms of persecution and violence against women and any civilians. Canada stands with the Iranians protesting for a better future where human rights are respected. The concern must be addressed, and their right to protest must be protected.
The fight for human rights and freedom, as well as for justice and accountability, has not stopped. That is why Canada has led the international effort to respond to the Iranian regime's actions, including listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity and, recently, changing the designation day of the Iranian regime to June 23, 2003, ensuring its senior officials are inadmissible to Canada.
We will never forget the story of Jina Mahsa Amini and those who lost their lives fighting for women in Iran and around the world.
Zan, zendegi, azadi. Women, life, freedom.
[Translation]
Conservative Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, nine years of this Liberal government equals nine years of inflationary spending, nine long years where the Liberals, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, have cost Quebeckers dearly.
We might even say that there is no Bloc Québécois in Parliament, just a “Liberal Bloc”. This “Liberal Bloc” voted for the largest-ever expansion of the federal government. The “Liberal Bloc” voted to bulk up the bureaucracy in Ottawa with an extra 100,000 public servants. The “Liberal Bloc” voted for $500 billion in spending to expand the most centralist federal government in history.
That is why we do not have a Bloc Québécois in Parliament, but a “Liberal Bloc” that is using Quebeckers to waste and centralize their money here in Ottawa. The “Liberal Bloc” is out of touch with Quebeckers. What is the Bloc Québécois good for, or rather, who is it good for? It is good for the Liberal Prime Minister.
Fortunately, the common-sense Conservatives hear Quebeckers loud and clear. They are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
[English]
Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up.
The carbon tax has increased the costs of food, fuel and home heating. As a result, we are seeing record numbers of working Canadian families relying on food banks. To make matters worse, the NDP-Liberal government plans to quadruple the carbon tax, and it continues to vote for soft-on-crime policies. Since 2015, violent crime in Winnipeg has gone up by 67%, car thefts have gone up by 63%, homicides have gone up by 100% and gun crime has gone up by a whopping 177%. This is the Liberal-NDP record: Canadians struggling to afford food and crime and chaos in our streets.
Today in Elmwood—Transcona, Winnipeggers have a simple choice. A vote for the NDP is a vote for the Liberals and their soft-on-crime carbon tax agenda. Only a common-sense Conservative government will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
Marlene Catterall
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Marlene Catterall. A trail-blazing role model for Canadian women, she served on Ottawa city council and was a member of Parliament for 17 years.
An accomplished parliamentarian, Marlene preferred to be known as a community activist. She fought for justice, lobbying for the release of constituent Maher Arar from Syrian prison.
As Canada's first female chief government whip, she broke barriers in this chamber.
[Translation]
Marlene negotiated the unanimous vote that made it possible to erect the Women are Persons! monument on Parliament Hill. She received the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case, Canada's highest honour for women.
She also served on the board of directors for the Maison de la francophonie d'Ottawa as part of her commitment to the French language, and she was honoured as ACFO's francophile of the year in recognition of that commitment.
[English]
Marlene's passion, integrity and dedication will be deeply missed by all who knew her.
New Democratic Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats believe in taking care of one another. We believe that health care should be universally accessible and publicly delivered. We believe that every Canadian should be able to afford a decent home and a fridge full of groceries. However, many Canadians are losing hope right now. New Democrats want to restore that hope and make life more affordable for everyone.
Here is the truth: The Conservatives will steamroll the middle class if they are given the chance. When they were in power, they cut health care by more than $30 billion. Wait times ballooned and Canadians suffered. The Conservatives cut pensions, forcing people to work longer and live on less in retirement.
Conservatives have said that they will cut health care, dental care, pharmacare, child care and employment insurance. Even the Canada pension plan is at risk. All this is to give a break to their corporate friends.
NDP members are in the House. We are here working for Canadians.
[Translation]
Benoît Roy
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to Benoît Roy, a defender of Quebec and the French language, who was named a knight of the Ordre de la Pléiade de la Francophonie on July 8.
Benoît has been advocating for Quebec sovereignty and defending Quebec culture through various organizations since 1974. In 2000, he founded the Rassemblement pour un Pays Souverain, a movement that seeks to achieve independence for Quebec and protect the French language. Today, he still chairs that organization, which, in just a few months, will be celebrating its 25th anniversary. Over those 25 years, Benoît has had the opportunity to give out 117 awards.
What is more, in 2005, he launched an annual gala dinner to celebrate national patriots day, in tribute to those who work for Quebec's political freedom and independence.
His unwavering commitment makes him a key player in the promotion of Quebec's identity and the francophonie. I want to congratulate Benoît and thank him for all that he does for my riding and for Quebec.
[English]
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, taxes are up. Costs are up. Crimes are up. Time is up. Over the summer I spoke to thousands of Canadians. I heard heartbreaking stories of how they are hurting after nine years of the NDP-Liberals.
It was two years ago that the sellout and cowardly leader of the NDP signed on to a costly coalition with the Liberal Prime Minister. A couple of weeks ago, he tried to convince people that he had a spine, and with much bravado, he tore up the agreement. However, following his media stunt, he refuses to state whether the NDP will vote to force a carbon tax election. The sellout NDP leader did not get the bump in the polls he was hoping for, I guess, and even went on to suggest that after voting for the carbon tax 24 times, he has somehow found the light and now will oppose it, but with a caveat and with details to come after he qualifies for his pension.
Canadians need a carbon tax election now to decide between a costly coalition of the NDP-Liberals or common-sense Conservatives who will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
Cathy Merrick
Mr. Speaker, recently Manitobans were shocked and saddened by the sudden passing of Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs' Grand Chief Cathy Merrick.
Grand Chief Merrick was more than a leader; she was a beacon of strength, wisdom and compassion. Her dedication to the AMC was not merely a role she undertook but also a calling she embraced with unwavering commitment. Her leadership was characterized by a deep understanding of the challenges faced by first nations people and a relentless pursuit of justice and equality.
Her impacts extend beyond her professional achievements. Grand Chief Cathy Merrick was a loving daughter, sister, wife, mother, aunt, cousin, grandmother, a supportive friend and a trusted mentor to many. Her legacy will live on through the lives she touched and the progress she championed.
As we reflect on her life, let us remember her resilience in the face of adversity, her tireless work on behalf of first nations people and her unwavering commitment to building a better future. Her contributions have paved the way for many, and her spirit will continue to inspire us as we move forward on the journey towards truth and reconciliation.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
New Member
New Member Introduced
Don Stewart, member for the electoral district of Toronto—St. Paul's, introduced by the Hon. Pierre Poilievre.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, for nine years, the “Liberal Bloc” has taxed food, inflated the price of food, doubled the cost of housing and doubled the national debt, all with the full support of the Bloc Québécois, which voted to keep this party and this government in power more than 200 times. Now, the government wants to raise taxes again.
Is it not high time that Canadians had the opportunity to pick a new, common-sense government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime?
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had spent any time at all talking to Canadians this summer, he would have heard that Canadians want solutions to the challenges that they and their families are facing. They want to know how we are going to fight climate change and how we are going to position Canada in the economy of the future.
The Leader of the Opposition only cares about his own interests, not the interests of Canadians. That is why, on this side of the House, we will continue to work with all parliamentarians who are willing, so we can deliver for Canadians and build a stronger economy for everyone.
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are seeing the biggest expansion of the federal government in the history of the country. This is a costly, centralizing government that has the full support of the Bloc Québécois, which has voted nearly 200 times for $500 billion in inflationary, centralizing, bureaucratic spending.
Quebeckers deserve a common-sense government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime now.
Mr. Speaker, when we announced a major investment in Telesat to create good jobs in Quebec, jobs that will have a positive impact on connectivity and national security across the country and around the world, the Conservatives' response was to call their friend Elon Musk to say that these jobs should not be sent to Canada and that the money should be given to American billionaires instead.
The Conservatives' view on investments that will create jobs is completely ridiculous. We will be there to invest in Quebeckers for the future.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up. Costs are up. Crimes are up. Time is up. Now he wants a 300% carbon tax hike all the way up to 61¢ a litre.
Why not let Canadians choose a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime now?
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had spent any time listening to Canadians over the summer, he would have heard that they need solutions. They need answers to the challenges they are facing. That is not what he is offering. Indeed, he does not care about Canadians; he just cares about himself and his own political interests.
We are going to keep focused on doing the things that he refuses to do, whether it is him voting against dental care, whether it is him voting against child care, or whether it is him voting against a national school food program. We are going to still deliver the things that matter to Canadians, like food in kids' bellies, child care spaces, and supports for seniors to go to the dentist, many of them for the first time in years.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, children are hungrier than ever after nine years of the NDP-Liberals. In fact, 25% of them are not getting enough food, and we now know why. A carbon tax fraud has been perpetrated by the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, who kept secret Environment Canada documents that showed that the carbon tax was blowing a $25-billion hole in our economy. Our economy, per capita, is smaller today than it was 10 years ago, during which time the American economy has grown by 19%.
Instead of a reckless plan to hike the tax to 61¢ a litre, why not allow Canadians to vote to axe the tax?
Mr. Speaker, here is a news flash for the Conservative leader: Climate change costs money. What would cost the most money to Canadians at all is his do-nothing climate plan. Here is a news flash: When the Toronto subway gets flooded, it costs money. Here is another news flash: when forest fires hit communities across this country, it costs Canadians money to rebuild. When droughts hit farmers and agriculturers across this country, it costs money.
What does not cost money is putting money in eight out of 10 of Canadians' pockets with the Canada carbon rebate to support their families and fight climate change.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just proved my point. His tax does not stop floods, fires or droughts. All it does is create more poverty. This is also from a high-flying, high-taxing, high-carbon hypocrite, who flew 92,000 kilometres in a fuel-guzzling, tax-funded private jet, while he taxes single moms and seniors for heating their homes. Now carbon tax Carney wants him to put the tax back on home heating oil.
Will he reject carbon tax Carney and instead allow Canadians to choose to axe the tax?
I want to remind all members, and to do so early, to be very mindful of the language they use when referring to other members in the House.
The right Hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader does not believe in climate change and that is why he has a do-nothing plan to fight climate change. It would cost Canadians money and challenge the future we are building for our kids.
Our plan with the Canada carbon rebate puts more dollars in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians right across the country, and supports the middle class and people working hard to join it, while delivering the kinds of investments that are going to grow our economy and reduce emissions at the same time. This is a responsible climate plan that fights climate change and supports Canadians. He wants to do nothing. He wants to hurt Canadians.
[Translation]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by welcoming back of all my colleagues.
Today is by-election day in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, and I would like the Prime Minister to explain to retirees between the ages of 65 and 74 in that riding why their pension cheques are 10% lower than those of retirees aged 75 and up. This is blatant discrimination, and they have the right to understand why this is happening.
Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, seniors aged 75 and up have more expenses and often have less savings. That is why we are providing additional funding for them.
However, I am a bit confused about something. The Bloc Québécois claims to care about seniors aged 65 and up, but they voted against the dental care we are providing Canadians. A total of 650,000 Canadian seniors across the country have recently received dental care paid for by the federal government, but the Bloc voted against that. They do not give a damn about seniors.
Health
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is easily confused. He just trampled on a jurisdiction exclusive to Quebec.
On Friday, he also said that Quebec anglophones were not entitled to the same health care services in English as francophones receive. That is not true. I am therefore specifically asking him, as the law requires, to acknowledge that he misled anglophones in Montreal, Quebec and LaSalle—Émard—Verdun when he said that they are not entitled to the same health care services in English as francophones.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois claims to speak for the Government of Quebec but does not seem to acknowledge that the Government of Quebec admitted that it was going to issue an order to clarify and explain that it did not intend to attack anglophones. We are still awaiting that explanation. However, if the Government of Quebec could acknowledge it, maybe the Bloc Québécois could do likewise.
Seniors 65 and over who received dental care could not care less about their area of responsibility. They want the dental care that Quebec was not providing. The federal government is there to pay for seniors and help them get dental care. The Bloc Québécois voted against it.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, like everywhere else in Quebec, continues to worsen under the Liberals. Hundreds of people are currently homeless. This is a result of the rules the Liberals and Conservatives created so that wealthy investors can get richer while tenants pay more. Together, the Liberals and Conservatives have lost over one million affordable housing units. People deserve better.
When will the Prime Minister stop working for the real estate giants and start protecting tenants?
Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, I have had many good conversations with my NDP colleagues and the leader of the NDP. I know they are genuinely concerned about Canadians. They really want to help them, but what is becoming clear is that they have no idea how to do it. As soon as the Conservatives start attacking them a little bit, what do they do? They run away and hide behind politics.
Yes, it is hard to implement progressive measures in this country, but we are doing it as a government. Even without the NDP, we will continue to deliver for people across the country when it comes to housing, services—
[English]
Health
Mr. Speaker, no excuses, no one in Canada should be homeless, period, full stop. No one in Canada should pay out of pocket to get the health care they need.
The Liberals are letting people be charged membership fees or bundled payments to gain access to primary care covered by universal health care. The Conservatives want people to pay for health care in Elmwood—Transcona and right across the country. The Liberals let us down on health care; we pay. The Conservatives cut health care; we pay.
When will Liberals stop making people pay for health care that should be free?
Mr. Speaker, as everyone in here knows, over the past couple of years, I have had a lot of great conversations with the NDP. I know the New Democrats actually do care about Canadians and about delivering for them. Unfortunately, they have no idea how to do it and as soon as hard things got hard, they turned tail and ran. They wanted to avoid the criticisms of the mean old Conservatives and tried to save themselves.
The reality is that we know that hard things are hard. We are going to continue to deliver progressive solutions for Canadians, because we are going to step up and fight for Canadians and not hide from the Conservatives.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave the finance minister a real vote of confidence last week as he outsourced the job that she was supposed to have been doing for four years and gave it to a man who is not even in the Liberal caucus.
First, the Prime Minister tried to fire her in the newspaper. Now she is being shoved aside for carbon tax Carney, a man focused on his own profits and his own corporate interests, who was brought in to serve as the de facto finance minister. She has lost her job responsibilities. She has lost her credibility.
How long will the phantom finance minister endure this humiliation?
Mr. Speaker, I am not going anywhere, but I can understand why the Conservatives prefer to focus on personal mudslinging and attacks rather than to actually talk about the economy. They do not want to talk about inflation, because it has been down in the target range for seven months in a row. They do not want to talk about interest rates, down three times in a row. All they can do is insult people.
Mr. Speaker, who is going to tell her? She just got a demotion and he hired a guy who is not even elected to do her job. Does anyone believe that carbon tax Carney is going to tell the Prime Minister how to help a family afford groceries as the loudest cheerleader for carbon taxes ever?
If the finance minister is not completely humiliated by now, could she explain why Canadians should trust a man who is the number-one supporter of higher taxes to do her job?
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more clearly than ever that the only thing the Conservatives know how to do is to level personal attacks and personal denigration. They do not care about Canadians and now they are scared about the facts of our economy.
Let me tell members some facts. Inflation is in the target range for seven months in a row. Interest rates are down three times in a row. The IMF says that we will have the strongest economic growth in the G7.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, this summer, after he argued that Atlantic Canadian home heating oil should be carbon taxed, carbon-tax-loving Mark Carney spent a lovely summer of whimsy having champers at the Royal Box at Wimbledon and rubbing shoulders at a swish cocktail party with a wealthy CEO, who yesterday, coincidentally, got millions of tax dollars. This is not someone who is in touch with the struggle of average Canadians, but neither is the Prime Minister.
Did he push aside his now-phantom female cabinet minister because carbon-tax-loving Mark Carney could get him into fancier parties than she can?
Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by saying that it is great to be back in this place. I really did miss most people on this side. I cannot say I missed them that much, but I did miss them a little.
It is just typical from the Conservatives that when they have an eminent Canadian, someone who has given so much to the country, who does not agree with their economic vision or their vision at all in Canada, they attack him. We need to be better than this. We need to support Canadians and be grateful when they put forward for public service.
Mr. Speaker, they are not even letting her answer the question anymore.
At a time when so many people are struggling to make ends meet and pleading for someone to fix the budget, I am struggling to find a reason why the Prime Minister would put an out-of-touch elitist, active archpriest of carbon price profiteering, who has massive conflicts of interest, in charge of the federal budget while shunting aside his female cabinet minister. What a feminist.
Why does the now-phantom finance minister have to get approval for Canada's fall economic statement from carbon tax conflict of interest Mark Carney?
Mr. Speaker, I am actually really glad to welcome back to the QP roster the member for Calgary Nose Hill. We have not heard her raising her voice for a while.
I am not going anywhere, but I am not surprised to see the Conservatives continue cartoonish personal attacks. That is because they are afraid to reveal to Canadians their plan for austerity and cuts, cuts, cuts, because they know that is not what Canadians want.
Mr. Speaker, we have two sources saying that the view of some senior officials within the PMO, including chief of staff Katie Telford, is that the phantom finance minister has been ineffective in selling the government's economic policies. It is curious, because we have a fake feminist Prime Minister who says he is all for women.
Taxes are up, costs are up, the economy is in the toilet and this carbon tax Mark Carney is now going to quadruple the carbon tax on all home heating across Canada.
Why is the phantom finance minister okay with being publicly humiliated by the fake feminist Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker, the only people being humiliated today are Conservative MPs who have to listen to their colleagues wallow in the mud of personal character assassination. However, what we are focused on is representing and working for Canadians. That is why the real news today is 30-year mortgage amortizations for all first-time homebuyers. That is the real news.
Mr. Speaker, it is not that Conservative saying that. It is the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, for the record.
I guess the question is before the phantom finance minister. She simply has two choices. Is she going to join the graveyard of Liberal female ministers under the fake feminist Prime Minister, like Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, or will she continue to be publicly humiliated?
Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is the Conservatives running away from the reality about the Canadian economy. They are running away from the fact that inflation has been in the Bank of Canada's target range for seven months in a row. They are running away from interest rates that are down three times in a row for the first time in the G7 and wages outpacing inflation for 18 months. The only thing the Conservatives know how to do is traffic in cheap insults. Canadians are a lot better than that.
[Translation]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, these days there is a lot of talk about elections. Some people are doing with all sorts of calculations. For the Bloc Québécois it is simple: We put our trust in Quebeckers, not the Liberals, not the Conservatives, but Quebeckers.
Quebeckers tell us that they are worried about the cost of living and living conditions for seniors. That is why our priority is to increase old age security for people aged 65 to 74. They are being unfairly discriminated against and it needs to stop. It is as simple as that.
Will the government listen to this simple request from Quebeckers?
Mr. Speaker, the next time the Bloc Québécois supports seniors, that will be the first time in the history of this Parliament.
Let us look at the facts. When we restored the age of retirement to 65, how did the Bloc Québécois vote? It voted against. When we increased the guaranteed income supplement, helping hundreds of thousands of seniors in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois voted against. When we brought in dental care for millions of seniors, the Bloc Québécois voted against.
It is high time that they stood up for our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's demand is simple: We want the House to pass our Bill C-319, which would increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 64 to 74 by 10%. It is so simple and it makes so much sense that all of the parties supported our bill in committee. All that is missing is the will of the government.
Since all the parties agree that we should increase the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74, will the government do the right thing and give royal recommendation to Bill C-319?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome back the Bloc Québécois, which supports seniors, just as our government's actions do. Look at what we have done. We implemented the grocery rebate, increased the guaranteed income supplement and brought in many other measures, including dental care, which is being offered to people across Quebec this year, including those in my colleague's riding, even though she voted against it.
We are there for seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I went all over Quebec again this summer to talk about Bill C-319. Everyone agrees that it is unfair that seniors aged 74 and under receive 10% less than other seniors. Everyone except the Liberals agrees that grocery bills do not discriminate based on age.
That is why this is a key issue for the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers understand the problem. Quebeckers understand what we are doing.
Will the Liberals finally understand this as well and give royal recommendation to Bill C-319?
Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Québécois does not seem to understand is that actions do matter. Votes in the House matter. They voted against dental care, and Quebec seniors noticed. They voted against lowering the retirement age to 65. Quebeckers are paying attention.
The Liberal Party of Canada is always there to support the federal pensions of Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois has never demonstrated that it is there to protect Canadians' pensions in Quebec or elsewhere.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the “Liberal Bloc” voted for the largest expansion of the federal government in history. There is more spending than ever. There are more civil servants than ever. There are more financial scandals than ever. All this is being done with Quebeckers' money.
How did the Prime Minister manage to convince the Bloc Québécois to support the costliest and most centralizing government in Canadian history?
Mr. Speaker, our government is proudly progressive. Our government is proud of our climate action. Our government is proud of our support for day care and early childhood centres. Our government is proud of our support for families.
We know that the people of Quebec share our progressive values. That is why we followed Quebec's lead on day care and the climate. We are proud to have done that.
Mr. Speaker, the “Liberal Bloc” says it stands up for the interests of Quebeckers. Is it in the interest of Quebeckers to support the most costly government in the history of Canada? Is it in the interest of Quebeckers to increase their taxes to reinforce the federal state that keeps encroaching on Quebec's jurisdictions? It is clear that the “Liberal Bloc” does nothing but stand up for the interests of the Prime Minister.
What did the Prime Minister offer the leader of the “Liberal Bloc” to get him to agree to support all his centralist spending?
Mr. Speaker, I look at the Conservatives across the way and I see that they have no shame in claiming that they want to work toward prosperity, when all they manage to do is build a road to austerity. Canadians know that the only thing the Conservatives can do is chop, chop, chop. They cut investments in small craft harbours. They cut investments in science. They cut investments in families, in child care services and in dental care. That is the way to build a road to austerity. That is the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, one coalition seems to have ended, but another remains: the “Liberal Bloc” coalition, which is responsible for $500 billion in inflationary and centralized spending. Under this coalition, the public service has grown, with more than 100,000 new public servants. It is the most costly government in history. Despite this, wait times and service standards have never been worse. The people and my staff in Beauce have to wait for hours to get answers.
