Hansard
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 52
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
Both the economic statement of fall 2023 and the budget of spring 2023 are very long and complex documents. As indicated in its title, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”, Bill C-59 indeed contains many measures; some stem from the budget documents, others from the economic statement.
However, some measures are not to be found in either. The Chair takes the view that the main purpose of the bill is not the implementation of a budget, and the exception provided in Standing Order 69.1(2) does not apply in this case.
The Chair must now determine whether a common element connects the various provisions of Bill C-59 and, if not, to what extent all or some of the provisions are closely related. A broad common theme is not sufficient. As explained on November 7, 2017, at page 15095 of the Debates, the Chair must decide “whether the matters are so unrelated as to warrant a separate vote at second and third reading.”
In deciding whether a link exists, the Chair may consider several factors. Different measures may have a single objective or common elements, as the Chair found in its decision on Bill C‑4 on September 29, 2020, whose common element was a public health crisis. Cross-references between parts of a bill, or a lack thereof, may also be an indicator.
After completing this analysis, the Chair believes that Bill C‑59 should indeed be divided for the purpose of voting. As my predecessor noted on November 28, 2022, on page 10087 of the Debates, “[t]he objective here is not to divide the bill for consideration purposes, but to enable the House to decide questions that are not closely related separately.”
First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget. Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together.
Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote. Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code. Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.
The remaining divisions of Bill C-59, consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322, and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held. The Chair will remind members of this division when the bill comes to a vote at second reading.
Finally, I would like to remind members of the Chair's ruling on December 12, 2023, which also dealt with Bill C-59. The Chair found that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 can continue through the legislative process.
I thank all members for their attention.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2023-12-14 11:45 [p.20075]
Mr. Speaker, with the patience of the House, I have a point of order. It is in response to the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, better known as the fall economic statement.
I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to the provisions in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement but not referenced in the 2023 budget.
Let me quote the standing order in question, which reads:
(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
(2) The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.
The legal title of the bill reads, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”. I can confirm to the House that the significant majority of provisions in Bill C-59 would implement measures announced and articulated in the 2023 budget. The fall economic statement was designed to respond to affordability challenges facing Canadians, and these measures reflect a minority of provisions in the bill.
The key to the standing order is the ability for the government to provide a compelling rationale as to why there is a common element or theme that connects the various provisions. In my intervention on that matter last week, I stated that the provisions to implement the legislative measures announced in the fall economic statement were linked to a common theme of affordability for Canadians. This intervention therefore allows me to provide in greater detail how these measures demonstrate a clear link to addressing the affordability concerns of Canadians.
Before I review the measures that were only referenced in the fall economic statement, I would like to point out that many of the measures identified by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle were referenced in the 2023 budget.
Clauses 1 through 95 relate to proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act that in principle would ensure the robustness of Canada's tax system to provide benefits to Canadians, to create good-quality jobs and to build an economy that works for everyone. There is only one measure in these clauses that was not announced in the budget, that is, the information-sharing provision between departments to facilitate the provision of the government's dental benefit program. I would note that the dental benefit was a budget 2023 measure, and this provision was a technical fix to ensure the smooth operationalization of the benefit. This measure, along with the corresponding technical fix, is clearly a measure to address affordability challenges faced by Canadians who are eligible for the benefit.
Clauses 96 through 128 would establish a digital services tax, which was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents. Therefore, it should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.
Clauses 129 to 136 relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act that are designed to ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly and properly affected by the excise tax, to enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination and a great place to do business, and to support Canadians' participation in the labour market. All measures contained in clauses 129 to 136 were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.
Clauses 136 to 144 also relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act, which would ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly treated by the excise tax. These measures would enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination, which not only creates excellent job opportunities for Canadians, but also contributes to the revenues to strengthen Canada's social safety net. A significant majority of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages.
There are three measures that were not announced in the 2023 budget, but their purpose is clearly designed to address affordability challenges for Canadians. These include a measure that would exempt psychotherapy from federal tax, which would not only reduce the cost of therapy for Canadians, but also contribute to their well-being so they can productively contribute to the labour market. The second measure involves provisions to ensure that co-operative housing units are eligible for the 100% GST rebate on purpose-built housing, which is a real and significant investment to help build homes for Canadians and address affordability challenges for Canadians to find a place to call home.
Clauses 145 to 167 concern the taxation of vaping products and cannabis products in Canada. These revenues provide investments for Canada to strengthen our social supports, and provide a price signal to Canadians of the health effects of the abuse of these products, while also providing for a fair and stable taxation of vaping and cannabis products.
Clauses 168 to 196 would amend the laws governing financial institutions, which are designed to strengthen the governance of Canadian financial institutions. They are important to keeping Canadians' money and investments, as well as our financial institutions, safe and secure. All of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.
Clauses 197 to 208 relate to proposed leave entitlements related to pregnancy loss and bereavement leave, which are designed to support workers. Canadian workers are the backbone of the economy, and anyone who faces the tragedy of pregnancy loss deserves rightful access to bereavement leave. Ultimately, this measure would ensure that Canadians who are dealing with this tragedy are not also burdened by the loss of income. Again, all of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.
Clauses 209 to 216 relate to the establishment of a Canada water agency, which would create good jobs for Canadians and protect Canadians' access to fresh, clean water. It would also restore, protect and manage bodies of water of national significance. Canadians should be able to count on access to clean water. In an era of increasing climate disruption, an independent Canadian water agency, which would be located in Winnipeg, would help to protect our bodies of water. This measure was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages.
Clauses 217 and 218 relate to the proposed amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, which would provide the government with the authority to develop and implement tobacco and vaping cost recovery frameworks. It would also limit the cost burden on taxpayers for the funding of federal tobacco and vaping activities. In essence, these measures would ensure that Canadians are not on the hook for paying for the development or regulatory frameworks related to vaping, which would not only free up funds that could otherwise be spent on the investments and supports Canadians rely on, but also provide Canadians who use such products with additional disposable income to spend on the essentials of life.
Clauses 219 to 230 propose amendments to the Canadian Payments Act to make the Canadian banking system safer and more secure while delivering more innovative services for Canadians. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that Canadians hard-earned money is safe in the financial institutions they rely upon.
Clauses 231 to 272 would amend the Competition Act to help increase competition, most notably in the grocery sector where Canadians have experienced rising prices that have impacted their ability to feed their families with healthy and nutritious foods. These amendments are designed to make life more affordable for Canadians by lowering prices and providing more choice, which in turn stimulates competition to compete on pricing and encourage the development of more innovative products and services for Canadians.
Clauses 273 to 277 would exempt post-secondary education institutions from the laws governing bankruptcy and insolvency. By educating our young people and conducting world-leading research, post-secondary educational institutions play a critical role in Canada's social, scientific, and economic development. These amendments would help protect the solvency of Canadian post-secondary institutions.
Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address—
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 1862—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Public Safety Canada’s Firearms Buyback Program for recently prohibited firearms: (a) how much was spent to develop the information technology required to administer the program; and (b) what are the details of all contracts signed in relation to the program, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the amount, (iv) a description of the goods or services, (v) the duration, (vi) whether the contract was awarded through a competitive bid or sole-source process?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1865—
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to the Dimensions program: (a) what is the size of the current team that leads the program; (b) what are the details of the team that leads the program, including (i) the name of all the positions of the current team, (ii) whether any positions have