What did the Prime Minister promise the leader of the Bloc Québécois to keep the most expensive and centralist government in the history of this country in power?
Mr. Speaker, this summer, I had the opportunity and pleasure to invite my Quebec Liberal caucus colleagues to my riding, Brome—Missisquoi. I gave them a little tour of all the budget cuts made by the Conservatives when they were in power. I took them to the experimental farm in Frelighsburg. The Conservatives do not believe in science and they cut spending on agricultural science. I also took them to a cultural centre that we built because all the Conservatives did was cut spending on arts and culture. Quebeckers remember that all the Conservatives can do are cutbacks and austerity. We do not want that in Quebec.
[English]
Grocery Industry
Mr. Speaker, because of Liberal inaction, people in Nanaimo—Ladysmith are being forced to cut back on groceries to keep up with rising prices. Meanwhile, the Conservatives continue to pad their pockets with donations from the same CEOs who are gouging Canadians.
Over the summer, people shared with me that they are exhausted and not able to make ends meet. Why are the Liberals taking a page out of the Conservative playbook and putting corporate greed ahead of everyday people?
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the NDP's recent hard right turn has taken them down the wrong path. It is too bad that they have caved to Conservative pressure.
We worked collaboratively for many months to introduce numerous rounds of changes to Canada's competition laws. These are significant signs of progress that would amount to better prices and more options for Canadians and include more powers to the Competition Bureau to crack down on anti-competitive behaviour. Those changes would make a real difference in Canada's economy.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, the poorest seniors are receiving hundreds of dollars less every year because Liberal policies created another GIS clawback.
This summer, I heard from seniors and their loved ones. They are drowning. Conservatives cut pensions and increased the retirement age, and the Liberals are punishing the poorest seniors. Canadians never win with Liberals or Conservatives.
When will the clawbacks end?
Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, not only do GIS, CPP and OAS go up, but they now also go up quarterly. In fact, there are no clawbacks.
The member knows full well that we have actually expanded the amount of money a senior on GIS might make before any money is clawed back. We have expanded that substantially. The member should know that.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House spent their summers listening to Canadians. We heard about grandparents and children getting access to the Canadian dental care plan. We heard about the need for a government that is focused on building more homes faster, growing our economy and making life cost less.
What we have seen the Conservatives do all summer is bet against our economy and bet against Canadians for their own political gain.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance share with us the good economic news we saw over the summer and what this means for Canadians and their families?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very hard work.
COVID and its economic aftermath have been hard for Canadians, and that is why it is important to recognize the good news we have had this summer. Canada was the first G7 country to lower interest rates, easing the burden on homeowners. Inflation has now been within the Bank of Canada's target range for seven months and wages have outpaced inflation for 18 months in a row. We have more work to do, and that is why we are focused on Canada and Canadians.
[Translation]
Forestry Industry
Mr. Speaker, I have gone to Sacré-Coeur many times to meet with people from the Boisaco forestry company. The employees are feeling extremely insecure, and with good reason. They risk losing their jobs.
The order by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is a disaster for the forestry industry. It will kill jobs, close businesses and potentially wipe communities off the map. The industry represents 1,400 jobs in Quebec and $900 million in economic benefits.
Will the minister take into account the human beings behind his radical policies and guarantee that he will not impose his order?
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be back with you for the new session.
That said, might I remind my colleague from the Conservative Party that the Government of Quebec has committed since 2016 to presenting a woodland caribou recovery plan in Quebec. We are now in 2024, soon to be 2025, and we have been waiting eight years for the plan. In 2022, the Government of Quebec signed a joint letter with the federal government stating that they would have a plan by June 2023. The plan would specify how to protect at least 65% of caribou habitat.
The Government of Quebec committed to do that. If Quebec does not want a federal order, it simply needs to act.
Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know whether the minister can even find Sacré-Coeur on a map.
Life is already hard enough with inflation, the cost of living and interest rates, but now the Liberals are adding even more stress. The only way to get rid of the order is to get rid of this government and replace it with a Conservative government. We know that the Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberals 182 times to keep them in power.
Will the Bloc-Liberal coalition leave forestry workers alone once and for all?
Mr. Speaker, if only you knew how many times I met with Quebeckers this summer. They think it is completely ridiculous to talk about a coalition between the Liberal Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois, even though we are capable of working together. Quebeckers find the idea of such a coalition completely ridiculous.
However, we should not be surprised at comments like that coming from the Conservatives. Once again, we see how they have no interest in protecting the environment. They do not care about air quality, water quality or the future that we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. We think that we can support the economy, communities and the environment.
[English]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up.
When the Prime Minister promised to quadruple the carbon tax scam, the leader of the NDP said, “Yes, sir.” He would do anything for his $2.2-million pension. Now, the Canadian Trucking Alliance has released a damning report, which is saying that the carbon tax scam adds more than $4 billion in costs to farmers, families and food.
Why do the Liberals not just call a carbon tax election now to let Canadians decide whether to quadruple or axe the tax for good?
Mr. Speaker, I have a news flash. We had a carbon tax election in 2021, and the Conservative Party had a platform that said that they would put in place carbon pricing in this country. Maybe they just have to go to look back at their own platform.
Again this morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was in committee saying that eight out of 10 Canadian families, where carbon pricing applies, get more money than what they pay in pricing. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada continues to spew lies and disinformation on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the PBO proved that the orange jumpsuit-wearing, handcuff-wearing minister is lying when he said that more Canadians pay into this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I know it is the first day back for members. We have all spent time in our ridings. I am going to ask the hon. member to rephrase his question and to not use language that is normally considered unparliamentary.
The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn, from the top.
Mr. Speaker, what the orange jumpsuit-wearing, handcuff-loving minister does not understand is that the PBO proved Canadians pay more into the scam than what they get back, and it has done nothing to stop a single forest fire or flood. It is a scam and nothing else. The leader of the NDP continues to prop the carbon tax scam up so that he can get his $2.2-million pension. That is why he voted in favour of it 24 times.
Call a carbon tax election now so Canadians can axe the tax and kick this carbon-tax, costly coalition to the curb.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
It is really important for all members to choose their language and use their words judiciously in a way that is respectful to the House.
The hon. government House leader.
Mr. Speaker, that kind of language from the member opposite is totally inappropriate, and quite frankly, Canadians deserve better. However, it is what we have come to expect from the Conservative leader and his caucus, who would—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Colleagues, I could not hear the hon. minister give her response. It was difficult for me to hear to make sure the language was correct.
The hon. government House leader, from the top.
Mr. Speaker, the language from the member opposite was completely inappropriate, and quite frankly, Canadians deserve better. However, unfortunately that is what we have come to expect from the Conservative members and their leader.
The reason they are focusing on the price on pollution is that they want to distract Canadians from their real agenda, where they cut pensions for seniors, cut child care for families and cut and defund the CBC at a time of increased disinformation. They want to hide their real agenda from Canadians because they know that they will not like it. However, they need to be under that scrutiny and they need to be honest with Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, on October 30, Quebec will move forward on behalf of patients and their families and implement its own legislation to regulate advance requests for medical assistance in dying.
Six professional associations are calling on the federal government to harmonize the Criminal Code with Quebec's legislation. The Collège des médecins du Québec said, and I quote, “We deplore the fact that Ottawa has not yet amended the Criminal Code to authorize this well-established procedure, which has consensus in Quebec.”
Will the Minister of Justice listen to patients, doctors and the science and amend the Criminal Code?
Mr. Speaker, we have listened to what Quebec has to say. This is a very sensitive topic and we need time to consider not only the legal implications of these remarks, but also to engage in a national dialogue. The dialogue is not limited to my provincial and territorial counterparts. It extends to the entire country because it will have consequences. My discussions with my hon. colleague opposite will continue.
Mr. Speaker, since February 2023, the Minister of Justice has been repeating that he is consulting the provinces, that he is reflecting carefully and that advance requests are complicated. Meanwhile, 83% of Canadians and 87% of Quebeckers support this option.
While the minister dithers, Quebec has passed a law. Patients are waiting for this to be implemented, and doctors want to practise with peace of mind. Does the minister understand that there is a difference between studying an issue thoroughly and dragging his feet while people suffer?
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is a deeply personal and complex choice. I have tremendous respect for the work that Quebec has done on advance requests.
Canada has a single Criminal Code, and for good reason. Canadians deserve consistent standards and clarity about what is criminal. There is no quick way to safely allow an exception for Quebec on this issue. The conversation does not end there. We are committed to working with Quebec to determine the next steps.
[English]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up. Costs are up. Crime is up. Time is up. Just last week, we heard that a million people in Ontario were accessing food banks. Meanwhile, the NDP leader supports the Prime Minister, keeps him in power and supports his crushing carbon tax increases.
I just finished a successful by-election campaign. Why will the NDP-Liberals not let Canadians decide about the carbon tax and call a carbon tax election now?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my new colleague to this place. It is important, of course, to always be open and transparent with Canadians. What we hear is someone else who knows how to repeat three-word slogans as well as be able to deliver for the media. What the members opposite are doing is trying to evade what they actually plan to deliver for Canadians. I hope that the member opposite can be more honest and transparent with Canadians moving forward.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up. Costs are up. Crime is up, and now time is up. Canadians are feeling more unsafe than ever. Violent crime is up 50%. Sex assaults are up 75%. Car thefts are up 46%, and shockingly, violent gun crime is up over 100%.
Will the Liberals finally join Conservatives in protecting Canadians and demanding jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders?
Mr. Speaker, my fundamental job is to keep Canadians safe. Here is what we have been doing in the last 12 months. We have increased—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Colleagues, I would appreciate being able to hear the hon. member's response.
The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada from the top, please.
Mr. Speaker, my fundamental job is to keep Canadians safe. Here is what I have been doing in the last 12 months. I have proposed new offences for money laundering that Conservatives voted against. I have increased the penalties for violent carjackings that Conservatives voted against. I and my colleague the Minister of Public Safety have put forward $160 million to aid the CBSA and law enforcement in detecting and stopping car thefts. Car thefts are down 17% over the last six months compared to last year.
There is still more work to do. We are going to continue to do that work. While the Conservatives shout slogans, we are going to keep Canadians safe.
Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that criminals have nothing to fear under the NDP-Liberal legislation. Bill C-48 has done nothing to stop the crime in our communities. Instead of listening to premiers and law enforcement, who have called for bail reform, the justice minister pretends that C-48 is a success. It is an abject failure.
When will the minister stop protecting criminals and start standing up for victims by reversing their catch-and-release policies?
Mr. Speaker, I spent the summer listening to victims. What they talked to me about was intelligent policies and approaches to crime. What we did is pass in the chamber, thankfully with unanimous support, bail reform.
The job is now in the provinces to ensure that that bail reform bears fruit. What am I talking about? The people who decide bail decisions are justices of the peace and primarily provincial court judges appointed at the provincial level. The people who appeal bail decisions, such as my colleague in his former capacity, are provincial crown attorneys who are under the direction of provincial premiers and provincial attorneys general. When there is not enough jail space to keep people in jail who do not deserve bail, that is a provincial responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, on this day 50 years ago, 32 women across Canada took an oath to become the RCMP's first female officers. They became known as Troop 17. Today we celebrate them and all women who have taken the oath since who selflessly serve in the RCMP to keep Canadians safe.
Can the Minister of Public Safety update the House on the efforts made to encourage more women to follow in their footsteps and join the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, 32 brave women took the oath to become the first female RCMP officers. Despite facing challenges and discrimination throughout their careers, the women of Troop 17 persevered and have inspired thousands of women to proudly serve in the RCMP. Today, more than one-fifth of the RCMP regular members are women, and the RCMP continues its effort to recruit even more women to join the force.
I know all colleagues will join me in celebrating the women of Troop 17 and all those who proudly serve in the RCMP today.
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up. Costs are up. Crimes are up. Time is up. Now foreign access to northern cod is up. With the backing of the six Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador MPs, the government broke its promise to allocate the first 115,000 tonnes of northern cod to the inshore harvesters, and it caved to NAFO pressure to allow foreign countries back in with 5% of the northern cod quota.
Does the minister work for foreign nations, or does she work for Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the cultural, economic and historical importance of cod to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why, after a 30-year shutdown, I announced the end of the northern cod moratorium. This modern fishery will generate significant benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador while supporting good-paying jobs.
Our government is committed to managing a sustainable, prosperous fishery that benefits all generations, present and future.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up. Costs are up. Crimes are up, and time is up for the atrocious Liberal fisheries minister. She has failed to protect one of Atlantic Canada's most important industries, the lobster fishery. In my riding, there are no DFO enforcement officers along the Canada-U.S. border. Poachers from Maine are illegally fishing lobsters in our waters. They are stealing Canada's natural resources.
Sixty New Brunswick fishing boats held a peaceful protest Saturday, calling on the minister to enforce the law and protect Canadian sovereignty. Will she do her job, or will the Prime Minister fire her?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our fishery officers have a very difficult job and they do it every day. The opposition keeps repeating ad nauseam that there is no enforcement happening on the water, but that claim is utterly false and frankly irresponsible. The work is being done—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
[English]
The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest had the opportunity to ask his question. I am going to ask him to please hold his comments and let the minister respond to his question. I am certain he will have an opportunity to ask questions again on the same issue.
[Translation]
The hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague that while he might have a loud voice, I have one too.
We are deploying the additional staff and resources needed to protect our oceans and resources.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes, costs and crime are up. Fisheries officers are refusing to patrol the Maritimes because the Liberals will not let them enforce the law. Poachers are attacking with shotguns and knives. Meanwhile, Liberal fisheries minister number six lives in denial, refusing to listen to the union. There are 20,000 pounds of lobster being poached a day through the Saulnierville wharf alone. Americans are fishing in Canadian waters.
Will the Prime Minister listen to fishermen for a change and call an election so Conservatives can fix the fishery?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to listen to the English interpretation of what I am about to say in French. The claims currently being made here in the House are completely untrue. Fishery officers are doing their job.
We, on this side of the House, are not putting on a show. This issue is too important. It is a matter of maritime security.
I really want to reassure the public. The things being said are irresponsible. We are going to keep on doing our job the right way, as we should.
[English]
Health
Mr. Speaker, this summer, I was pleased to join the Minister of Health to sign two new health care agreements with British Columbia. These agreements will enhance wages for personal support workers and improve accessibility and affordability to medication across B.C. Canadians believe in our health care system, and we must continue to build up a health care system for all generations.
Could the Minister of Health please share with us how these agreements will support health care in B.C.?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Richmond Centre for his advocacy for health, making sure that we have the greatest health system in the world.
We are seeing that unfold in British Columbia with an agreement that is going to make sure that health care assistants, with some called “personal support workers”, are getting a fair wage, making sure that we work in partnership with the people who keep our hospitals, long-term care facilities and assisted care facilities going, as well as with an essential agreement on pharmacare, making sure that every person in British Columbia has access to the contraceptives they need, to the diabetes medication they need and, yes, to menopause hormone treatment. These are huge things for our health system.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' failure to fund services through Jordan's principle is endangering first nations youth. In fact, in Winnipeg, Spirit Horse Therapy is owed almost $400,000, and the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society says that the government's neglect is putting kids at risk.
When will the Liberals respect their legal obligations to Jordan's principle and ensure the health and safety of first nations youth?
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be part of a government that puts indigenous children first. First nations children are getting the services they need after a decade of neglect, with the previous Conservative government ignoring their needs, leading to historic lawsuits and, of course, the compensation required to make up for such a terrible omission.
We are making it right. We are ensuring that no first nations child goes without the care they deserve.
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The Northvolt plant is going to be built on the contaminated land of the Canadian Industries Limited former explosives plant and could end up polluting the Richelieu river. There are impacts on areas of federal jurisdiction and 4,000 people have signed a petition calling for a federal assessment. The mayors of Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville are wondering about the impacts of Northvolt.
Will the minister use his authority under the legislation and order an environmental assessment on the impact of the Northvolt project in Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the question. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has indeed received a request for an assessment of the project. That assessment, as is usually the case, is ongoing and the agency will make a recommendation to me in the weeks to come.
However, I would like to share something with the House. The leader of the Green Party and I, as well as many people in Canada, are very confused about the NDP's position on the issue of carbon pricing. I went doorknocking on the weekend in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, and it is incredible how many people told me that they did not understand the NDP's position that would put Quebec and the entire country at a disadvantage.
[English]
Presence in Gallery
Before we move to the point of order, I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable P.J. Akeeagok, Premier of Nunavut.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I seek unanimous consent to table this picture of the Minister of the Environment wearing an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs.
The hon. member is a very experienced member, and she knows that props in the House are not appropriate. There were several noes. I did indeed hear noes.
The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn referred to the Minister of Environment “lying”. In the past, when members have used such unparliamentary language, they have been forced to apologize and retract their statements or else they would not be allowed to speak. I would ask that you review that he in fact said that the minister was lying, and ensure that he apologizes in this place and that he retracts that statement.
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary. Normally, that would be the way forward, but today, the chair had asked members who had used words that were unparliamentary to rephrase their questions. It happened at the top. We did that today, but normally, and I will say this to all members, the Speaker will be asking for members to formally withdraw those comments going forward. Today, being the first day coming back, perhaps we are all getting our sea legs once again.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill is rising again on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, it is unparliamentary for other members to impugn the motives of other parliamentarians. In doing so with her speech, the parliamentary secretary just suggested that my colleague uttered a falsehood, which he did not because the Minister of the Environment was in fact arrested in—
I thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, but we are getting into a moment of debate. The chair has already made a ruling on this issue, and we are moving on to other issues.
[Translation]
Prevention of Acoustic Incidents
The Chair would like to make a short statement on the prevention of acoustic incidents during House sittings.
Members will recall that, on June 10, 2024, the House had to suspend its proceedings following an acoustic incident. The suspension was necessary to ensure a safe environment for everyone, in particular the interpreters assigned to the sitting.
For a number of months, the House administration has been actively working, along with its partners, to find solutions to further minimize the risk of acoustic incidents.
[English]
Earlier today, members received a communiqué by email with information on new prevention measures and a reminder about a few best practices. In summary, members should pay close attention to their microphones at all times. In practice, this means that members must refrain from getting too close to microphones or placing items near them. It goes without saying that earpieces must never be placed near a microphone.
[Translation]
Loud sounds near a microphone pose a risk. Therefore, members are asked to pay particular attention to the sound level of their earpieces, especially when the earpieces are not in use.
[English]
I would also ask members to please place their earpieces in the location marked on their desks, or inside them, if they are not wearing them on their ears. Members should also put their earpieces away inside their desks when they leave the chamber. This is an easy way to minimize the risk of acoustic shock and, therefore, of injuries
[Translation]
Should another serious incident take place in the future, in order to ensure a safe work environment, the sitting may be suspended until the source of the problem has been identified and the necessary adjustments have been made to prevent a new incident.
[English]
I would like to take this opportunity to mention another measure that will be implemented as of today. At key moments during a sitting, for example, when a large number of members are leaving the chamber after Oral Questions, the volume of earpieces located in and near the chamber will be reset to zero. This procedure will ensure that nearby microphones are less likely to pick up unwanted sounds. Members using their earpieces at that time will have to readjust the volume, while paying particular attention to the sound level. The chair occupants will announce when the volume is being reset until members get used to the new procedure.
[Translation]
Lastly, the Chair wishes to confirm that the House administration will continue to support members with special needs or who require auditory accommodations for House sittings.
I thank all members for their attention.
[English]
As I just mentioned in my statement, the volume of earpieces will now be reset. Members using their earpiece at this time will have to adjust the volume, and I thank them for paying particular attention to the sound level.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Implementing a Red Dress Alert in Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 67th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 67th report later this day.
[English]
Promotion of Safety in the Digital Age Act
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and introduce this bill that would ensure that Canadians are protected online without infringing upon their civil liberties.
Canadians are paying the price from a failure of the Liberals to provide necessary protection from online threats while they create costly censorship bureaucracies. This common sense legislation would modernize existing criminal offences to protect Canadians from harm as it occurs online with special provisions to protect minors. The bill would modernize the existing crime of criminal harassment to address the ease and anonymity of how it happens online, would provide mechanisms specifically designed to protect minors who are online and would update Canada's existing laws on the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to ensure that the non-consensual distribution of highly realistic intimate images created by artificial intelligence is criminalized, while preserving the existing provisions in current law about fair use.
Canadians need a common sense approach to tackle criminal harassment online, while ensuring that their civil liberties are protected, and this bill would do just that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the House
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 67th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
Chuck Strahl
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Oral Questions on Tuesday, September 17, 2024, the House observe a moment of silence for the late Honourable Chuck Strahl, that afterwards, the Speaker, a member of the Conservative Party, a member of each of the other recognized parties, a member of the Green Party and the member from Chilliwack—Hope each be permitted to make a statement to pay tribute, and that the time taken for these proceedings shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.
[Translation]
Petitions
Living Cost Differential Allowance
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 578 Canadians from across the country regarding the removal of the living cost differential allowance for federal employees in Grande Cache. The allowance was reduced from a one to a zero on the scale set by the National Joint Council, stripping away critical support.
The petitioners call on the government to reinstate the allowance at a level of one to reflect the true cost of living in Grande Cache.
Lets'emot Regional Aquatic Centre
Mr. Speaker, petitioners in my riding are calling on the Government of Canada to provide additional funds to support the construction of the Lets'emot Regional Aquatic Centre in Agassiz, B.C., which has seen its projected costs skyrocket. The name “Lets'emot” means “one heart, one mind” in the Halq’eme’ylem language.
Residents of the District of Kent, Harrison Hot Springs, Seabird Island, Cheam, Stó:lo, Sts'ailes, Sq'éwlets, Skawahlook, Popkum and Peters first nations, and the Fraser Valley Regional District electoral areas C and D all support this project and are looking for the government to provide an innovative approach where reconciliation is put into action.
When communities want to build a facility off reserve but for surrounding indigenous communities, the Treasury Board guidelines do not allow for that to happen.
My residents want the government to think innovatively and support this project the way it should.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today with a petition of great concern to many of my constituents. I heard about this issue all summer, the need for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to have removed from its statutory mandate the promotion of aquaculture in order to put the priority for DFO to be on the protection of coastal ecosystems. The petitioners note that for British Columbians, the protection of wild salmon is as important as the protection of the French language is for the Québécois.
The petitioners call on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to protect those areas in which migratory juvenile salmon travel and to ensure that the presence of fish farms and aquaculture are not too close to the areas where wild fish absolutely need that habitat. They have numerous bullet points to this petition.
I will summarize by saying that they want action to protect wild Pacific salmon and protect it from for-profit foreign fish aquaculture.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on this first day back of the fall sitting of our Parliament to present a petition on behalf of petitioners who would remind us that folks with disabilities across the country continue to disproportionately live in poverty.
They make it clear that this is because federal and territorial programs are below the poverty line. They note that the Canada disability benefit was promised as a benefit to reduce poverty for persons with disabilities in the same manner as the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit. However, instead, the proposed Canada disability benefit from budget 2024 is nothing that the disability community had been calling for, falling well short of the many promises made by the Liberal government.
The petitioners note that the maximum amount is just $200 a month, that it requires a new application process in contravention of section 11(f) of the Canada Disability Benefit Act and that it is restricted to folks who have the disability tax credit, which is long known for the many barriers to access.
The petitioners call on the government, in short, to fix the Canada disability benefit. They go on to itemize the numerous ways that this needs to be done, first, by fully funding the benefit to actually lift folks out of poverty with the urgency seen with the CERB, the Canada emergency response benefit, for example. They go on to call for the government to automatically enrol folks with disabilities who are already a part of provincial and territorial programs, rather than using this disability tax credit. They call on the government to tie it to an individual's income as opposed to household income.
In short, it is a clear set of principles and actions that could be taken to fix the Canada disability benefit. I am glad to present this petition on behalf of over 3,000 people who have signed it.
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2701, 2703 to 2705, 2712, 2716, 2718, 2724, 2726, 2739, 2742, 2744, 2747, 2753, 2756, 2757, 2760, 2762, 2765, 2766, 2770, 2771, 2773, 2774, 2776 to 2780, 2782, 2783, 2788, 2791, 2792, 2794, 2795, 2799, 2800, 2803, 2805, 2808, 2811, 2812, 2814, 2815, 2817, 2819 to 2821, 2827, 2828, 2830, 2832, 2833, 2836, 2838, 2843, 2849, 2851, 2853, 2854, 2859, 2861, 2862, 2872, 2876, 2887 to 2890, 2895, 2897 to 2899, 2901 and 2903.
[Text]
With regard to government hospitality expenditures related to the government’s supply and confidence agreement with the NDP, including any expenses related to all meetings, negotiations, or other events attended by those involved in the agreement: what are the details of such expenditures since the beginning of the 44th Parliament, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) vendor, (iv) event description, (v) amount, (vi) number of attendees, (vii) names of the attendees?
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office searched the departmental financial system and has not identified any information regarding government hospitality expenditures related to the government’s supply and confidence agreement with the NDP, or any expenses related to all meetings, negotiations, or other events attended by those involved in the agreement.
With regard to requests submitted through Jordan’s Principle and the Inuit Child First Initiative, broken down by fiscal year since the program's inception: (a) what is the total number of requests received from (i) parents or guardians of Indigenous children, (ii) Indigenous children at the age of consent in their province or territory, (iii) an individual authorized to represent an Indigenous child, parent, or guardian, (iv) businesses where the requester has authorized the business to represent them; (b) what is the total amount of funding requested through these programs by (i) 511825 Ontario Inc., (ii) Maryhomes Inc., (iii) Enterphase Child & Family Services, (iv) Hatts Off Inc., (v) Unison Treatment Homes for Youth Inc., (vi) Kom’s Kid Kare Agency, (vii) Kushions Inc., (viii) Hand in Hand Children’s Services; and (c) what measures does the government have in place to ensure that funding applied for by for-profit corporations is delivered in full to the children who need care?
Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question,the Jordan’s Principle and Inuit Child First Initiatives collect a range of information on all requests, whether approved or denied, however data on the requestor is not collected in a standardized format that allows for a breakdown by those eligible to send requests. Due to the extremely high volume of requests received by Jordan’s Principle by email, fax or phone by either the National Call Centre or regional focal points, reporting on data collected in a non-standardized format is complex. For example, in 2023-24, a total of 145,769 requests were approved through Jordan’s Principle for 2.17 million products, services and supports for First Nations children. Specific to the Inuit Child First Initiative, in 2023-24 a total of 12,822 requests were approved for 92,800 products, services and supports for Inuit children.
Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, is continuing to increase funding for products, services and supports to First Nations children. Since 2016, the department has invested more than $8.1 billion to support meeting the needs of First Nations children through Jordan’s Principle, working collaboratively with the First Nations Parties, and enhancing operations to meet the growing volume of requests.
In previous years, typical requests through Jordan’s Principle included supports for mental health, special education, dental, physical therapy, speech therapy, medical equipment and physiotherapy. The initiative has evolved to address requests for services that are very different in type than previously submitted to ISC. Jordan’s Principle is seeing an increase in socioeconomic supports such as rent, groceries and utilities which has contributed to the increase in requests, complexity and processing times. However, while the types of requests have evolved over time, the goal of ensuring that First Nations children have an equal chance to thrive as other children in Canada remains.
The department is working towards improving operational and technological efficiencies to streamline workloads and reduce manual processes to improve service timelines. For example, ISC developed measures in 2023 to help address backlogs, such as measures to manage call volumes; the use of surge teams to address backlogs; hiring additional staff; measures to manage staff retention; and use of technology.
The Jordan's Principle National Call Centre has seen a steadily increasing volume of calls, in addition to the usual peaks in calls at different times of the year, such as in August, when there is an influx of school-related requests. For example, from March 2022 to March 2023, the call volume increased by approximately 300%.
As for part (b) of the question, ISC provides funding to First Nations child and family services agencies, which are established, managed and controlled by First Nations and delegated by provincial authorities to provide prevention and protection services. In areas where these agencies do not exist, ISC funds services provided by the provinces and Yukon but does not deliver child and family services. These services are provided in accordance with the legislation and standards of the province or territory of residence. As of January 1, 2020, service providers delivering child and family services to Indigenous children must comply with the national principles and minimum standards set in An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.
ISC uses a prevention-based funding model to support early intervention and alternatives to traditional institutional care and foster care, such as the placement of children with family members in a community setting. The program provides 3 streams of funding:operations, namely, core and operational funding for protection services (such as salaries and overhead); prevention, namely, resources for enhanced prevention services; and maintenance, including the direct costs of placing First Nations children into temporary or permanent care out of the parental home, such as foster care rates and group home rates.
Questions relating to child and family services and funding provided for Inuit and Métis children and First Nations children living off reserve should be directed to the appropriate provincial or territorial ministry.
As for part (c) of the question, ISC has measures in place to ensure that the funds expended through the Jordan's Principle and Inuit Child First Initiatives to requestors for approved products, services and supports reach the child/children for whom the request was approved.
ISC investigates complaints and concerns such as: invoicing irregularities; concerns regarding the appropriate delivery of products, services, and supports; potential and/or suspected misuse of approved funds; and complaints related to child safety. Findings can result in a range of actions, including supporting the requestor to become compliant with ISC financial requirements, denial of future requests, consultations with the Department of Justice, and engaging with Assessment and Investigation Services Branch of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to support investigations when there are allegations of fraud.
With regard to the Greenland Halibut in Nunavut, since 2017: (a) what are the details of all assessments of Greenland Halibut stocks, including the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) conclusions; (b) what are the details of all Greenland Halibut fisheries management decisions, including the (i) date, (ii) scientific assessment used to justify the decision, (iii) decision on total allowable catch and sharing arrangements; (c) what investments has the government made to improve data collection on Greenland Halibut to make more informed decisions on Greenland Halibut fisheries; and (d) what efforts has the government made to incorporate Inuit traditional knowledge and Inuit science in Greenland Halibut data collection and fisheries decisions?
Hon. Diane Lebouthiller (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Greenland Halibut in Nunavut, since 2017, in response to part (a) of the questionthe offshore Greenland Halibut stock is shared between Canada and Greenland. It is assessed jointly by both countries through the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, Scientific Council every 2 years, which is reviewed by subject matter experts from both countries.
Since 2017, NAFO Scientific Council has conducted stock assessments in 2018, 2020 and 2022. The details and results of these stock assessments can be found on the NAFO website.
As for part (b) of the question, each year, TAC decisions are based on the most recent advice of the NAFO Scientific Council.
The total allowable catch (TAC) for 2017 and 2018 was set at 16,150 tonnes by Canada. Distribution of the TAC between Divisions 0A and 0B were set at 8,575 tonnes and 7,575 tonnes, respectively, and included the allocation of 100 tonnes from Division A to be fished by Nunavut-based harvesters to help develop inshore fisheries inside the Nunavut Settlement Area.
The TAC for 2019 and 2020 was set at 18,185 tonnes by Canada. Distribution of the TAC between Divisions 0A and 0B were set at 9,592.5 tonnes and 8,592.5 tonnes, respectively, and included the allocation of 100 tonnes from Division A to be fished by Nunavut-based harvesters.
For 2021 and 2022, Canada maintained the 2020 TAC and distributions between Divisions 0A and 0B.
In 2023, Canada and Greenland lowered their TACs by 9.25% to 16,502.5 tonnes in consideration of NAFO Scientific Council advice, taking a precautionary approach that balances the overall sustainability of the fishery with the economic needs of Indigenous communities and Canadian fish harvesters. Distribution of the TAC between Divisions 0A and 0B were set at 8,704.99 tonnes and 7,797.51 tonnes, respectively. Allocations to fleets in Division 0A remained the same, including the allocation of 100 tonnes to be fished by Nunavut-based harvesters. Division 0B enterprise and special allocations were reduced proportionally.
In 2024, Canada maintained the 2023 TAC and distributions between Divisions 0A and 0B.
As for part (d) of the question, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, supports surveys in NAFO Divisions 0A and 0B through a Collaborative Agreement with the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources using the R/V Tarajoq research vessel. DFO's financial contributions to the surveys were $1,239,300 in 2022-23 and $1,534,263 in 2023-024.
Following a change in the research vessel, DFO invested in new research to develop a model-based calibration approach to align survey data from the new time series with the previous time series. Please refer to Science Advisory Report 2023/020.
DFO has contributed to collaborative research through the Ocean Tracking Network to quantify Greenland Halibut habitat use and movement patterns, and movement of fish among fishing areas.
Lastly, in response to part (d) of the question, DFO seeks advice on Greenland Halibut from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, or NWMB, in accordance with the Nunavut Agreement. The NWMB provides advice and recommendations on the Canadian TAC, distribution, and allocation for Subarea 0. This decision considers both the immediate and long-term health of Canada’s Greenland Halibut fishery to grow a stronger, more sustainable fishery.
In collaboration with the Government of Nunavut, DFO has conducted surveys at Scott Inlet, Pond Inlet, and Broughton Island documenting Greenland Halibut distribution, fish size, and catch rates to support emerging fishery development by the communities of Clyde River, Pond Inlet, and Qikiqtarjuaq.
With regard to members of the Border Services (FB) group who work at the Canada Border Services Agency and the commitment made by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat during the 2021 round of bargaining to resubmit the Border Services (FB) group’s proposal to introduce legislative amendments providing enhanced early retirement benefits under the public service pension plan, to facilitate an expedited opportunity to bring forward its related business case to the Public Service Pension Advisory Committee (PSPAC), and to facilitate a streamlined process to have these issues reviewed and ensure that related recommendations are brought forward in a timely manner: (a) who has the government consulted with through this process, including, but not limited to, members of the Border Services (FB) group, through their bargaining agent; (b) what information, advice, and recommendations have the (i) PSPAC, (ii) Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), (iii) Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSPIB), presented to the Treasury Board; (c) what information, statements, advice, and recommendations has the Treasury Board presented to the (i) PSPAC, (ii) PSAC, (iii) PSPIB; (d) what is the timeline to implement the promised changes; and (e) what steps still need to be taken to ensure these changes take place?
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, as per the 2021 agreement between the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the proposal to extend eligibility for early retirement benefits to the Border Services (FB) group was brought forward for consultations held through the Public Service Pension Advisory Committee, or PSPAC. The PSPAC was established pursuant to the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is composed of six employer representatives, six employee representatives, and one retiree representative. Members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada are represented on this committee.
With respect to part (b) of the question, in December 2023, the PSPAC completed a comprehensive assessment of the proposal to extend eligibility for early retirement benefits to the Border Services (FB) group and provided a recommendation to the President of the Treasury Board. The advice of the Public Service Alliance of Canada is reflected in the PSPAC recommendation to the President of the Treasury Board. The Public Sector Pension Investment Board was not involved in the development of this proposal.
With respect to part (c) of the question, after receiving the PSPAC’s recommendation in December 2023, the President of the Treasury Board responded to the PSPAC to acknowledge its recommendation and communicate that she had taken it under advisement.
With respect to part (d) of the question, on June 13, 2024, the President of the Treasury Board announced the Government of Canada’s intention to expand early pension eligibility for certain public safety and security workers, including frontline members of the Border Services (FB) group. Per the President’s announcement, legislative amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act are expected to be introduced in Parliament in the fall of 2024.
Lastly, with respect to part (e) of the question, in order to implement the changes to expand early pension eligibility for certain public safety and security workers, including frontline members of the Border Services (FB) group, legislative amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act will need to be passed by Parliament and amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Regulations will need to be approved by the Governor in Council. Considerable pay and pension system changes will also need to be completed before the changes can be operationalized.
With regard to the statement from the Minister of Health on March 20, 2024, indicating that Health Canada is pursuing legislative and regulatory mechanisms to place restrictions on the flavors of nicotine replacement therapies: (a) what specific studies have been conducted by Health Canada related to the impact of such a restriction; and (b) what are the details of all studies in (a), including, for each, the (i) date the study was completed, (ii) names and titles of who conducted the study, (iii) methodology, (iv) findings, (v) website location where the study can be found online?
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as outlined in the notice of intent, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/natural-non-prescription/notice-intent-address-risks-youth-appeal-access-nicotine-replacement-therapies.html and published by the department on March 20, 2024, Health Canada is considering legislative and regulatory mechanisms to address access and potential youth appeal of nicotine replacement therapies, or NRTs. New requirements, such as but not limited to specific requirements for labelling and packaging, as well as restrictions related to colours, flavours, advertising and place of sale, are being considered.
Health Canada is considering many sources of input as it continues to develop a proposed path forward, such as, for example, the publicly available information below. Please note that information on sources of input related to regulatory mechanisms will be published as part of a regulatory impact analysis statement along with any regulatory measures in the Canada Gazette, where appropriate.
Here are some examples of publicly available information: “Canada Gazette, Part 1, Volume 155, Number 25: Order Amending Schedules 2 and 3 to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (Flavours)”, at https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2021/2021-06-19/html/reg2-eng.html; and the “Canadian Tobacco and Nicotine Survey (CTNS): summary of results for 2022”, at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-tobacco-nicotine-survey/2022-summary.html.
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), as of March 31, 2024: (a) how many employees or full-time equivalents (FTEs) are currently employed by IRCC; (b) how many of these employees or FTEs are classified as EX or above; (c) how many of these employees or FTEs are classified below the EX level; (d) of the employees or FTEs that are classified as EX or above and below EX, how many work (i) physically full-time in a government office, (ii) completely remotely, (iii) in a hybrid situation, where they work certain days in the office and certain days remotely; (e) for hybrid workers, how many days per week are they required to come to an office location; (f) what monitoring is done by IRCC to ensure that remote and hybrid employees are putting in the equivalent to a full day while working remotely; (g) what remedial action is undertaken when a supervisor has discovered that an employee is not putting in the equivalent to a full day while working remotely, and what thresholds or limits have been established by IRCC before formal action is taken, such as loss of pay or termination; (h) how many instances of remedial and formal action were taken in the 2023-24 fiscal year; and (i) if remedial or formal action is not taken when the situation outlined in (g) occurs, why not?
Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is concerned, in response to part (a) of the question, according to IRCC’s Departmental Human Resources System, PeopleSoft, IRCC counts 14,034 employees who are currently employed by IRCC.
In response to part (b) of the question, of the employees in (a), IRCC counts 272 employees as EX or above.
In response to part (c) of the question, of the employees in (a), IRCC counts 13,762 employees below the EX level.
With respect to part (d) of the question, of the employees that are classified as EX or above and below EX, based on departmental records, approximately 2.6% of IRCC employees work from a government office every day, approximately 47.4% of IRCC employees work completely remotely, and approximately 50% of IRCC employees are in a hybrid situation, working certain days in the office and certain days remotely.
In response to part (e) of the question, IRCC employees following a hybrid work schedule are required to come into the office a minimum of 40% of their regular schedule on a weekly or monthly basis.
In response to part (f) of the question, managers are responsible for ensuring the employees adhere to the conditions set out in their telework agreement, including those governing their hours of work.
With respect to part (g) of the question, a range of corrective administrative or disciplinary measures may be imposed should an employee not abide by the conditions set out in their telework agreements, including those governing their hours of work. The appropriate remedial action is established on a case-by-case basis and can include, without being limited to, a letter of expectations, a revocation of the telework agreement, administrative recovery of salary owed, rejection on probation, term non-renewal, oral or written reprimand, suspension or termination of employment.
With respect to part (h) of the question, 21 instances of remedial and formal action were taken in the 2023-24 fiscal year.
Lastly, with respect to part (i) of the question, remedial action will always be taken to ensure the situation is rectified and does not reoccur.
With regard to the RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program in British Columbia (BC): (a) how many full-time individuals are currently employed by the program in BC; (b) how many staff members in BC work exclusively remote or from home; (c) how many BC staff members work exclusively in person; (d) what percentage of all BC work hours are spent (i) in person, (ii) remotely or at home; and (e) what is the (i) average salary, (ii) total annual expenditures on salaries, for BC employees of the Canadian Firearms Program?
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, a) As of May 23, 2024, there are 22 full-time individuals employed by the Chief Firearms Office, the CFO, in British Columbia.
In terms of part (b) of the question, there are no employees with the British Columbia CFO working exclusively remote or from home.
(c)With regard to part (c) of the question, all employees with the British Columbia CFO work exclusively in person.
With regard to part (d)(i) of the question, 100% of the employees are working in person.
With regard to part (d)(ii) of the question, there are no employees with the British Columbia CFO working remote or from home.
With regard to part (e)(i) of the question, based on fiscal year 2023-24, the average salary is $73,924.
Lastly, concerning part (e)(ii) of the question, based on fiscal year 2023-24, the total expenditures on salaries for the British Columbia CFO is $1,922,013.
With regard to the residence located in Winnipeg previously known as Lions Place: (a) did the City of Winnipeg or the Government of Manitoba contact the federal government to request assistance in maintaining non-profit ownership of Lions Place; (b) what measures did the federal government undertake to assist, prevent or otherwise shape the sale of Lions Place to its purchaser, Mainstreet Equity; (c) what financing or support did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) provide to the previous owner of Lions Place, Lions Housing Centres Inc., prior to its sale to Mainstreet Equity, broken down by year and dollar amount; (d) what financing or support did the CMHC provide to Mainstreet Equity to assist with its purchase of Lions Place, broken down by year and dollar amount; (e) did any CMHC board members recuse themselves from participating in votes or decisions surrounding the sale of Lions Place; and (f) since January 1, 2015, has any CMHC board member recused themselves from decisions surrounding the sale or purchase of a residential property?
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), as of October 1, 1998, under the Social Housing Agreement, or SHA, found at https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/about-us/social-housing-information/administration-of-social-housing, CMHC transferred Lions Place, a 287-unit building located at 610 Portage Avenue in Winnipeg to the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, the MHRC. Under the terms of the SHA, MHRC, was given the responsibility, rights for the management and administration for the social housing programs and projects listed under the SHA.
With regard to part (b), the federal government does not intervene in private sale transactions.
With regard to part (c), CMHC provided a direct loan of $12.5 million to Lions Club of Winnipeg. Seniors, Lions Place, a 287-unit building at 610 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, which was paid in full by August 1, 2018.
With regard to part (d), further information can’t be provided as disclosing any detail would compromise client privacy and CMHC is unable to confirm or deny specifics.
With regard to part (e), Operational matters are outside of the scope of the CMHC board of directors.
With regard to part (f), Operational matters are outside of the scope of the CMHC board of directors.
With regard to the testimony from the Information Commissioner on May 16, 2024, at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in which she said that "We are now looking at a total funding shortfall of $700,000 which represents a reduction in my budget of approximately 5%": why did the government make this reduction to the Information Commissioner's budget?
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker,Tthe 2024-25 Main Estimates included funding of $15,344,268 in program expenditures funding for the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. This is an increase of approximately 8% relative to $14,212,216 in program expenditures funding presented in the estimates in 2023-24.
This additional funding for the office reflects salary increases due to new collective agreements. Similar funding top-ups are allocated to 90 organizations across government. Amounts are calculated using a longstanding process based on the number and classifications of employees at a specific point in time.
TBS will continue to work with the Information Commissioner to address financial pressures faced by her office.
With regard to Possession and Acquisition Licenses (PAL) and Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licenses (RPAL) applications for renewal or first licensing, as of December 31, for each year from 2016 to 2023, inclusively, broken down by type of application (New PAL, Renewal, Minor PAL, or Transfer), and province or territory of application: (a) how many applications have been in processing for over (i) one month, (ii) three months, (iii) six months, (iv) one year, (v) 18 months; (b) how many of the applications required secondary and tertiary reviews; (c) how many applications were delayed due to administrative issues; (d) how many employees or full time equivalents were employed at the Canadian Firearms Program office to process applications; and (e) how many PAL or RPAL renewal applications remained in processing six months after the listed expiry date on the license?
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity) (Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP 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. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The RCMP is a decentralized organization comprised of over 700 detachments in 150 communities across the country. The RCMP concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted, and this could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
With regard to the High Frequency Rail project and the options analyzed by CPCS Transcom Limited (CPCS) and WSP Global Inc. (WSP), to enhance passenger rail service in Southwestern Ontario: (a) on what date was the analysis provided to the Minister of Transport; (b) what are the details of the findings of the analysis; (c) on what date will the findings be made available on the government’s website; and (d) how much did the government pay CPCS and WSP for these analyses?
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my office was provided the analysis in May 2024.
Transport Canada is currently in the process of reviewing the analysis and determining next steps. The findings will be included in a summary report that is scheduled for publication on Transport’s Canada website in the coming months.
The Government of Canada paid CPCS Transcom Limited and WSP Global Inc. $1,068,424.36 to carry out its study of how to improve intercity passenger rail service in southwestern Ontario.
With regard to Canada’s Heads of Mission to each G7 member state, since January 1, 2022, and broken down by year: (a) how much has been spent on lobbyists and consultants, in total and broken down by embassy or high commission; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of service (lobbying or consulting); and (c) what are the details of each contract for lobbying or consulting for any embassy or high commission in a G7 country abroad, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the services, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid)?
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
Global Affairs 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. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The department concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
Information on contracts worth more than $10,000 is available on the Open Government site, under Proactive Disclosure at the following link: https://open.canada.ca/en.
With regard to Policy Horizons Canada and the May 2024 report entitled “The Disruptions on the Horizon”: (a) which individuals or organizations, outside of the Government of Canada, contributed to the report; (b) were any of the individuals or organizations in (a) paid to participate, and, if so, how much was each paid; (c) what kind of format was used to gather opinions from individuals or organizations; (d) what specific questions were posed to the individuals or organizations in (a); (e) did Policy Horizons Canada attempt to gather the opinions of individuals or organizations outside of those that participated, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) their names, (ii) the reason provided to Policy Horizons Canada for why these individuals or organizations chose not to participate; (f) what was the total cost to research, prepare and publish the report; (g) has a lessons-learned exercise been conducted following the release of the report, and, if so, what were the results; and (h) is there a follow-up report anticipated and, if so, what are the details, including (i) the estimated date of release, (ii) the proposed budget, (iii) the focus of that report, (iv) whether the same individuals and organizations be consulted, (v) whether the lessons learned from the current report be incorporated into the upcoming report?
Mr. Sameer Zuberi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the disruptions assessed in the report were derived from a literature review, expert interviews with individuals, conversations with policy makers within the Government of Canada, workshops with foresight practitioners, as well as Policy Horizons Canada’s ongoing foresight work aimed at analyzing what is changing in our society, what is driving that change, and what new realities could emerge.
To assess the disruptions, Policy Horizons gathered and analyzed input from around 500 stakeholders, colleagues, and foresight experts across the Government of Canada and beyond who responded to the survey. Participants did not represent an organization; they voluntarily responded to a survey as individuals.
The individuals were selected by Policy Horizons Canada for their expertise in one or several domains covered by the disruptions. Policy Horizons Canada composed the survey participant list to include a variety of background and perspectives. All participants are part of Policy Horizons Canada’s larger expert network. About 53% of the survey respondents, or 258 people, were from the Government of Canada, and 47%, or 233 people,) were from outside of the Government of Canada. The names of participants were not collected as part of the survey.
In response to part (b) of the question, no one was paid to participate in any part of the research or survey. Individuals responded on a volunteer basis.
As for part (c) of the question,the disruptions assessed in the report were derived from a literature review, expert interviews with individuals, conversations with policy makers within the Government of Canada, workshops with foresight practitioners, as well as Policy Horizons Canada’s (Policy Horizons) ongoing foresight work aimed at analyzing what is changing in our society, what is driving that change, and what new realities could emerge.
As for part (d) of the question, the following questions were asked in the survey: “Assess each of the following disruptions (35 in total) based on likelihood and impact—how likely it is to occur and how much impact it could have, if it were to occur.
Select what you think the likelihood and impact of the disruption would be on a scale of 1-5 (1 being low, 5 being high).”
“Think of each disruption as a future where a circumstance reaches a critical point and becomes the new normal, or a significant event happens.
Select the option that indicates when you think each disruption could occur, in years. Select 10 if you think the disruption could occur in 10 or more years.”
“Assess each of the following seven disruptions based on interconnections—if one disruption were to occur, which related disruptions would be more likely to occur.
Select two related disruptions for each disruption.”
As for part (e) of the question, Policy Horizons Canada sent the survey to approximately 2000 people within their expert network. Nearly 500, namely, 491, people responded. As participation was voluntary, reasons why individuals chose not to participate was not provided.
Part (f) of the question touched on the total cost to research, prepare, and publish the report. Internal resources provided: the salary for the project team, namely, two EC-06, one EC-04, for approximately 11 months. This includes the development of the report as well as the initial dissemination across the Government of Canada, including workshops, presentations and Futures Week sessions; the salary for communications work, namely, one IS-05, one IS-04, for approximately one week. In addition, executives and staff of Policy Horizons provided input and review.
External resources included the software license to undertake the survey, a cost of $2,192.00; and graphic design work and report layout, a cost of $8,463.70.
With regard to part (g) of the question, as the report was published on May 7, 2024, a lessons-learned exercise has not been conducted at this time.
Lastly, with regard to part (h) of the question, Policy Horizons Canada, as the Government of Canada’s centre of excellence in foresight, intends to continue its Disruptions on the horizon work. The content and details regarding future reports have not been determined at this time.
With regard to visas for international students in Canada: how many international students (i) are currently studying in Canada, (ii) are studying at institutions accredited by Universities Canada, (iii) are studying at institutions that are members of the National Association of Career Colleges, (iv) have transferred institutions within Canada during their period of study, (v) are in a K-12 program?
Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, manages the international student program and is responsible for issuing study permits to foreign nationals seeking to study in Canada. While IRCC tracks the total number of study permit holders, in the absence of an exit control system, it is not guaranteed that all these study permit holders are currently residing in Canada as international students can leave the country at any point in time after arrival.
Here is the information that IRCC is able to share.
On May 3, 2024, 1,073,435 study permit holders held a valid permit to study in Canada, and 341,531 of them were studying at institutions accredited by Universities Canada. The data in part (iii) is not tracked by IRCC. The information in part (iv) is not recorded in IRCC's database, so IRCC is unable to provide the requested information based on the available data. Of the above-mentioned study permit holders, 159,055 are at the K-12 level study level.
With regard to the government's Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund applications and the statements made by the Mayor of Merritt, Michael Goetz, and the Mayor of Princeton, Spencer Coyne, both in British Columbia, that their municipalities' applications for funding under this program were denied by the government without explanation: (a) why was Merritt’s application denied; (b) why was Princeton’s application denied; and (c) how do these funding rejections align with the Prime Minister’s statement to these communities after the flooding that he and his government would “have their backs”?
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government's applications under the disaster mitigation adaptation fund, the DMAF, and the statements made by the Mayor of Merritt, Michael Goetz, and the Mayor of Princeton, Spencer Coyne, in response to part (a) of the question, the DMAF is a national, merit-based, competitive program, and projects are assessed based on the information provided in the project application only. Officials from Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, or HICC, have met with Merritt to discuss the results of the process. HICC recognizes the importance of all projects it receives but funds are limited, and there were hundreds of projects that needed to be considered in the last round.
With respect to part b), DMAF is a national, merit-based, competitive program, and projects are assessed based on the information provided in the project application only. HICC officials will meet with Princeton to discuss the results of the process towards the end of June. HICC recognizes the importance of all projects it receives but funds are limited and there were hundreds of projects that needed to be considered in the last round.
With respect to part c), DMAF has been consistently oversubscribed since its inception in 2018, and, during the latest intake, the program received applications requesting more than six times the $900 million of funding available. The department received hundreds of well-prepared applications for important projects to improve the resilience of communities from coast to coast to coast. Due to the high level of interest, the department was unable to provide funding to all projects.
With regard to Destination Canada: (a) how much economic activity is generated in Canada each summer from the domestic tourism industry; (b) of the economic activity in (a), how much and what percentage of (i) passengers, (ii) economic activity, is from domestic tourists who arrived via automobiles or road trips; and (c) what is Destination Canada's position on the statement regarding car trips that was made by the Minister of Health on May 30, 2024, that “They can enjoy their 10 hours in the car and let the planet burn”?
Ms. Annie Koutrakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, in the third quarter of 2023, approximately $27.5 billion in economic activity was generated by Canadian residents travelling domestically, according to the Statistics Canada National Travel Survey.
With regard to part (b), Destination Canada does not have access to data on domestic travel by mode of transport. However, data specifically on domestic trips by Canadian residents can be found publicly at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2410004501.
With regard to part (c), Destination Canada does not have a comment on the Minister of Health’s statement.
With regard to the change announced by the Prime Minister on May 24, 2024, that Catherine Blewett, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, was being reassigned to become a Senior Official at the Privy Council Office (PCO): (a) what will her responsibilities be as a Senior Official at the PCO; (b) why was the Senior Official position not listed in the last organizational structure chart published by the PCO in April 2024; (c) where will the Senior Official position fit in to the PCO's organizational structure chart; and (d) how many days per week will she be required to show up in person at the PCO in Ottawa?
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the change announced by the Prime Minister on May 24, 2024, that Catherine Blewett, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, was being reassigned to become a Senior Official at the Privy Council Office (PCO), the response is as follows to part (a) of the question, senior official positions at PCO are determined on a case-by-case basis in response to organizational needs and are often employed for transitions in the senior ranks of the public service.
As for part (b), senior official positions at PCO are not listed in the organizational structure chart, due to the temporary nature of the role.
With regard to part (c), senior official positions generally report to the Clerk of the Privy Council, including the position Catherine Blewett is holding.
With regard to part (d), pursuant to the Privacy Act, details of an employee’s work agreement are considered personal information and therefore cannot be disclosed.
With regard to the statement on page 99 of the 2023 Fall Economic Statement that "The government will begin purchasing up to an annual maximum of $30 billion of Canada Mortgage Bonds, starting as early as February 2024": (a) when did the government begin purchasing the bonds; (b) what is the amount and value of the bonds purchased to date; (c) what are the government's projections in relation to how much of the $30 billion in bonds per year the government expects to default or write-off; and (d) what specific measures, if any, are in place to ensure that the government's finances are not adversely impacted by any increase in the default rate of these bonds?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the government conducted its first purchase of Canada mortgage bonds, or CMBs, on February 14, 2024.
With respect to part (b), to date, the government has purchased $11 billion of Canada mortgage bonds. More details on Canada mortgage bonds purchased by the government are available at the Bank of Canada website at https://www.bankofcanada.ca/markets/canada-mortgage-bonds-government-purchases-and-holdings/.
As of May 31, 2024, the market value of the government’s CMB portfolio was equivalent to $11.1 billion.
Although the government tracks the fair value of its CMB portfolio, CMBs are accounted for at amortized cost, not at their fair value. Consequently, movement in CMB value has no financial impact on the portfolio.
With respect to part (c), the government does not expect any incremental losses on these holdings due to existing federal government guarantees. It does not expect defaults or write offs.
Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, mortgage default rates in Canada have historically been low.
Given all these structures in place, there has not been a default on CMBs since the introduction of the program in 2001.
With respect to part (d), due to the existing guarantee mechanisms in place that protect CMBs against default risk and that significantly mitigate risk, the purchase of CMBs does not increase the government’s risk exposure.
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) decision, announced in June 2024, that it would require online streaming services to pay five percent of their Canadian revenues to CRTC as part of implementing the measures contained in Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) how many different streaming services does the CRTC expect to receive payments from; (b) how much annual revenue does the CRTC expect to receive; (c) what assurances, if any, has the CRTC received to ensure that the 5% percent is not passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices; and (d) what analysis, if any, was done on the impact of higher subscription prices as a result of the payment requirement on inflation or the cost of living?
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that regulates broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest. It holds public consultations and makes decisions based on the public record.
The Online Streaming Act, which amended the Broadcasting Act, requires the CRTC to modernize the Canadian broadcasting framework and ensure that online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content.
Immediately after the new legislation was adopted, the CRTC published a regulatory plan and launched four public consultations, including one on what base contributions online services must make to support the Canadian broadcasting system.
During the public consultation on contributions, the CRTC received more than 360 detailed submissions and held a three-week public hearing where it heard from over 120 groups. Based on the public record, the CRTC decided online streaming services that make $25 million or more in annual revenues in Canada are required to contribute 5% of their Canadian revenues to support the Canadian broadcasting system.
The CRTC does not receive the base contributions. The contributions will be made directly to independently administrated funds. Online streaming services also have some flexibility, for example, to direct parts of their contributions to support Canadian television content directly.
The CRTC estimates that 13 audio and audiovisual services belonging to nine ownership groups will be required to make a base contribution.
With regard to part (b), the CRTC does not receive the base contributions. The contributions will be made directly to independently administrated funds.
In terms of part (c), the CRTC does not have the authority to regulate the pricing of online streaming services.
With regard to part (d), the CRTC does not have the authority to regulate the pricing of online streaming services.
With regard to the revelation by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) at the Standing Committee on Finance on June 3, 2024, that "the government has economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself and the OBPS. We've seen that, staff in my office, but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it": (a) who in the government issued this gag order on the PBO; (b) what were the findings of any economic analysis which was subject to the gag order; (c) why was the gag order issued; and (d) how does the gag order comply with the Prime Minister's commitment in 2015 to provide Canadians with the most transparent and open government in the world?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a collaborative relationship with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO. We always have and always will cooperate fully with the PBO’s requests, including by providing all the specific documents and information that respond to the parameters of his requests.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, like all departments in the government, routinely gives the PBO privileged access to data sets to support him in the creation of high-quality analysis.
These data sets are not analysis, they are raw data, and they can sometimes contain sensitive private data. They respond to a specific request for information from the PBO and do not represent any kind of comprehensive economic analysis.
Occasionally, data shared with the PBO may contain sensitive information that relates to specific companies. In order to protect their privacy and respect business confidentiality, such data must be managed in accordance with the Statistics Act.
ECCC recognizes the PBO’s discretion to release some or all of the information as he sees fit and trusts the PBO will manage the information he receives in accordance with his mandate and any relevant legal requirements. We have reviewed all of the data in the material that was released on June 13 and are confident that none of it is confidential and can therefore be disclosed publicly.
The PBO’s analysis of Canada’s carbon pollution pricing system confirms that the majority of households receive more in Canada Carbon Rebate payments than they face in direct costs due to pricing.
Climate change is imposing increasing costs on Canadians, and Canada has made an international commitment to tackling this global challenge.
The Government made the decision to place a price on pollution because it is widely recognized as the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon pollution that causes climate change. It reduces the pollution that drives more extreme climate impacts, and orients Canada’s economy to capture the advantages of a net zero transition.
Any comprehensive analysis of the economic benefits of carbon pricing would also need to include the financial investments that result in part from carbon pricing regimes. Putting a price on carbon pollution encourages businesses to find ways to be more efficient, invest in cleaner technologies, and shift toward cleaner energy sources.
The Government looks forward to receiving the PBO’s revised report in the fall and hopes it includes a more comprehensive analysis of carbon pricing that includes all the costs of climate change and the economic benefits of taking action to combat it.
With regard to cyberattacks on government servers since January 1, 2021, broken down by department or agency and by year: (a) how many attempted cyberattacks are estimated to have occurred; (b) how many cyberattacks resulted in the server or data being compromised in any way; (c) what is the breakdown of (b) by the resulting damage (data stolen, server mined, unknown, etc.); (d) for each instance where data was stolen or compromised, (i) what was the date, (ii) how many individuals' data was involved, (iii) how were the affected individuals notified, (iv) what is the incident summary; and (e) for each instance in (b) where an individual's data was not involved, (i) what was the date, (ii) what is the incident summary, (iii) what damage, if any, was caused to any government servers, networks, or equipment?
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as part of its mandate, Communications Security Establishment Canada, CSE, protects electronic information and information infrastructures that are of importance to the Government of Canada, helping to thwart criminal or state-sponsored cyber threat activity targeting our systems. Every day, CSE uses its sophisticated cyber capabilities and technical expertise to identify and defend against threats to Canada’s information systems and networks, and to take active measures to address them.
The definition of the term “cyberattack” is highly variable. CSE uses the term “malicious cyber attempts” to capture unsuccessful attempts to identify vulnerabilities and penetrate a system. CSE does not track disaggregated statistics regarding malicious cyber attempts on government servers or websites. However, as outlined in the recently released 2023-2024 Annual Report, CSE’s Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, known as the cyber centre, blocked an average of 6.6 billion potentially malicious actions a day ranging from routine scans to sophisticated intrusion attempts.
When a cyber incident occurs, responding rapidly and taking the right steps can significantly reduce the potential harm and speed up the recovery process. The cyber centre’s definition of a cyber incident covers a wide range of attempted threat activity, whether successful or not. During 2023-24, the cyber centre helped respond to 2,192 cyber security incidents across the Government of Canada and Canadian critical infrastructure. This is slightly more than the previous year.
CSE and its cyber centre generally do not comment on cyber incidents. However, since January 1, 2021, CSE has publicly acknowledged its involvement in supporting government partners who have experienced cyber incidents. On January 19, 2022, a cyber incident was detected against Global Affairs Canada, or GAC. CSE and its cyber centre, in conjunction with government partners including the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Office of the Chief Information Officer and Shared Services Canada, worked together to respond to the incident. In March 2022, CSE and its cyber centre worked with the National Research Council in response to a cyber incident. In October 2022, CSE and its cyber centre worked with the IT branch of the House of Commons Administration in response to a cyber incident. The cyber centre provided cyber security assistance and support to ensure that critical services for parliamentarians and House of Commons staff remain functioning. In September 2023, CSE and its cyber centre reported several distributed denial of service campaigns, also known as DDoS campaigns, targeting the Government of Canada, provinces and territories, as well as the financial and transportation sectors. The cyber centre worked with government partners and supporting organizations outside the government as well. In January and February 2024, CSE and its cyber centre worked with colleagues at GAC as they managed a cyber incident. In February 2024, CSE and its cyber centre worked with colleagues at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP, as they managed a cyber incident. In March 2024, CSE and its cyber centre worked with colleagues at the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) and Global Affairs Canada as they managed a cyber incident.
Given the constantly evolving threat environment in which CSE operates, for reasons of national security, CSE is unable to provide any additional information. Releasing the requested detailed information would allow hostile actors to gain insights into our security and processes that would jeopardize CSE’s operations, thereby compromising national security.
With regard to applications received by the government to run supervised consumption sites, since 2015 and broken down by province or territory: (a) what are the addresses and services offered or potentially offered for each application received; and (b) for each application in (a), broken down by address or site, is the status of the application (i) received but a decision has not yet been made, (ii) approved but not yet operational, (iii) approved and operational, (iv) rejected?
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, comprehensive information on applications received by the government to run supervised consumption sites since 2015, including details such as province or territory, city and location, approval and expiration dates, and authorized services, is available at the Supervised consumption sites: Status of applications website at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/supervised-consumption-sites/status-application.html. This resource provides insights into sites currently offering services under a valid exemption from section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, authorized sites not currently offering services, open applications pending approval, and refused applications that did not receive an exemption under section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Web tables are generally updated monthly and therefore may not reflect the current status as of today.
With regard to Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund applications received from communities in British Columbia since 2021: (a) what are the details of all applications which were denied funding, including, for each, the (i) name of the city, town or municipality, (ii) date of the application, (iii) disaster event related to the application, (iv) reason that the funding was denied; (b) what specific criteria is used, including any scoring or grading system, to determine whether an application is approved or denied; and (c) if a scoring or grading system was used, what score or grade was given to each application in (a)?
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund applications received from communities in British Columbia since 2021, in response to parts (a) and (c), the Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund is a national, merit-based, competitive program. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, or HICC, recognizes the importance of all projects it receives, however funds are limited, and there have been hundreds of projects considered within the specified timeframe. In processing Parliamentary Returns, the Government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and project-specific details have been withheld on the grounds that it constitutes provincial and third-party confidential information protected under the ATIA.
HICC officials extend an offer to meet with recipients individually to discuss the results of the process. It is at the discretion of applicants to communicate their application information and status publicly.
With respect to part (b), the Applicant Guide contains details regarding criteria. It can be found at https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/alt-format/pdf/dmaf-faac/dmaf-faac-applicant-guide-demandeur-en.pdf.
With regard to meetings held between the US Ambassador, David Cohen, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry or the Deputy Minister: what are the details of all meetings in which the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act has been raised, including, the (i) date and time, (ii) names and titles of those in attendance, (iii) location, (iv) summary of the discussions?
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there was no meeting between the U.S. Ambassador, David Cohen, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry or the deputy minister during which the artificial intelligence and data act was raised.
With regard to international trips taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all trips where the minister has introduced and discussed topics related to fisheries and fisheries management, including, for each, (i) the names and titles of those in attendance, (ii) the date and time of the meeting, (iii) the location of the meeting, (iv) a summary of the specific topic discussed at the meeting?
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for the proper management and control of fisheries, and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. To carry out this broad mandate, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, supports its minister through co-operation in regional fisheries management organizations such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
Under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development Act, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for the conduct of diplomatic and consular relations on behalf of Canada, which includes providing legal advice to DFO on international law questions and coordinating Canada’s treaty adoption process from the negotiating mandate to the entry into force including with respect to fisheries and fisheries management.
In response to parts (i) to (iv) of the question, Global Affairs Canada does not have a central information management system that systematically captures when and if the current and former ministers of Foreign Affairs introduced or discussed topics related to fisheries and fisheries management during meetings conducted on international trips.
After a manual search of records since November 4, 2015, Global Affairs Canada officials provided briefing materials specific to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on fish or fisheries management for 35 international trips. Further validating the specific instances during these trips in which fisheries and fisheries management were introduced or discussed is not possible within the time provided for a response without risking the disclosure of information that is inaccurate or misleading, or would be injurious to the conduct of Canada’s international affairs.
With regard to individual expense receipts submitted by a board of director, chair, or CEO, at Export Development Canada, since 2018: what are the details of all items expensed, including the (i) dollar value of each expense, (ii) product or service expensed, (iii) name of the venue for the product or service expensed, (iv) name of the city in which it was expensed, (v) reason for the expense, (vi) name and title of the individual it was expensed under?
Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (i) to (vi) of the question, Export Development Canada, or EDC, undertook an extensive preliminary search 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. EDC 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.
Export Development Canada is governed by a Board of Directors whose representatives are primarily from the private sector. The Board's responsibility is to supervise the direction and management of EDC and oversee its strategic direction as outlined in the Corporate Plan. Board members are appointed by the Government of Canada, and report to Parliament through the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development.
The Export Development Canada Board of Directors has comprised 10-12 members per calendar year since 2018, including the Board Chair. The total number of members having served on the Board since 2018 is 21. The Board and its committees meet in-person 3-4 times annually.
Export Development Canada is guided by the guidelines and regulations concerning the management and governance of Crown corporations set by the Treasury Board Secretariat. The Travel and Hospitality Expense Policy for the Boards of Directors of EDC and Development Finance Institute Canada, or FinDev, and the External Communications and Representation & Orientation, Training and Development Policy for the Board of Directors articulate the Board’s travel parameters.
Export Development Canada’s President and Chief Executive Officer works with the Executive Management Team to oversee day-to-day operations and execute the business strategy as outlined in EDC’s Corporate Plan. Although a member of the EDC and FinDev Canada Boards, the CEO is covered under the EDC Employee Travel Guideline rather than the Board Travel and Hospitality Expense Policy.
Current executive and Board of Director disclosures are publicly available online at https://www.edc.ca/en/about-us/corporate/disclosure/travel-hospitality-expenses.html.
With regard to the funding provided by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) to the MaRS Discovery District (MaRS): what are the details of all agreements between ISED and MaRS since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) value of any funding received, (ii) form of funding received, (iii) date that the agreement was agreed to by both parties, (iv) details on the purpose of the agreement, (v) intended use of the funding by MaRS in their role as a registered charity?
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has not provided funding to the MaRS Discovery District since November 4, 2015.
With regard to the construction and planned construction of all ships under the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement project of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, since the program was introduced: (a) for each ship, what percentage of all materials and equipment was initially planned to be of Canadian manufacturing and origin, and what was the percentage at the time of completion; and (b) what is the specific origin and manufacturer of all materials and equipment used?
Mr. Charles Sousa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Canadian Surface Combatant project, the CSC project, is currently in definition phase, the design of ships is not finalized and, consequently, construction has not commenced. As such, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, is not yet able to provide the percentage of all materials and equipment planned to be of Canadian manufacturing and origin. The selection of equipment for incorporation into the ship is ongoing, and PSPC is making every effort to maximize Canadian manufacturing and content wherever feasible.
To this end, PSPC has signed or is in the process of negotiating contracts with numerous Canadian suppliers. PSPC has engaged companies from five different provinces to work on the CSC project and will continue to work to expand the list of Canadian suppliers working on the ships.
With regard to the 2017 mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to negotiate timelimited Rights Reconciliation Agreements with First Nations in Atlantic Canada and Quebec: what are the details of all agreements under this mandate, including, for each, (i) the name or title of the agreement, (ii) a detailed summary, (iii) the date that the agreement was signed, (iv) the names of the First Nations with whom DFO signed the agreement, (v) the names and titles of the individuals at DFO who signed the agreement?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during the term of the 2017 Rights Reconciliation Agreement mandate, 8 agreements with 14 of the 34 Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey First Nations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, the Gaspé region of Quebec, as well as the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik in New Brunswick were reached, namely,The Interim Fisheries Implementation Agreement was signed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including the Canadian Coast Guard, or DFO, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, or CIR, and by the Chiefs of Elsipogtog First Nation and the Esgenoôpetitj First Nation. The agreement was signed on August 16, 2019. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the First Nations’ Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nations’ capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear; and, establish a future negotiation process regarding the co-development of a collaborative fisheries management approach.
The Fisheries Resources Agreement was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR and by the Chief of Wolastoqiyik Wahsipekuk First Nation, formerly Maliseet of Viger First Nation. The agreement was signed on August 23, 2019. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the First Nation’s Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nation’s capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and, establish a new collaborative management process, implemented through an operational joint committee and an executive committee, comprised of DFO and First Nation representatives, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.
The Rights Reconciliation Agreement on Fisheries was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR and by the Chief of Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government, or LMG. The agreement was signed on April 16, 2021. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize LMG’s Aboriginal right to fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, and Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nation’s capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and, establish a new collaborative management process, implemented through a Co-Governance Fisheries Committee and an Executive Oversight Body, comprised of DFO and LMG’s representatives, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the LMG.
The Collaborative Fisheries Management Agreement was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR and by the Chief of Abegweit First Nation. The Agreement was signed on April 14, 2023. The purpose of this Agreement is to: recognize the First Nation’s Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; provide funding to the First Nation for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and, establish a new collaborative management process, implemented through a Joint Operational Committee and an Executive Oversight Board, comprised of DFO and First Nation representatives, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.
The Hybrid Fishery Agreement was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR, and by the Chief of Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik, or PNS, and President of the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc. The agreement was signed on April 27, 2023. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the PNS’s Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, and Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nation’s capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and, establish a new collaborative management process, implemented through a Joint Committee, comprised of DFO and First Nation representatives, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.
The Agreement on Fisheries was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR, and by the Chiefs of the Nation Micmac de Gespeg and the Micmacs of Gesgapegiag. The agreement was signed on June 2, 2023. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the First Nations’ Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nations’ capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and establish a new collaborative management process between DFO and Gespeg and Gesgapegiag, implemented through a Fisheries Committee and an Executive Committee established with each First Nation, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.
The Annex “A” Interim Collaborative Fisheries Management Agreement was signed by the Minister of DFO, and by the Chiefs of Elsipogtog First Nation and Esgenoôpetitj First Nation on June 20, 2023. The purpose of this agreement is to establish a new collaborative management process between DFO and Elsipogtog and Esgenoôpetitj First Nations, implemented through a Joint Operational Management Committee and an Executive Oversight Committee, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nations; and, provide funding to the First Nations for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities.
The Rights Implementation Agreement on Fisheries was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR, the Co-Chair of Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn Inc., or MTI, and the Chiefs of the following First Nations: Amlamgog, Fort Folly; L’nu Menigug, Indian Island; Metepenagiag, Red Bank; Natoaganeg, Eel Ground; Oinpegitjoig, Pabineau: and Tjipogtotjg, Buctouche. The agreement was signed on July 5, 2023. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the First Nations’ Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nations’ capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and establish a new collaborative management process between DFO and MTI, through a Joint Technical Committee and an Oversight Board, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.
With regard to the April 7, 2021 decision of the former Minister of Justice, Hon. David Lametti, ordering a new trial for Jacques Delisle: (a) what are the details of all legal advice received by the former minister regarding the holding of a new trial, including, for each instance, (i) the identity of the person who provided the advice, (ii) the mandate conferred by the minister, (iii) the evidence reviewed; and (b) what are the details of the 2017 Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG) report on former justice Delisle’s case, including the (i) evidence reviewed, (ii) conclusion, (iii) recommendation made to the minister?
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the April 7, 2021, decision of the former Minister of Justice ordering a new trial for Jacques Delisle, the details of all legal advice received by the former minister regarding the holding of a new trial, including the identity of the person who provided the advice, the mandate conferred by the minister and the evidence reviewed, is subject to solicitor-client privilege. However, we can advise that retired Ontario Court of Justice judge Paul Belanger provided legal advice in this matter as an outside special advisor, and the Criminal Conviction Review Group, the CCRG, provided its own legal advice to the minister as part of its briefing materials.
With respect to details of the 2017 Criminal Conviction Review Group’s report on former Justice Delisle’s case, including the evidence reviewed, conclusion, and recommendation made to the minister, the CCRG’s investigation report is, in all cases of post-conviction review where an investigation report is created, confidential and privileged. It is only ever shared with the applicant and the relevant prosecuting authority pursuant to an undertaking not to disclose further. In this case, however, the report was made public through the court process involving Mr. Delisle despite the aforementioned undertakings having been provided. As such, while privilege on the basis of sections 19 and 21 of the Access to Information Act would normally apply, a copy of the report has been made public and can be accessed through the registrar of the Quebec Superior Court.
With regard to the government’s purchase of GeneXpert Systems for rapid diagnostic testing acquired to facilitate access to rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2: (a) how many GeneXpert Systems are owned by Health Canada and, of those, how many are currently being operated; (b) what kinds of testing are the machines currently being used for; (c) is the government planning on using the full range of testing capabilities of the GeneXpert Systems to test for other infectious diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C; and (d) is there a plan for the use of the GeneXpert systems to help counter increasing rates of new HIV and Hepatitis C cases, and, if so, (i) how will new locations be chosen and will community-based organizations be prioritized, (ii) will this plan include provisions for training operators to ensure proper use and accurate results, (iii) will this plan have provisions to ensure the financial sustainability to guarantee ongoing operations?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, has 457 GeneXpert Systems, some of which were received on behalf of Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC; 260 of these systems have been deployed by PHAC.
In terms of Part (b), the vast majority of GeneXpert Systems distributed by PHAC are currently being utilized for respiratory virus testing, in other words for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, Influenza B and Respiratory Syncytial Virus. Additionally, pilots are under way for community-based testing for tuberculosis and for sexually transmitted and blood borne infections, or STBBIs, at three sites.
With regard to part (c), the GeneXpert Systems were purchased for use during the COVID-19 pandemic for respiratory virus testing. PHAC is currently investigating their capability for other pathogens.
As for part (d), PHAC is currently exploring the feasibility of using the GeneXpert Systems for HIV and Hepatitis C testing. However, neither of the HIV and Hepatitis C tests for these systems have been approved for use in Canada.
Future plans will depend on the results of the pilots currently under way.
With regard to complaints received by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total number of complaints (i) received, (ii) resolved; (b) what was the average resolution time, in days, for complaints regarding (i) radio, (ii) television, (iii) telecommunications, (iv) other, broken down by type; (c) what is the total number of complaint proceedings (i) started, (ii) completed; and (d) what is the average completion time, in days, for proceedings in (i) radio, (ii) television), (iii) telecommunications, (iv) other?
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since 2016, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, has received over 117,000 complaints. A comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information which is not possible in the time allotted as it could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
With regard to the Next Generation Human Resources and Pay system's development, procurement and test trials: (a) how much has been spent to date on the system; (b) which companies bid on the project; (c) how many points were attributed to the bid of each company in (b); (d) which company or companies were chosen to test their systems in government departments; and (e) for each company that was chosen to test their systems, which departments, agencies, or other government entities, did each of these companies test their systems in?
Mr. Charles Sousa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, to date, $79,465,823.04, including taxes, has been spent on the new system.
With respect to part (b), seven vendors submitted bids to participate in the invitation to qualify process that closed in October 2018, including Canada Workday ULC, Ceridian Canada Ltd. (Dayforce), Freebalance Inc., Infor (Canada) Ltd, Oracle, Saba Software Inc., and SAP Canada Inc. Based on that process, SAP Canada Inc, Ceridian Canada Ltd. (Dayforce), and Canada Workday ULC were deemed eligible to bid on the resulting request for proposals in May 2019. In September 2021, following two years of functional and technical assessments of the solutions proposed by these three vendors, the Government of Canada signed a contract with Ceridian to test Dayforce.
With respect to part (c), details on the results of the evaluation, including point totals, cannot be released as it is third-party confidential information.
With respect to part (d), Ceridian Canada’s Dayforce solution was tested in departments. Information on the testing can be found in the final findings report published in February 2024 at https://www.canada.ca/en/shared-services/corporate/publications/2023-24/next-generation-hr-pay-final-findings-report.html.
With respect to part (e), as noted in the final findings report, the system was tested with the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.
With regard to Canada Post's climate action targets: (a) how much has Canada Post spent on carbon offsets each year since 2015; and (b) how much has Canada Post spent to date on solar panels (i) in total, (ii) broken down by province or territory, (iii) broken down by location or post office?
Mr. Charles Sousa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canada Post's climate action targets, Canada Post is a Crown Corporation that operates at arm’s length from the Government and has the mandate to be financially self-sustaining in a highly competitive sector that includes global companies like Amazon, FedEx and UPS. Canada Post has a unique and long-standing mandate that requires the national postal service to be funded through revenues generated from the sale of products and services, and not through taxpayer dollars. Therefore, the requested information regarding how much Canada Post has spent on carbon offsets each year since 2015 is commercially sensitive and has always been treated as confidential.
With a large and diverse building portfolio across the country, Canada Post is committed to reducing emissions from its facilities. Canada Post facilities that have solar panels include the Letter Carrier Depot, or LCD, West Depot Toronto, in Ontario; the LCD Scarborough, in Ontario; the Albert Jackson Processing Centre, in Ontario; the Halifax Regional Office & Mail Processing Plant, in Nova Scotia; and the LCD Northwest Calgary, in Alberta.
With regard to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), broken down by year since January 1, 2019: (a) how many cases of (i) gender discrimination, (ii) disability discrimination, were filed against the CPPIB; (b) of the cases in (a), how many were settled without formal litigation; (c) how many nondisclosure agreements were signed by former employees related to the cases in (a); (d) what percentage of the employee disciplinary actions and terminations were handled (i) internally by employee relations, (ii) by external counsel; (e) what is the breakdown of the number of discrimination cases filed against the CPPIB in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (f) which law firms were hired to represent the CPPIB and, broken down by city, what was the total amount in legal fees paid to each firm; (g) how much was paid in legal fees for (i) employee terminations, (ii) employee-initiated legal action against the CPPIB for which the CPPIB retained legal counsel; (h) what was the total severance paid out in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (i) which laws firms were hired and retained by the CPPIB in the offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (j) what were the legal fees paid annually for each of the law firms retained by the CPPIB to defend the CPPIB; (k) how many female employees were terminated through restructuring from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (I) how many female employees were terminated through voluntary resignations from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (m) how many (i) female, (ii) male, employees were promoted above the Senior Associate level; (n) what is the percentage of female departures from the Executive and Senior management pool from the CPPIB in its entirety and for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (o) what is the number of disability accommodation cases for (i) long-term, (ii) short-term, (iii) permanent, disability that were sent through Manulife; (p) how many employees who went through a Manulife accommodation remain with the CPPIB; (q) how many of the employees who remain with the CPPIB have been promoted in the last five years; (r) how many formal complaints brought by employees went through (i) a CPPIB Clearview Connects Whistleblower process, (ii) a CPPIB Conduct Review Advisor, (iii) a Legal and Compliance CPPIB, (iv) human resources; and (s) broken down by each part of (r), how many of the complainant employees remain employed by the CPPIB?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the CPPIB, is neither a department nor an agency of the Crown and is therefore not subject to the same guidelines for disclosure. The CPPIB is subject to disclosure requirements as set out in the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and reports to federal and provincial finance ministers and Canadians.
With regard to Elections Canada (EC) and Communications Security Establishment Canada's reports on "Cyber threats to Canada's democratic process - 2023 update" and "Cyber security guidance for elections authorities (ITSM.10.020)": (a) what measures has EC taken since the last general election to safeguard the integrity of elections, candidates and campaigns against cyber threats, including (i) deepfakes, (ii) artificial intelligence, (iii) bots, (iv) other attacks on telecommunication infrastructure (such as "distributed denial of service" attacks) that aim to disrupt, interfere with or sway elections as warned against in the reports; (b) for each measure in (a), (i) what was the cost, (ii) when was it implemented, (iii) how and from whom was the measure originally proposed; and (c) are there any threats which EC does not have the capacity to fully guard against, and, if so, what are they, and has EC sought assistance from the government or any other entity to guard against such a threat, and, if so, what are the details?
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speakers, Elections Canada’s mandate is to administer elections and make sure Canadians can exercise their democratic rights to register, vote and be a candidate. Regarding cyber threats and cyber security, the agency has extensive coordination with security agencies and partners, including the Communications Security Establishment, and continually evolves its security infrastructure.
Safeguarding the integrity of the election requires a robust ecosystem that is much larger than only Elections Canada. The agency works during and outside of the electoral period to coordinate with other federal organizations to share information and detect and respond to any threats to the integrity of an election. This includes Communications Security Establishment Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Safety Canada, Global Affairs Canada, and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, all of which have distinct and important roles to play in protecting the integrity of the electoral process. Some threats to elections reach beyond the realm of electoral management and come in many different forms and target different stakeholders, including Elections Canada and election workers, as well as electors, political entities, and other organizations. As such, the security agencies and partners that Elections Canada coordinates with play a vital role in identifying, understanding, adapting, and mitigating or eliminating threats to the electoral process.
Elections Canada maintains a strong security position and abides by government-wide best practices, including: adhering to Government of Canada security standards; implementing security by design, making security a foundational part of every new IT system or process that we develop; ensuring all new technology solutions are designed to meet the stringent Government of Canada cyber security suite of policies and standards; and continually training employees and field staff on how to safeguard information and practice good cyber safety.
Elections Canada’s holistic approach to security means there are no specific costs to detail for the topics listed in sub question (a), as these costs are built into the various project and general IT costs that are undertaken by the agency as part of our overall security infrastructure. Elections Canada’s security approach also consistently evolves to match the threat landscape and advice from security agencies and partners.
With respect to the important issues detailed in sub question (a), and in particular threats arising out of the use of artificial intelligence and deep fakes, Elections Canada has been and continues to be active in engaging domestic and international partners to identify mitigation strategies. This includes the organization, in partnership with Elections Ontario, of a conference in January 2024 with Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial Chief Electoral Officers to discuss AI and its possible future impacts on the electoral environment and gain insights from invited experts from Canada and the US. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has also engaged with the Government and members of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) on these matters and welcomes the opportunity to further discuss them within the context of Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Lastly, it is important to note that candidates, political parties, and third parties also have a role to play in this area and can do so by understanding and adapting to the threats they face, protecting their IT infrastructure and data, ensuring the information about the electoral process that they share is accurate, and promoting digital literacy and critical thinking.
More information on Elections Canada’s work in this area, and the threats to the election that the agency has identified, can be found on our website, Election Integrity and Security – Elections Canada, at https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=int&document=index&lang=e, and in Elections Canada’s Institutional Report, prepared for the Public Inquiry on Foreign Interference, at https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep/oth/foin&document=p1&lang=e.
With regard to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its reliance on the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) for their “independent, expert advice” (source: Order Paper question Q-2554): (a) in 2020 and 2021, what specific studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines would prevent (i) all, (ii) any, transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (b) what specific studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective or would not completely prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (c) in 2020 and 2021, what specific data was provided by the manufacturers of the approved COVID-19 vaccines in Canada that demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines were effective in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (d) with respect to informed consent in 2021, how was the uncertainty or “unknown” evidence around “the effectiveness against virus transmission, and long-term effectiveness against infection and severe disease” communicated to the Canadian public and medical professionals administering the vaccines; (e) without certainty that the vaccine would prevent transmission, what was the rationale provided to the Office of the Prime Minister from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada or NACI in support of the following measures in relation to only unvaccinated healthy individuals presenting with no symptoms (i) PCR testing before entering the country, (ii) quarantining individuals before entering the country, (iii) showing one’s vaccine status through a vaccine passport, (iv) preventing their travelling on federally-regulated transportation; (f) who advised the Office of the Prime Minister about the uncertainty of the COVID-19 vaccines with respect to its inability to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV2 and when; (g) what was the source of the messaging used by (i) the Chief Public Health Officer, (ii) the Deputy Chief Public Health officer, (iii) the Chief Medical Officer of Health Canada, (iv) the Minister of Health, (v) the Prime Minister, (vi) other government or public health officials, to state that COVID-19 vaccination would protect others, implying it stopped viral transmission; and (h) who approved the messaging in (g)?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) to (c) of the question, the health and safety of Canadians are the utmost priority for Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC. Health Canada has a rigorous scientific review system in place to ensure vaccines are safe and effective in preventing the diseases they target. Before a vaccine can be approved for sale in Canada, it undergoes an in-depth review of evidence for safety, efficacy, and quality by Health Canada. Evidence provided to Health Canada includes data from pre-clinical studies, including toxicology studies, clinical trials as well as data demonstrating that manufacturing processes ensure the consistency and quality of the vaccine. Once vaccines are authorized, Health Canada releases information about the vaccine, including summaries of the data considered by Health Canada. This includes non-clinical, clinical and other studies, as well as how the decision was made. For coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, this information can be found on Health Canada’s website at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/.
COVID-19 vaccines are indicated for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2. The approval of the vaccines was based on safety and efficacy data collected in non-clinical studies and clinical trials. Clinical data for these vaccines is available on the clinical information on drugs and medical devices website at https://clinical-information.canada.ca/search/ci-rc?f%5B0%5D=drug_brand_name%3A%22COMIRNATY%20OMICRON%20XBB1.5%22#tabs-0-laurier_content-1.
Clinical trials were not designed to demonstrate that vaccines were effective in preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Once available on the market, the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines are continuously monitored and evaluated by Health Canada and PHAC. Vaccine manufacturers are obliged to continue to collect information about the long-term safety and effectiveness of their products. Evidence from peer-reviewed studies from domestic and international sources published in the medical literature established the effectiveness of vaccination in reducing disease transmission.
With respect to parts (d) to (f) of the question, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, or NACI, provides PHAC with ongoing and timely medical, scientific, and public health advice relating to immunization. The health and safety of Canadians has always been a priority. Leading up to and during the height of the pandemic, officials were briefed regularly on developments in relation to COVID-19.
In 2021, early NACI guidance to PHAC and stakeholders initially emphasized uncertainty surrounding the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent infection and transmission and duration of protection following vaccination, and communicated the need for ongoing monitoring. As the pandemic progressed, emerging evidence suggested some degree of prevention of infection and transmission was achievable with COVID-19 vaccination and this was reflected in NACI’s advice.
The emergence of each new variant required re-assessment of how the vaccines were performing, including against infection and transmission. The emergence of the highly transmissible Omicron variant at the end of 2021 introduced new complexities, making the prevention of infection and transmission from COVID-19 vaccination, including from booster doses, less certain. All NACI advice regarding COVID-19 vaccines is published online at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci.html and is representative of the evidence available at the time each statement was written. In addition, starting in March 2021, summaries of NACI advice were also provided by PHAC to succinctly communicate the key points and implications of the NACI guidance to the public.
Informed consent occurs through discussion between health care providers and patients on the risks and benefits of a vaccine. In order to support these informed consent discussions, PHAC communicated the evolving evidence on vaccine effectiveness to healthcare providers throughout the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. This began in December 2020 when PHAC launched a series of webinars that communicated what was known and not yet known about the newly authorized vaccines from clinical trial data, as well as recommendations for their use. PHAC continued to deliver webinars to update health care providers as evidence emerged throughout 2021 and 2022. Additionally, as noted, NACI statements and the Canadian Immunization Guide were updated to reflect the most recent evidence on vaccine effectiveness as it emerged. PHAC's webinars for healthcare providers on COVID-19 vaccines can be found at https://canvax.ca/public-health-agency-canada-phac-vaccine-confidence-webinar-series.
With respect to part (g), the NACI secretariat was the source of messaging for all officials, supported by PHAC, as well as Health Canada in its role regulating drugs and health products to support public safety.
With respect to part (h), these messages were approved by the president of PHAC and Health Canada’s deputy minister.
With regard to Transport Canada and meetings concerning Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP): (a) when Patrick Juneau was the Director of Aviation Safety Policy and Intelligence at Transport Canada, did he meet with any United States officials on the subject of UAP, and, if so, what are the details of all such meetings, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the names and titles of those in attendance, (iv) what was discussed or agreed upon; (b) have any Transport Canada officials other than Patrick Juneau met with any United States officials on the subject of UAP, and, if so, who and what are the details of all such meetings attended by any Transport Canada official, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the names and titles of those in attendance, (iv) what was discussed or agreed upon; and (c) what are the details, including the website where the agreement can be read, of any UAP information sharing agreements that Transport Canada is aware of, between Canadian entities and American entities?
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, Transport Canada can confirm that Mr. Juneau did not have any meetings specific to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena with United States officials.
With respect to part (b), Transport Canada did not locate any meeting notes or records of decisions of meetings occurring about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena with United States officials.
As for part (c), Transport Canada did not locate any records pertaining to information sharing agreements about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
Reports filed in Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System on Transport Canada’s website are publicly available at CADORS: Query, at https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cadors-screaq/q.aspx?lang=eng.
With regard to requests received by Health Canada related to decriminalization from provinces, municipalities or Indigenous communities, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such requests, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) name and title of the person who made the request, (iii) entity represented by the person making the request, (iv) summary of the request, (v) response by Health Canada?
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as to the request by the City of Vancouver, the final submission was made on May 28, 2021, by the city manager. The proposed model would decriminalize personal possession of small amounts of controlled substances for adults over 18 within city limits. Specific thresholds were proposed for common drugs. Personal possession of other drugs was proposed as a three-day supply, as determined by police. Individuals in possession of drugs below thresholds for personal use would not be arrested or have their drugs seized. Instead, they would be given a voluntary referral to a health care resource. The proposed exemption would not apply where there is evidence to indicate intent to traffic. The request has been suspended at the request of the City of Vancouver since June 2022.
As to the request by the Province of British Columbia, please refer to the website of the Province of British Columbia for publicly available information on this request. Health Canada granted B.C.’s original request for an exemption on May 31, 2022. This exemption was amended in September 2023 to add additional targeted exceptions to where they would apply. The exemption was amended again in May 2024 to prohibit possession in public spaces. The exemption expires on January 31, 2026.
As to the request by Toronto Public Health, please refer to the website of the City of Toronto for publicly available information on this request. Toronto Public Health’s request was refused on May 17, 2024.
With regard to the Department of National Defence's decision to move employees working out of offices at 400 Cumberland Street to the Major-General George R. Pearkes Building due to safety concerns: (a) how much is the move expected to cost, in total and broken down by type of expense; (b) how many employees are being moved; (c) did the department make any representations to the Minister of Justice that the government's catch and release justice policies were creating safety concerns for their employees, and, if so, what are the details; and (d) if the department did not make any such representations to the Minister of Justice, why were they not made?
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as to part (a), the overall cost of moving National Defence employees from the 400 Cumberland location to the Major-General George R. Pearkes Building is estimated at approximately $1 million. This amount includes approximately $20,000 for space cleaning and building preparation, and $980,000 for moving personnel and equipment.
As to part (b), up to 995 National Defence personnel will be moved from 400 Cumberland to the Pearkes Building.
As to parts (c) and (d), National Defence did not make any representations to the Minister of Justice on this topic.
National Defence takes seriously the safety and security of its personnel. Canadian Forces Military Police respond to incidents within their jurisdiction at Department of National Defence establishments. Incidents taking place in locations where there is concurrent jurisdiction with the civilian police are deferred to the police of primary jurisdiction, which in this case was the Ottawa Police Service.
With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of the modRNA COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna and distributed throughout Canada, its mechanism of action and the elements of which they are comprised: (a) how many copies of the modRNA molecule are in a single dose, for both the Pfizer and Moderna products, (i) for adults, (ii) for children; (b) how many copies of the antigen are in a single adult dose of Novavax; (c) if there is a significant numerical difference between the answers for (a) and (b), does this affect the immunological response; (d) how many copies of dsDNA are found in a single 30 microliter adult dose of (i) Pfizer’s product, (ii) Moderna’s product; (e) was a request made to Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna regarding the DNA size distribution in the vaccine and, if so, (i) what proportion of the total DNA quantity were under 200bp, (ii) what was the average, range and standard deviation; (f) what is the function of the modRNA; (g) what is the function of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs); (h) what is the specific role(s) of N1-methyl-pseudouridine as used in the modRNA of the vaccines; (i) what safety data was available to HC at the time of approval and is currently available, regarding any and repeat exposure to the following in human cells (i.e., safety, efficacy, toxicity): (i) large amounts of N1-methyl-pseudouridine, (ii) dsRNA, (iii) cytosolic DNA, (iv) lipid nanoparticles; (j) with regard to the research underpinning (g), has a risk assessment been performed of the LNPs separately from that of the drug product for safety, toxicity; (k) does HC have any degradation data for the modRNA in the vaccines and, if so, what does the data show; (l) what is the duration of action of modRNA from the COVID-19 mRNA in the body and how was that measured; (m) in what cells and organs is spike protein most likely to be produced in the body; (n) in which cell types and tissues does the modRNA remain for the longest period of time and second longest period of time, and what are the time periods; (o) for what period of time does a person injected with modRNA produce spike protein; (p) is the production of spike protein dependent on cell type; (q) is there a known correlation between the amount of modRNA in the vaccine and the amount of spike protein produced by the cells; (r) has HC performed a risk assessment on the immunological, toxicological and carcinogenicity of the spike protein and, if so, what was the analysis, and, if not, why weren't these risk assessments considered necessary; (s) if production of spike protein antigen is prolonged for greater than three to five days, does prolonged exposure lead to ongoing production of antibodies; (t) if the answer to (s) is negative, will a study or investigation be undertaken to determine this; (u) if the answer to (s) is affirmative, and if antibodies are the indicator of immunity, why does efficacy wane with time when the antigen production is prolonged; (v) has the purity of the modRNA contained in the COVID-19 vaccines been determined; (w) if the answer to (v) is affirmative, what is the present accepted limit of fragmented and truncated modRNA; (x) if the answer to (v) is negative, why hasn’t the purity of the modRNA been established; (y) if production of spike protein expression is prolonged for more than three to five days, are there harmful sequelae to prolonged exposure; and (z) if the answer to (y) is affirmative, what are those harmful sequelae?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) to (z), the health and safety of Canadians are the utmost priority for Health Canada. Health Canada has a rigorous scientific review system in place to ensure vaccines are safe and effective in preventing the diseases they target. More information on these standards and how Health Canada regulates vaccines for human use in Canada can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/activities/fact-sheets/regulation-vaccines-human-canada.html. Once vaccines are authorized, Health Canada releases information about the vaccines, including summaries of the data considered by Health Canada. This includes non-clinical, clinical and other studies, as well as how the decision was made. This information can be found on Health Canada’s website at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/drug-product-database.html.
Information requested regarding the strength of each of the COVID-19 vaccines, dosing information and information on the mechanism of action can be found in the product monographs: Nuvaxovid XBB.1.5, at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/nuvaxovid-xbb-1-5-pm-en.pdf; Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5, at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/comirnaty-omicron-xbb-1-5-pm-en.pdf; and Spikevax XBB.1.5, at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/spikevax-xbb-1-5-pm-en.pdf.
The manufacturing data provided to Health Canada demonstrated the ability to produce a vaccine with consistent quality. Levels of impurities, including dsDNA, are strictly controlled during the manufacturing process and before the product is released on the market, to ensure product quality and safety. The sponsor provided sufficient information to support the consistency of production and quality of the product. These requirements are informed by science and are aligned with international standards, including the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.
The mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines uses modified nucleosides to avoid activation of the cellular immune response and destruction of the mRNA, to enhance translation and to improve stability. Various modifications to the mRNA sequence have been introduced for maintaining antigen conformation, that is, ensuring the ‘shape’ of the antigen is capable of generating the desired immune responses. Detailed characterization studies were performed to provide assurance that the drug substance consistently exhibits the desired characteristic structure and biological activity. Additional information can be found in the summary basis of decision, or SBD, documents published by Health Canada, which provide an overview of the data examined. These can be found by accessing the COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments Portal, at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/.
Studies on the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of the lipid nanoparticle-formulated modified mRNA were conducted and were submitted as part of the preclinical and early clinical trial phase data packages that companies are required to submit to regulatory agencies, including Health Canada. The preclinical data provided demonstrated that vaccine-produced spike protein is rapidly broken down and does not persist in the body. This data was analyzed by Health Canada prior to authorizations being granted for the COVID-19 vaccines. The outcomes of some of these studies can be found in the summary basis of decision for each product, available on the Drug and Health Product Portal, at https://dhpp.hpfb-dgpsa.ca/review-documents.
The benefits of vaccines authorized in Canada continue to outweigh the risks. Health Canada, PHAC, the provinces and territories, and manufacturers continue to closely monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Health Canada and PHAC receive reports of adverse events following immunization with COVID-19 vaccines in Canada through the Canada vigilance program, or CVP, and the Canadian adverse events following immunization surveillance system, or CAEFISS. Adverse events following immunization are routinely monitored. Information on adverse events following immunization with COVID-19 vaccines, including breakdowns of reports by vaccine name, age and sex, are published on the Government of Canada website at https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/. All signals are monitored and investigated.
With regard to Global Affairs Canada’s obligations detailed in the Voices at Risk guidelines, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of any efforts Canadian officials have made to advocate for the release of detained human rights defenders in each country where Canada has a diplomatic presence, including the number of requests for prison visits made by Canadian missions, and the response of detaining authorities; and (b) what are the details of any efforts made to attend trials of human rights defenders in each country where Canada has a diplomatic presence, including the number of requests to attend these hearings made by Canadian missions, and the response of detaining authorities?
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the promotion and protection of human rights is a long-standing foundation of Canadian foreign policy. Human rights are essential to Canada’s identity, prosperity and security, and a key component to addressing global challenges. Canada is strongly committed to taking action to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of all, both at home and abroad. This action includes constructive engagement on human rights within the United Nations system. Canada advocates through bilateral diplomacy and technical assistance, public advocacy, support for local and international human rights defenders and civil society entities, including women’s rights organizations and women human rights defenders, the imposition of sanctions and export bans, and actions in regional and global multilateral forums.
Voices at Risk: Canada’s Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders”, found at https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-droits_homme/rights_defenders_guide_defenseurs_droits.aspx?lang=eng, provides practical advice, tools and resources to Canadian officials supporting human rights defenders, or HRDs, around the world. As section 4.1 of the guidelines indicates, when the HRD at risk is a Canadian citizen, it is considered a consular case. In these instances, Canada can seek to leverage specific mechanisms for engagement due to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, found at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=III-6&chapter=3. However, these efforts can be complicated when the Canadian citizen HRD has dual or multiple citizenships, given that the degree to which dual citizenship is accepted or recognized varies from country to country. In all cases, regardless of the citizenship of HRDs, Canada’s approach is tailored to local contexts and circumstances, and respond to the specific needs of the HRDs.
Section 3.9 of the guidelines provides information on attending trials and hearings, and visiting detained HRDs, recognizing that these efforts can demonstrate a clear and visible expression of Canada’s concern, enable officials to monitor legal proceedings and observe whether due process is respected, and allow networking opportunities with human rights organizations, other diplomats and local authorities working on cases of concern. It is recognized that local authorities do not always allow foreign diplomats to attend trials and may implement restrictions on visiting HRDs in detention, even in the cases of Canadian citizens.
Section 3.1 further outlines that missions are encouraged to monitor relevant situations and report regularly on developments in their countries of accreditation, with information being shared with the relevant geographic bureau at headquarters, the human rights and indigenous affairs policy division and other units as appropriate. The management of this documentation requires serious considerations with respect to the protection and safety of the HRDs. Operational safeguards must be applied to ensure respect for confidentiality, the protection of sources and the security of information, to avoid heightening the risks faced by the HRDs and diminishing Canada’s ability to provide support.
GAC does not systematically track all HRD cases on which Canada is engaged in a centralized database. Producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require manual collection and review of information held by the human rights and indigenous affairs policy division, the consular affairs bureau and the geographic bureaus at headquarters, as well as by GAC’s network of 182 missions across 112 countries. It would also require significant due diligence measures to ensure any information released does not put HRDs more at risk and is compliant with the principles of the Privacy Act and other related legislation, which includes consulting with, and obtaining consent from, HRDs or their representatives. This is not possible in the time allotted for a response without risking the disclosure of information that is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading, which could cause extremely grave injury to the HRD or other individuals or entities, or could be injurious to the conduct of Canada’s international affairs.
Finally, the government is aware of Bill C-281, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, which is currently being studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This proposed legislation would, among items, impose new reporting requirements on the government with respect to Canada’s efforts to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada’s foreign policy and Canada’s advocacy on behalf of prisoners of conscience. As outlined by GAC officials during the study of the bill by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, while the department welcomes efforts to increase transparency with respect to Canada’s work on human rights globally, such a proposal could risk impeding diplomatic actions and could endanger the safety of the individuals concerned. The government supported a version of the bill at third reading stage in the House of Commons that contained amendments to address the most significant of these concerns, and it will continue to monitor the progress of the bill as it proceeds through the legislative process.
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD): (a) how do the CAF and NORAD determine what is a threat or worthy of a response when an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) report is made; (b) is there a specific criterion or checklist that is used related to (a), and, if so, what are the details; (c) how many reports of UAP have been made in the last two years; (d) when there is a report of a UAP, which entities are the reports shared with; and (e) have there been any interceptions since the high-altitude balloon incident, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the date and summary of the incident?
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, and the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, have standard procedures to detect, identify and assess airborne objects. Specifically, NORAD responds to unknown radar tracks by correlating radar data with various data sources and means, including NORAD aircraft, to inspect the source. If NORAD assesses that an object does not present a threat, it will continue to monitor and be prepared to respond as appropriate, in coordination with other government departments and agencies.
With regard to part (b), both the CAF and NORAD utilize checklists to determine what may constitute a threat. National Defence applies the principles of the Access to Information Act, and protects information on the grounds that disclosing certain information could be injurious to national security and defence. Therefore, the contents of the checklists cannot be disclosed.
With regard to part (c) and (d), reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena, UAP, can be undertaken at multiple levels, including at local and national levels, through organizations internal and external to the Government of Canada. Thus, details for parts (c) and (d) are not held exclusively by National Defence and cannot be provided within the allotted time.
With regard to part (e), NORAD has used aircraft to inspect several airborne objects since March 2023, all of which were correlated to hobby balloons. The most recent of these events occurred in February 2024 over the state of Utah. NORAD has conducted no intercepts of airborne objects since February 2023.
With regard to vessel registrations, broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) how many pleasure crafts, broken down by new and used, were registered in Canada that had a total sales price (i) below $250,000, (ii) between $250,000 and $500,000, (iii) above $500,000 up to $1 million, (iv) above $1 million?
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada does not collect information on purchase price or value of a registered vessel.
The total number of pleasure crafts registered from 2016 to 2024 was 5,949 vessels.
For year 2016, 534 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 48 total new pleasure crafts registered and 486 total used pleasure crafts registered.
For year 2017, 648 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 63 total new pleasure crafts registered and 585 total used pleasure crafts registered.
For year 2018, 673 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 69 total new pleasure crafts registered and 604 total used pleasure crafts registered.
For year 2019, 712 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 83 total new pleasure crafts registered and 629 total used pleasure crafts registered.
For year 2020, 574 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 37 total new pleasure crafts registered and 537 total used pleasure crafts registered.
For year 2021, 812 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 77 total new pleasure crafts registered and 735 total used pleasure crafts registered.
For year 2022, 874 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 92 total new pleasure crafts registered and 782 total used pleasure crafts registered.
For year 2023, 807 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 69 total new pleasure crafts registered and 738 total used pleasure crafts registered.
For year 2024, 315 total pleasure crafts were registered, with 11 total new pleasure crafts registered and 304 total used pleasure crafts registered.
With regard to the government's approach to oil sands mining effluent and the Crown-Indigenous Working Group (CIWG) for the Potential Oil Sands Mining Effluent Regulations: (a) what is the government's current plan for dealing with effluent, including the (i) scope of the plan, (ii) key deliverables, (iii) stakeholder engagement process, (iv) key dates in the plan, (v) current status of work items; (b) what is the current status of the work undertaken by the CIWG; (c) on what dates has the CIWG met to date, and on what dates are future meetings planned; and (d) what is the CIWG's workplan, including any goals it is trying to accomplish, and by what date is each goal projected to be met?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 2021, Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, and nine indigenous communities established the Crown-indigenous working group for potential oil sands mining effluent regulations, CIWG. The CIWG is exploring options to manage the buildup of oil sands mine water in tailings ponds located in the Athabasca oil sands region. One of the options under consideration is regulations that, if developed, would place strict protective conditions on the release of treated effluent to the Athabasca River. Any such regulations would be developed with protective standards reflecting available scientific information and indigenous knowledge. The key deliverables of the CIWG will include recommendations on the path forward for managing the buildup of oil sands mine water.
Last fall, the public and stakeholders were invited to provide input on an introductory paper, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/sources-industry/mining-effluent/oil-sands.html, which included an update on the work completed by the CIWG to date, an overview of the collaborative process established through the CIWG and an opportunity for early feedback. The release of the introductory paper was accompanied by targeted engagement sessions with stakeholders and interested parties, including provincial and territorial governments, oil sands mine operators, environmental non-governmental organizations, academia and indigenous communities not included on the CIWG. In May 2024, ECCC published a “what we heard” report, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/sources-industry/mining-effluent/oil-sands/summary-report-introduction-crown-indigenous-working-group.html, summarizing input received on the introductory paper. ECCC plans to publish a discussion paper, accompanied by further stakeholder engagement, by the end of 2024.
ECCC has been meeting regularly with the CIWG since the group was established in 2021 and leverages subgroups that have been established. The current focus of the CIWG is publishing a discussion paper by the end of 2024, completing an assessment of available treatment technologies, developing aquatic toxicity and monitoring requirements and developing an approach for incorporating indigenous knowledge.
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' (DFO) recreational fishing survey in Canada, released every five years from 1990 to 2015: (a) why has the 2020 survey not yet been released on the DFO's website; (b) was the 2020 survey conducted, and, if not, why not; and (c) when will the next recreational fishing survey be conducted and when will those results be released to the public?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the recreational fishing survey in Canada by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, released every five years from 1990 to 2015, DFO, in collaboration with provinces and territories, has conducted a survey of recreational fishing in Canada every five years from 1990 to 2015. The survey for the 2020 reference year was not conducted for several reasons, including the COVID pandemic. DFO is currently working to assess options for this survey work and will be engaging with relevant partners, including provinces and territories, to discuss resources and timelines.
With regard to the Auditor General of Canada’s 2024 Report 7 entitled “Combatting Cybercrime”, paragraph 7.6 of which states that the RCMP “has a mandate to investigate the greatest criminal threats to Canada, including cybercrime, transnational and serious organized crime, and threats to national security”: (a) since January 1, 2016, how many cybercrime case reports has the RCMP received; (b) in how many of the cases reported in (a) did the RCMP or other police forces lay charges; (c) how many of the cases in (b) resulted in convictions; (d) how many of the cases in (c) resulted in funds being returned to victims if the crime involved financial loss; (e) how many cases has the RCMP pursued alongside other jurisdictions; (f) in how many of the cases in (e) did the RCMP or other police forces lay charges; (g) how many of the cases in (f) resulted in convictions; and (h) how many of the cases in (g) resulted in funds being returned to victims if the crime involved financial loss?
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP does not have the ability to report solely on “pure cybercrime” offences, which are crimes that target technology itself and can only be committed using computers, networks and digital devices. Common offences include ransomware, malware and distributed denial of service attacks.
Some information on cybercrime statistics is available on the Statistics Canada website at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510000201. The information reported on the Statistics Canada website contains the information by every police force in Canada, including the RCMP.
Recognizing the importance of strengthening Canada’s capacity to counter cybercrime, in 2020, the Government of Canada provided the RCMP with approximately $137.5 million to establish the national cybercrime coordination centre, NC3, to work with domestic and international law enforcement and other partners to investigate and combat cybercrime.
The RCMP has also invested an additional $78.9 million to increase its federal policing capacity, including by establishing specialist cybercrime teams across the country.
With regard to (a) (b) and (e), the RCMP undertook an extensive preliminary search 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. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The RCMP is a decentralized organization comprising over 700 detachments in 150 communities across the country. The RCMP concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted, and this could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
With regard to (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h), the RCMP does not have this information.
With regard to the Auditor General of Canada’s 2024 Report 7 entitled “Combatting Cybercrime”, paragraph 7.23 of which states that “We found that the centre did not forward 7 of 26 (27%) of the requests we reviewed from international partners to domestic police agencies to see whether that had evidence relevant to the investigation,”: (a) what proportion of the requests which the RCMP did not forward to domestic police agencies were held back for (i) lack of sufficient evidence, (ii) lack of credible evidence, (iii) inadmissible or unlawfully collected evidence, (iv) other reasons; and (b) what were the other reasons in (a)?
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, cybercrime investigations are complex and multi-jurisdictional, especially given that cybercriminals can perpetrate their actions from anywhere in the world. Therefore, it is essential that all relevant parties work together in a coordinated fashion to better protect Canadians.
Recognizing the importance of strengthening Canada’s capacity to counter cybercrime, in 2020, the Government of Canada provided the RCMP with approximately $137.5 million to establish the national cybercrime coordination centre, NC3, to work with domestic and international law enforcement and other partners to investigate and combat cybercrime. The RCMP has also invested an additional $78.9 million to increase its federal policing capacity, including by establishing specialist cybercrime teams across the country.
The NC3’s ability to collect, analyze, share and coordinate international requests with domestic police agencies for assistance will improve as the program continues to work toward its full operating capability in 2024-25, including with the ongoing implementation of a new case management system, referred to as the national cybercrime solution, to collect, analyze and exchange operational cybercrime data with law enforcement partners domestically and internationally.
The RCMP undertook an extensive preliminary search 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. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The RCMP is a decentralized organization comprising over 700 detachments in 150 communities across the country. The RCMP concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted, and this could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces’ reconstitution and readiness: (a) how many pilots at 3 Wing Bagotville are qualified to fly CF-18s; and (b) how many pilots at 4 Wing Cold Lake are qualified to fly CF-18s?
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, currently has a fill rate of 64% for frontline fighter pilot squadrons. Detailed information regarding pilot numbers is considered sensitive, as it can provide adversaries with information about CF-18 and broader NORAD capabilities, which could then be injurious to the defence of Canada and North America.
As the RCAF transitions to a fifth generation fighter, work is ongoing to ensure appropriate fighter pilot levels. National Defence is undertaking a multipronged approach to increase personnel numbers and pilots in particular. For example, the RCAF established an attractions team that participated in over 125 events in 2023, including air shows, exhibitions, career fairs and sporting events. The team complements wider CAF recruitment efforts that showcase existing recruiting allowances, pay incentives and subsidized education programs. In addition, the RCAF is streamlining its pilot training courses, which has reduced wait times by over 40% for the initial phases of pilot training.
With regard to the Historical Section of Global Affairs Canada (GAC): (a) what is the mandate of the section and the job description, background and qualifications of the current head of the section; (b) where are the records of the section currently held; (c) is there an index or listing accessible to the public of the records currently held by the section; (d) what policies and procedures exist for the transfer of records from the section to Library and Archives Canada, and what transfers have taken place from January 1, 2000, to present, including transfers of records of security and intelligence in 2016; (e) which records relating to security and intelligence are currently held by the section; (f) where is the historical record Department of External Affairs (DEA) file 50207-40; (g) what research has been conducted by the section, or other sections or individuals in GAC and its predecessor departments, on the LGBT Purge from 1950 to 1990, policies which singled out gay and lesbian potential recruits and employees of the DEA for discriminatory treatment; (h) what records exist in the section about the impact of the policies referred to in (g); (i) what records exist in the section of communication between Canadian posts abroad and headquarters in Ottawa during the period from 1950 to 2000; (j) what records are held by the section with respect to the debate over extension of equal employment benefits to gay and lesbian employees of the department from 1985 to 2000 with same-sex partners; and (k) what records exist in the section about former heads of mission and senior public servants in the DEA, including former Ambassadors John Watkins and David Johnson, and former Assistant Under Secretary of State John Holmes?
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) to (k), the historical section is a research unit within Global Affairs Canada, GAC, whose mandate is to increase public understanding of the history of Canadian diplomacy and of GAC. The section has published a three-volume administrative history of the Department of External Affairs, as GAC was previously known, and is responsible for the “Documents on Canadian external relations” series, found at https://gac.canadiana.ca/view/ooe.b1603413E. The section also hosts internal history-related events for departmental staff. The current head of the section was appointed in 2020 through the external selection process 19-EXT-EA-KD-1023312, found at https://emploisfp-psjobs.cfp-psc.gc.ca/psrs-srfp/applicant/page1800?poster=1317318. The classification standard, including a benchmark description of duties, for the head of the historical section, HR-04, can be found on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website at https://acoc-acco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HR-eng.pdf.
There is no complete publicly available listing of records currently held by the historical section, which, it should be noted, is neither a departmental archive, nor the departmental repository for security and intelligence records or for official communications between Canadian posts abroad and headquarters in Ottawa from 1950 to 2000.
Records created by the historical section in fulfilment of its mandate are maintained within the department in accordance with government record-keeping policy, while records of the section that have been identified as having historical or archival value are transferred to Library and Archives Canada, LAC, once they no longer serve an ongoing business need as per sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act.
All records transferred to the LAC are under the care of that institution, subject to any agreements on transfer agreed to between GAC and the LAC. The records specific to security and intelligence that were transferred in 2016 are under the care of the LAC, and the finding aids for this material are available publicly and free of charge from that institution.
Finally, the records held by the department related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, LGBT, purge from the 1950s to the 1990s, including but not limited to references to file 50207-40, references to records about the impact of these discriminatory policies, references to records about the extension of equal employment benefits to gay and lesbian employees, and references to records about senior public servants in the Department of External Affairs in relation to these discriminatory policies, have been captured as part of the department’s response to the Fourth Supplementary Agreement, from phase II of the archival research project, of the LGBT class action litigation. Lists of these records have been provided to the parties, in accordance with the terms set out in the Fourth Supplementary Agreement for selection and eventual public release upon the conclusion of this process.
With regard to the contracts and services provided to the Department of Justice (DOJ) from January 1, 2016, to May 31, 2024, by Canadian Development Consultants International Inc. (CDCI) in connection with legal proceedings brought by survivors of the LGBT Purge from 2016 on, including the 2017 class action lawsuit: (a) what are the details of all agreements entered into between CDCI and the DOJ, including (i) the mandate and scope of the research to be conducted, (ii) the terms of reference, (iii) any restrictions on the records to be searched for by security classification, subject, or otherwise; (b) what are the details of all reports submitted by CDCI to the DOJ during their mandate, including the (i) dates, (ii) titles, (iii) subject matter and summary of the content; (c) are these reports available for access by the public, and, if not, on what legal basis is access limited or denied; and (d) what is the legal basis for the claim of solicitor client privilege with respect to ATIP request A-2023-00288, for four reports prepared by CDCI, and why was this not considered pursuant to litigation privilege as opposed to solicitor client privilege?
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Development Consultants International Inc., CDCI, provided services to the Department of Justice for the purpose of litigation. The litigation is ongoing, as the terms and deliverables under the settlement of the class action lawsuit have not yet concluded. Therefore, the reports and related details, such as the mandate and scope of the research, the terms of reference and the restrictions on the records to be searched, cannot be disclosed as they are subject to litigation privilege and solicitor-client privilege. In response to access to information request A-2023-00288, the four reports prepared by CDCI were all exempt on the basis of section 23 of the Access to Information Act because of solicitor-client privilege and/or litigation privilege.
With regard to locomotive inspections conducted by Transport Canada (TC): how many inspections did TC conduct in British Columbia since 2019 related to locomotive spark arresting devices referenced in Section 15.1 of the Railway Locomotive Inspection and Safety Rules Locomotives Design Requirements (Part II), broken down by the (i) date and location of the inspection, (ii) owner of the locomotives, (iii) number of locomotives inspected, (iv) presence of deficiencies, (v) remedial actions ordered?
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada is responsible for regulating the safety of railway operations, pursuant to the Railway Safety Act and part II of the Canada Labour Code.
Under the Railway Safety Act, railway companies are ultimately responsible for maintaining their operations and infrastructure in accordance with the regulatory regime. The department’s role is to monitor federally regulated railway companies for compliance with rules, regulations and standards through oversight activities including audits and inspections.
The railway locomotive inspection and safety rules outline the design and inspection requirements for locomotives operated by companies subject to the Railway Safety Act.
Under the rules, railway companies are responsible for the inspection and repair of all locomotives to ensure safe operation. Transport Canada’s oversight is conducted to ensure company inspections are performed as per the rules and that locomotives placed or continued in service are free from the safety defects prescribed in part III of the rules, including the safety defects pertaining to internal combustion engines outlined in sections 26.1 and 26.2 of these rules as follows:
26.1 The engine and engine room shall be kept free from accumulation of oil, grease, fuel oil, and other combustible material. Pollution control tanks shall be kept free from leakage and/or from overflow.
26.2 Locomotives operated in service during the fire season, shall have exhaust passages on the discharge side of spark arresting devices or turbo-chargers kept free of oil accumulation and carbonaceous deposits in excess of 1/8 inch (3 mm) in thickness.
In the province of British Columbia, Transport Canada inspected 1,072 locomotives from 2019 to 2023. The inspections were conducted in 35 yards, maintenance facilities and stations across the province, covering locomotives from 15 companies, which included CN Rail, BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited, VIA Rail Inc., Southern Railway of British Columbia and White Pass & Yukon Route Railway. The inspections found that 1,018 locomotives were compliant to the internal combustible engine requirements and 54 were found non-compliant to these internal combustible engine requirements.
For all locomotives inspected, Transport Canada provided a report to the company identifying the non-compliant items as applicable. As such, companies were provided 14 days to respond to Transport Canada inspectors with corrective measures. In all cases, satisfactory actions were taken by the company.
With regard to the Housing Accelerator Fund and the government's response to Order Paper question Q-2531: was there any funding provided to areas in Ontario, such as counties or upper-tier municipalities, that were not included in the response, and, if so, what was the amount of funding provided to each area, broken down by type of housing funded?
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the housing accelerator fund and the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2531, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation determined that the entities in question, such as counties or upper-tier municipalities in the areas in Ontario, did not meet the eligibility criteria for the housing accelerator fund program. Eligibility is contingent upon having delegated authority to oversee land use planning and development approvals.
The housing accelerator fund is cutting red tape to fast-track the construction of more than 550,000 new homes over the next decade, and the federal government is finalizing agreements with more than 60 small and rural communities. Combined, these agreements will deliver more than $176 million to fast-track the construction of over 5,300 homes in the next three years and more than 51,000 homes over the next decade for rural Canadians.
With regard to the government's Clean Fuel Regulations and Clean Fuel Standard: what is the projected impact that the regulations and the standard will have on Canada's gross domestic product, broken down by year between now and 2030?
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, information on the GDP, or gross domestic product, impact estimates of the clean fuel regulations for 2030 is included in the regulatory impact analysis statement, published along with the regulations in 2022 at https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-07-06/html/sor-dors140-eng.html.
To evaluate the direct impact of the regulations, as well as the effect of relative price changes on Canadian economic activity and GHG, or greenhouse gas, emissions, a macroeconomic analysis was completed. When these effects are taken into account, it is estimated that the regulations will result in an overall GDP decrease of up to $9.0 billion, or up to 0.3% of total GDP, while reducing up to 26.6 megatonnes of GHG emissions in 2030, using an upper bound scenario where all credits are sold at the marginal cost per credit.
The regulations will work in combination with other federal, provincial and territorial climate change policies to create an incentive for firms to invest in innovative technologies and fuels by setting long-term, predictable and stringent targets. The broad range of compliance strategies allowed under the regulations will also allow fossil fuel suppliers the flexibility to choose the lowest-cost compliance actions available. If the regulations induce more long-term innovation and economies of scale than projected in the estimates presented in this analysis, then the regulations could result in lower costs and greater benefits, particularly over a longer time frame.
The social cost of carbon is a monetary measure of the net global damage from climate change that results from an additional metric ton of CO2 emissions for a given year. Since the publication of the clean fuel regulations in July 2022, the federal government has updated the social cost of carbon estimates, aligned with updates made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Taking this into account, it is expected that the monetized benefits of the regulations will exceed their costs, over the full time frame of analysis, 2022 to 2040.
With regard to the RCMP and the Auditor General of Canada's 2024 Report 7 entitled "Combatting Cybercrime", paragraph 7.23 which states that "We found that the centre did not forward 7 of 26 (27%) of the requests we reviewed from international partners to domestic police agencies to see whether that had evidence relevant to the investigation,": what proportion of the requests which the RCMP did not forward to domestic police agencies were held back for (i) lack of sufficient evidence, (ii) lack of credible evidence, (iii) inadmissible or unlawfully collected evidence, (iv) other reasons, broken down by reason?
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, cybercrime investigations are complex and multijurisdictional, especially given that cybercriminals can perpetrate their actions from anywhere in the world. Therefore, it is essential that all relevant parties work together in a coordinated fashion to better protect Canadians.
Recognizing the importance of strengthening Canada’s capacity to counter cybercrime, in 2020, the Government of Canada provided the RCMP with approximately $137.5 million to establish the national cybercrime coordination centre, or NC3, to work with domestic and international law enforcement and other partners to investigate and combat cybercrime.
The RCMP has also invested an additional $78.9 million to increase its federal policing capacity, including establishing specialist cybercrime teams across the country.
The RCMP NC3’s ability to collect, analyze, share and coordinate international requests with domestic police agencies for assistance will improve as the program continues to work towards its full operating capability in 2024-25, including the ongoing implementation of a new case management system, referred to as the national cybercrime solution, to collect, analyze and exchange operational cybercrime data with law enforcement partners domestically and internationally.
The RCMP 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. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The RCMP is a decentralized organization comprised of over 700 detachments in 150 communities across the country. The RCMP concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted, and this could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Auditor General of Canada's Report 7 entitled "Combatting Cybercrime", paragraph 7.47 which states "a decision was made by the CRTC to delete data on the devices on an accelerated time frame after obtaining the consent of the owner of the devices. The CRTC subsequently contacted the law enforcement agency to inform it that the data on the devices had been deleted and that a warrant was no longer viable. However, we found that the statement made to the law enforcement agency was incorrect, as the data on the devices was deleted at a later date.": (a) what was the rationale for the CRTC to delete data on devices after the law enforcement agency issued a production order to the CRTC in relation to that investigation; (b) on what dates was the data deleted; and (c) on what date did the CRTC contact the device owner to seek permission to delete files?
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the CRTC fully complied with the production order and provided law enforcement with exact copies of all of the data that the CRTC extracted from the devices.
The CRTC is not legally permitted to keep devices obtained during an investigation indefinitely, and the device owner’s lawyer requested the return of the devices. Given that the devices contained programs, e.g., malware, and data that could have been used for malicious purposes, these files were removed from the devices prior to their return.
Regarding part (b) of the question, given that the devices contained programs, e.g., malware, and data that could have been used for malicious purposes, these files were removed from the devices prior to their return. The files were removed on April 14, 2022.
With regard to part (c), the CRTC is not legally permitted to keep devices obtained during an investigation indefinitely, and the device owner’s lawyer requested the return of the devices. Given that the devices contained programs, e.g., malware, and data that could have been used for malicious purposes, these files were removed from the devices prior to their return. On April 12, 2022, CRTC staff obtained permission from the device owner to remove the files.
With regard to the government’s commitment to close the infrastructure gap on First Nations reserves by 2030: (a) does the Minister of Indigenous Services agree with the Auditor General of Canada’s findings in the 2024 Reports 2 to 4 to the Parliament of Canada, which said that Indigenous Services Canada is not on track to end the housing infrastructure gap; (b) does the government believe it is on track to meet the mandate assigned to the Minister; and (c) in what year does Indigenous Services Canada believe the infrastructure gap facing First Nations will close?
Ms. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities welcomed the report of the Auditor General of Canada on housing in first nation communities.
ISC accepted the Office of the Auditor General’s recommendation that it work with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in collaboration with first nations, to develop and implement a strategy to close the housing gap by 2030. In particular, the department committed to engaging with first nations partners on establishing measurable targets and tracking progress, aligned to available funding, as part of the implementation of the co-developed national first nations housing and related infrastructure strategy.
Since 2016, the Government of Canada, through Indigenous Services Canada, has increased targeted funding for housing on reserve by over 1,300%. Between 2016 and March 31, 2024, ISC has invested $2.39 billion in targeted funding to support first nations housing. This is supporting the construction, renovation and retrofit of over 19,000 homes on reserve, of which 9,431 are complete. An additional $1.75 billion in funding, secured in budget 2022, will be invested in first nations housing through 2026-27. While these investments are making an impact, ISC acknowledges that there is more work to do to close the housing gap on reserve. The department continues to work with its partners to support first nations in addressing their self-determined housing priorities and to close the infrastructure gap by 2030.
In support of this objective, budget 2024 announced new indigenous housing and community infrastructure investments of $918 million over five years to accelerate work to narrow housing and infrastructure gaps in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, including $426 million for first nations on reserve. This brings the total of Government of Canada commitments to over $4.5 billion.
In response to part (b) of the question, closing the infrastructure gap on reserve is a whole-of-government commitment that requires co-operation among multiple responsible ministers and federal organizations that invest in first nations infrastructure (e.g., Infrastructure Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation).
While significant investments have been made and initiatives are under way to transfer infrastructure service delivery to first nations communities, the Government of Canada knows there is more work to do. ISC is actively working directly with first nations, first nations organizations and other federal organizations to identify what further measures and investments may be required to close the infrastructure gap by 2030. For example, the Minister of Indigenous Services has hosted two round table discussions to date on economic reconciliation with indigenous leaders, financial sector executives and senior federal government representatives. The infrastructure gap was discussed at both round tables, as were possible solutions; the “What We Heard” reports for the February 2024 and May 2024 discussions are publicly available online.
In response to part (c), the government is committed to its continued work with partners to close the infrastructure gap by 2030. Budget 2024 commitments further demonstrate this commitment.
With regard to the $36 billion in planned spending reductions for the Canada Health Transfer announced in 2011: what services were impacted by the spending reduction, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) year, (iii) health field?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in December 2011, the Government of Canada announced that the Canada Health Transfer, or CHT, would continue to grow at six per cent annually from 2014-15 to 2016-17, and, beginning in 2017-18, the CHT would grow in line with a three-year moving average of nominal gross domestic product, or GDP growth, with funding guaranteed to increase by at least three per cent per year.
The December 2011 announcement effectively extended the six per cent CHT escalator for three additional years beyond the legislated time frame set out in the September 2004 10-year Plan to Strengthen Health Care, which was to end in 2013-14. This resulted in the CHT continuing to grow at six per cent annually for 2014-15 to 2016-17, thereby providing provinces and territories with additional CHT growth in those years. Since that time, the CHT has grown at an average annual rate of almost five per cent under its current GDP-based escalator, which provides provinces and territories with ongoing and predictable funding for healthcare. In addition, budget 2017 included a targeted investment of $11 billion in federal funding over 10 years to improve home and community care and mental health and addiction services.
Estimates of hypothetical gains or losses that might have occurred, such as the $36-billion estimate provided by the Council of the Federation, or CoF, in 2012, do not account for these additional investments in the years following.
Looking forward, budget 2024 confirmed the government's commitment under the “Working Together to Improve Health Care for Canadians” funding plan, first announced by the Prime Minister on 7 February 2023, to provide eligible provinces and territories with a five per cent CHT growth guarantee, to be paid through annual top-up payments, for the five-year period 2023-24 to 2027-28. The growth guarantee is currently valued at $15.3 billion over the 10-year duration of the “Working Together” plan, which ends in 2032-33.
Historical data from 1980 to 2024 for the CHT and other major federal transfers, broken down by province and territory and by year, can be found at the following link: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/4eee1558-45b7-4484-9336-e692897d393f/resource/b7d86b5e-0615-4601-bb36-559953e374ef
With regard to real estate sector investments made by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSPIB), since fiscal year 2015-16: (a) what is the total value of assets held in (i) residential, (ii) retirement, real estate; (b) in what ways does the PSPIB prioritize worker, community and societal health and well-being when considering its investments in residential and retirement real estate; and (c) does the PSPIB consider renovictions or repositioning in its assessments of investments in residential or retirement real estate?
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a non-agent crown corporation, the public sector pension investment board, or PSPIB, upholds an autonomous, arm’s-length operating mandate. PSPIB is subject to disclosure requirements as set out in the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act and the Access to Information Act and reports to the President of the Treasury Board. Information concerning the activities of PSPIB is presented in the annual report tabled in Parliament by the President of the Treasury Board.
The PSPIB’s “2024 Annual Report” is available at the following link: https://www.investpsp.com/media/filer_public/03-our-performance/annual-report-2024/pdf/PSP-2024-annual-report-en.pdf
With regard to the decision to alter the remote work policy for federal employees to require them to appear three days in-office: (a) what are (i) the names of all individuals involved in the decision making process, (ii) the criteria used to justify the change, (iii) the needs assessments and office capacity assessments conducted, (iv) productivity indicators used to make the decision; and (b) how do these productivity indicators compare to those in the departmental plans?
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of the question, the “Direction on prescribed presence in the workplace”, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/staffing/direction-prescribed-presence-workplace.html and as introduced in December 2022 and fully implemented since March 31, 2023, required employees who are eligible for a hybrid work arrangement to work onsite a minimum of two to three days per week, as determined by the deputy head of each department. The updated direction of May 1, 2024, now confirms a minimum requirement of three days per week as of September 9, 2024.
This decision was taken by the then secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Catherine Blewett, and the chief human resources officer, Jacqueline Bogden, following close consultations with and the endorsement of deputy ministers from across departments and agencies.
The direction was updated to maximize the benefits of presence in the workplace. These include in-person connections, collaboration within and among teams, enhanced opportunities for peer learning, and effective onboarding of new talent. Human connections, strengthened through in-person presence, contribute to a strong culture of performance and service to Canadians in alignment with the values and ethics of the public service. The direction was also updated to bring greater fairness and consistency to how hybrid work is implemented, so that the experience of working in the public service or receiving services is the same across the government and across the country. This approach is consistent with many provincial and territorial governments and private sector organizations.
In response to part (a)(iii), TBS consulted broadly on the updated direction, notably with Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, to ensure that the adjustment to onsite work requirements aligned with the government’s commitment to reduce its office footprint by 50%. Departments and agencies continue to work with PSPC to ensure that workplaces can accommodate the common hybrid work model, namely by implementing unassigned workspaces.
In response to part (a)(iv) and part (b), the performance of individual employees is measured and managed annually at the departmental level, based on pre-established work objectives and competencies, through performance management processes. Individual performance targets are typically different from and not directly comparable to measures presented in departmental plans, which examine performance at a broader program or activity level.
With regard to the decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) that “recreational fishing for Chinook salmon will be closed on the Skeena River watershed and all rivers and lakes in Region 6 flowing into PFMAs 3 to 6, not including the Kitimat River and Nass River watersheds,”: (a) how does this decision relate to the DFO’s allocation policy; (b) on what empirical data was this decision based; (c) given previous seasons since 2018 have also seen similar closures, what evidence does the DFO have regarding the efficacy of this measure; (d) given the DFO forecasts a 2024 Skeena Chinook return of 28,000 fish, which is lower than last year’s return and far below the historic average, how is the DFO improving management to ensure both conservation and recreational opportunities in future seasons; (e) what does the DFO estimate the impact of the Alaskan commercial fishery’s interception of Skeena-bound Chinook salmon will be in 2024; and (f) what conservation measures are being imposed on other fisheries that catch Skeena Chinook?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, that “recreational fishing for Chinook salmon will be closed on the Skeena River watershed and all rivers and lakes in Region 6 flowing into PFMAs 3 to 6, not including the Kitimat River and Nass River watersheds”, (a) DFO relies on “An Allocation Policy for Pacific Salmon (1999)” as the guiding framework to determine allocations among harvest groups for anadromous Pacific salmon in British Columbia and Yukon. As per the policy, directed recreational fisheries for Chinook may be permitted when abundance is sufficient to meet conservation objectives and subject to the priority for first nations food, social and ceremonial fisheries. As with many northern British Columbia and southeast Alaska Chinook salmon stocks, the population of Skeena River Chinook salmon has experienced a prolonged decline in abundance over the last two decades. The number of adult fish returning to the watershed to spawn in the past six seasons has been particularly low. In support of conservation and first nations allocation priorities, the department has implemented restrictions and/or prohibited retention of Skeena River Chinook salmon in recreational and commercial fisheries during this period.
In response to (b), DFO develops and implements management measures for Pacific salmon on the basis of pre-season forecasts and, where available, in-season information on abundance. Due to changes in large-scale environmental conditions, the variability between pre-season and in-season estimates of abundance has increased. For Skeena River Chinook salmon, pre-season forecasts of expected abundance are developed utilizing information on prior year parent spawning abundance and the relationship between adult spawners and returning adults four and five years later. When the estimated pre-season abundance indicates that the number of Chinook salmon may not be sufficient to achieve conservation or first nations food, social and ceremonial allocations, restrictions are implemented to reduce or avoid interception in lower-priority recreational and commercial fisheries.
In response to (c), declining and variable rates of survival observed between the egg to adult life stage of Chinook salmon in northern British Columbia over the past two decades, referred to as the spawner recruit relationship, indicate that fewer Chinook salmon are surviving to adulthood than in the past. During periods of declining recruitment, ensuring that sufficient numbers of Chinook salmon are allowed to reach their spawning grounds is a primary fishery management objective intended to support future production. Prohibiting retention of Chinook salmon in recreational and commercial fisheries allows fish that would otherwise have been captured to pass to spawning areas or provide opportunities for first nation food, social and ceremonial fishery harvest. Restriction of fisheries and/or prohibition of retention of Chinook salmon is the primary means of protecting Chinook salmon that have reached maturity and are migrating to spawning areas.
With respect to part (d), over the past six seasons, in response to the two-decades long decline of Chinook salmon in the Skeena River watershed, DFO has implemented a precautionary approach to the administration of fishery opportunities directed at Skeena River Chinook salmon. In accordance with “An Allocation Policy for Pacific Salmon (1999)”, opportunities for recreational fishery harvest of Chinook salmon are permitted if conservation needs and first nations food, social and ceremonial fishery allocations are likely to be met. During periods of poor Chinook salmon production and/or survival, the opportunity to harvest Chinook salmon in recreational fisheries will be reduced to achieve these priorities.
In response to part (e), management of the U.S. southeast Alaskan commercial fishery harvest of Skeena River Chinook salmon is administered through the Pacific Salmon Treaty, or PST, chapter 3. The treaty establishes conservation objectives and harvest parameters for both Canadian and U.S. fisheries on the basis of aggregate abundance indices for mixed stock fisheries and indicator stocks. U.S. commercial fisheries do not specifically target Skeena River Chinook salmon; rather, fish are intercepted in mixed-stock fisheries targeting southeast Alaska, southern U.S. and British Columbia Chinook salmon stocks. Declining abundance of Chinook salmon in northern British Columbia and southeast Alaska has resulted in lower total allowable harvests permitted in these fisheries under PST harvest provisions. In other words, as abundance declines, more restrictive, precautionary measures have been implemented in both U.S. and Canadian fisheries for Chinook salmon administered pursuant to the PST. The total annual harvest of Chinook salmon in southeast Alaskan commercial fisheries has declined by about 50% in the past two decades. The majority of Chinook salmon captured in southeast Alaskan commercial fisheries originate in the southern U.S. Columbia River, non-Skeena River British Columbia and southeast Alaska Chinook salmon stocks. Of the total annual southeast Alaska aggregate abundance-based management, or AABM, fishery Chinook salmon harvest, approximately 1.7-3.0% is estimated to be comprised of Northern B.C.- Chinook salmon. Of the total annual mortalities of Skeena Chinook, harvest in AABM southeast Alaska fisheries accounts for approximately 15% of total Skeena Chinook mortalities.
In response to part (f), for 2024, the following measures are being implemented to reduce impacts to Skeena River Chinook: The Skeena River in-river recreational fishery is closed to the retention of Chinook salmon, and for the marine area and approach waters adjacent to the Skeena River, a series of recreational harvesting restrictions are being implemented to reflect the fact that any Chinook salmon present are of mixed-stock origins, with tighter restrictions being implemented around the historical peak timing of Skeena Chinook salmon migration. That is, from June 14-22, 2024, the retention limits for Chinook salmon were reduced from two per day to one per day; from June 23 to July 17, 2024, no retention of Chinook salmon was permitted; from July 18 to August 10, 2024, retention was limited to one Chinook salmon per day; and from August 11, 2024 to March 31, 2025, retention is limited to two Chinook salmon per day. Further, there are no targeted commercial fishing opportunities for Skeena Chinook salmon; retention of Chinook salmon in any commercial gillnet or seine fisheries as bycatch is not permitted; and the area F commercial troll fishery start date is delayed to mid-August and will occur after Skeena Chinook have historically transited the fishing area.
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what are the available funding streams that (i) support Indigenous veterans’ mental health, (ii) support Indigenous Veterans in finding employment after service; (b) of the funding streams in (a), what is the total amount of funding that remained unspent, uncommitted, or undelivered; and (c) what criteria or justifications were used to evaluate and reject the Burns Way Program which has been established to improve mental health services for Indigenous, non-Indigenous and minority veterans and their family members?
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the mental health and well-being of those who selflessly served Canada is a priority for the Government of Canada. Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, is committed to ensuring eligible veterans, Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, personnel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, members, and their families have access to the mental health support they need, when they need it.
The VAC assistance service has mental health professionals who are indigenous or have extensive experience working with the indigenous community, approximately 5.09% of the network. Should individuals choose to, they may invite a person of their choice such as an elder, a family member, community member or other to accompany them and offer emotional support at their counselling sessions with a mental health professional.
Additionally, a complete suite of mental, physical and family well-being solutions is available with LifeSpeak. It offers videos, blogs, articles and self-help for the indigenous community. A variety of topics include cultural sensitivity, building resilience, empowerment, history and mental health.
Operational stress injury social support, OSISS, is a peer support network that offers serving and former CAF members, Canadian Rangers and their families someone to talk to who has first-hand experience. OSISS offers a national indigenous group. This is a sacred safe space for indigenous veterans with an operational stress injury, OSI, to come together and share unique lived experiences, all through an indigenous lens.
The network of OSI clinics is composed of 10 OSI clinics and 11 OSI satellite service sites located across Canada. These are funded by Veterans Affairs Canada and operated by provincial health authorities. OSI clinic services are available to eligible veterans, including indigenous veterans, as well as currently serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, active and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and their family members. These services are offered both in-person and virtually, and include educational sessions, comprehensive assessments for disability benefits, assessments for treatment, individual and group treatments, and couples and family interventions.
Since April 1, 2022, veterans and serving reserve force members who apply for a disability benefit for certain mental health conditions can now receive immediate mental health coverage under the mental health benefit.
Mental health first aid, which provides mental health literacy to the veteran community at large and a variety of online tools, including the PTSD coach Canada mobile application, and the interactive resource caregiver zone, which provides instruction, education, videos and tools on a wide range of caregiving topics to family members taking care of veterans, are supported and funded by Veterans Affairs Canada.
The veteran and family well-being fund provides grants and contributions to private, public, academic and indigenous organizations to conduct research and implement initiatives and projects that support the well-being of all veterans and their families. This includes projects and initiatives that address mental health, employment/retraining, transition to civilian life and homelessness.
The joint federal research funding program provides grants and contributions to conduct research with the goal of driving progress on new knowledge and understanding of military member, veteran and family well-being.
Indigenous organizations are eligible recipients under the terms and conditions of both programs.
With regard to part (b), the veteran and family well-being fund and the joint federal research funding program funding have not been unspent, uncommitted or undelivered in any fiscal year.
With regard to part (c), Veterans Affairs Canada has no record of any applications from the Burns Way program to the veteran and family well-being fund or the joint federal research fund.
With regard to vessel and related policies that support owner operator in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, since February 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all consultations and engagement sessions that have been undertaken or are currently scheduled as part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) efforts to better understand inshore fish harvesters and association representatives concerns, including the (i) date of the consultation or engagement session, (ii) organization or individuals consulted, (iii) recommendations heard in each consultation or session; and (b) what resources has the DFO allocated for the purposes of the consultations in (a), including the (i) number of staff, (ii) budget, (iii) administrative resources?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, hosted a series of engagement sessions in Atlantic Canada and Quebec to better understand stakeholder concerns about the role its inshore vessel and related policies play in supporting owner-operator objectives. These engagements focused on how owner-operator is central to the inshore fisheries and designed to promote viable and profitable operations for the average fishing enterprise in coastal communities, by requiring those who are issued licences to personally participate in the activities authorized in those licences, so the benefits associated with a licence remain in the hands of independent owner-operators.
All participants were presented with the same background material and engagement questions. While questions were presented in a sequential order, participants were not required to answer each question in turn; rather, participants could respond in the order of their choosing. This was intended to permit harvesters to inform DFO on the issues they felt were most important.
With regard to part (i), the dates are as follows: Moncton, NB, March 7, 2023; Deer Lake, NL, March 14, 2023; Gander, NL, March 23, 2023; Gaspé, QC, March 27-28, 2023; Saint John, NB, March 28, 2023; Halifax, NS, April 4, 2023; and St. John’s, NL, May 16, 2023.
With regard to part (ii), inshore industry participants from all East Coast DFO regions, there were 366 participants in person and 1800 questionnaire submissions. The following associations were consulted: Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union; Gulf Nova Scotia Fishermen’s Coalition; Maritimes region exempted inshore fleets; Government of New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fisheries; Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association; members of regional harbour authority advisory committees; Grand Manan Fishers Association; and Fundy North Fishers Association.
Other individuals/groups who participated in the engagements include: professional certification board members; fish processors; Dr. Dan Walker, Naval Architect, Memorial University; provincial government representatives; and the member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margarets
With regard to part (iii), recommendations are identified by themes. The decision to identify high-level themes reflects participant discussions during presentations, who viewed issues interrelatedly. The high-level themes allowed the department to capture the key opinions and common threads that emerged and helped to identify broader possible policy recommendations or areas for improvement that apply across the subject matters discussed. Theme recommendations include: applications of laws, regulations, and policies; administrative complexity; enterprise management; accessibility to enterprises and licences; safety, infrastructure and training.
Each consultation session was supported by four to six staff, attending in person and online from both regional and national headquarters.
Total expenses, inclusive of room rentals, audiovisual, etc. was $56,437.
All administration was done by DFO staff as part of regular duties.
With regard to the government’s response to the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans entitled “Foreign Ownership and Corporate Concentration of Fishing Licenses and Quota”: (a) what are the details of all “in-depth engagement with Indigenous peoples and organizations, fishery participants, and key stakeholders” as part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) West Coast Fisheries modernization efforts, including the (i) date of the consultation, (ii) name of the fishery participant or rights-holding Indigenous group consulted, (iii) recommendations heard from the consultation; and (b) what resources has the DFO allocated for the purposes of the consultations in (a), including the (i) number of staff, (ii) budget, (iii) administrative resources?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, has now begun a more in-depth and phased engagement about West Coast commercial fisheries modernization, WCCFM.
Both the study on foreign ownership and corporate concentration by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, FOPO, as well as the government response to the committee’s recommendations have been discussed with some stakeholders during regularly scheduled meetings with senior DFO officials since FOPO’s study concluded. The department looks forward to now expanding these conversations with a wider range of first nations and industry stakeholders as part of the WCCFM engagement.
Given that the more comprehensive engagement on WCCFM has just begun, DFO cannot at this time report out on dates, participant groups or recommendations heard from engagement on WCCFM. DFO officials are reaching out to groups over the summer and into early fall to discuss engagement and topics of focus.
DFO Pacific region has one full-time coordinator position at the CO-02 level within the regional fisheries management team dedicated to key topics within the scope of WCCFM. There is also a lead manager and director in each of the Pacific region fisheries management branch and the national headquarters fisheries policy team tasked with leadership on this initiative, as well as numerous subject matter experts and administrative staff supporting specific elements of the work. Additional regional and national staff will become involved as the phased WCCFM engagement proceeds. DFO has set aside necessary non-salary resources to support engagement through facilitated workshops on the key WCCFM topics.
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and its Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP), since January 1, 2016: (a) how many (i) individuals, (ii) employers, (iii) corporations, (iv) partnerships, (v) trusts, have successfully used the VDP (i.e. their application for the VDP was accepted), broken down by year; (b) how many (i) individuals, (ii) employers, (iii) corporations, (iv) partnerships, (v) trusts, with accounts outside of Canada have successfully used the VDP, broken down by year; (c) how much in relief has been granted through the VDP, broken down year and by (i) individuals, (ii) employers, (iii) corporations, (iv) partnerships, (v) trusts; (d) how many Canadians have been convicted of tax evasion related to money and other assets held overseas; and (e) how many Canadians have been convicted of tax evasion related to money and other assets held overseas?
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA for the time period of January 1, 2016, to June 17, 2024, that is, the date of the question.
With regard to parts (a), (b) and (c), CRA is not able to provide information in the manner requested as the voluntary disclosures program, VDP, does not track statistics in the requested format. Additionally, VDP applications are not always processed in the year they are received and are tracked based on the issue, e.g. income tax, GST, payroll, not based on the type of taxpayer. A taxpayer may file a single disclosure that has an impact on multiple business lines, resulting in multiple disclosures in the same VDP application.
With regard to parts (d) and (e), please note, questions (d) and (e) are identical. As the VDP is meant for taxpayers to correct unintentional errors, the program does not track cases of tax evasion. Therefore, the CRA does not have the information to provide for either question.
With regard to the National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Diseases: (a) since January 1, 2023, including announced commitments by all departments and agencies, what is the dollar amount that has been provided to, or committed for the purpose of provision to, the provinces and territories, through the National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Diseases, broken down by purpose; (b) for which drugs, therapies, treatments, and diseases or conditions, and what dollar amount for each type, have funds been allocated, broken down by province; (c) what funds have been directed toward providing drugs, therapies, or treatment for patients diagnosed with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH), broken down by province; (d) what funds have been directed to the provinces and territories for drugs, therapies, and treatments relating to PAH, broken down by province; and (e) which specific drugs, therapies, or treatments have been funded for treatment of PAH?
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), on March 22, 2023, the Government of Canada announced measures in support of the first-ever National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Diseases, with an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. As part of this first phase, the Government of Canada will provide up to $1.4 billion over three years to provinces and territories through bilateral agreements.
This federal investment will increase access to safe and effective drugs for Canadians with rare diseases. Provinces and territories will be able to add new drugs to their formularies and increase coverage of existing drugs. The new funding will also enable provinces and territories to improve screening and diagnostics so that patients with a rare disease have a better chance of getting access to effective treatments at the right time, which can mean significantly better health and overall quality of life for patients and their families.
We are implementing this strategy by working with provinces and territories towards the development of bilateral agreements. Funding for the bilateral agreements will be available April 1, 2024, and run until March 31, 2027.
On July 23, 2024, the Government of Canada signed the agreement to support drugs for rare diseases, DRD, with British Columbia. The Government of Canada will provide $194 million to improve access to drugs for rare diseases, early diagnosis and screening, starting with the funding to support the province in providing access of two drugs under the National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Diseases: Poteligeo, for the treatment of mycosis fungoides or Sézary syndrome; and Oxlumo, for the treatment of hyperoxaluria type 1, will be made available to residents of B.C. These two drugs are the first drugs to be announced from the common list of new drugs that has been in development over the last year with provinces and territories.
With regard to parts (b), (c), (d) and (e), as noted in the response to (a), bilateral agreements with the other provinces and territories have yet to be signed at the time of this response, so funds have yet to be allocated. However, discussions with provinces and territories are under way to jointly determine a small set of new and emerging drugs that will be cost-shared and covered in a consistent way across Canada, for the benefit of patients. In addition to these drugs, the national strategy provides flexibility for jurisdictions to address their own unique circumstances, adding other new drugs to their formularies and increasing coverage of existing drugs.
With regard to the awarding of the contract to CIMA+ for the site pre-engineering contract, of which one project included the bury of the transmission and distribution lines on the construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge project: (a) why was CIMA+ chosen to replace the original design consultant Stantec for the Gordie Howe International Bridge pre-engineering contract; (b) if CIMA+ was awarded the contract due to lower cost considerations over Stantec, what was the initial awarded contract cost, and what the final paid amounts to CIMA+; (c) were there any official memos between the Director of the Canadian Port of Entry, Joe Maghnieh, and former Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) Chairman, Dwight Duncan, regarding the awarding of the CIMA+ contract; (d) if so, what were the details of those memos regarding the awarding of the CIMA+ contract; (e) did the WDBA Chairman, Dwight Duncan, send any official memos to the Office of the Prime Minister over the awarding of the contract to CIMA+; (f) if so, what were the details of those memos over the awarding of the contract to CIMA+; (g) did the Office of the Prime Minister send any official memos to the Director the Canadian Port of Entry, Joe Maghnieh, regarding the awarding of the CIMA+ contract; and (h) if so, what were the details of those memos regarding the awarding of the CIMA+ contract?
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, WDBA, and the awarding of the contract to CIMA+ for the site pre-engineering contract, of which one project included the bury of the transmission and distribution lines on the construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge project, the response is as follows.
With respect to part (a), the premise to the question is factually inaccurate; CIMA+ was not chosen to replace Stantec. Early works for the Gordie Howe International Bridge project included multiple scopes of work. Stantec’s contract included the design of the perimeter access road, “PAR”, and design coordination with minor and major utilities and contract administration of the PAR early works construction contract. CIMA+’s contract included the design of the Hydro One transmission relocations and contract administration of the WDBA Hydro One transmission relocations.
With respect to part (b), CIMA+ was awarded the contract based on a competitive procurement that included both cost and technical considerations.
With respect to part (c), WDBA staff is unaware of any communications between Dwight Duncan and Joe Maghnieh.
With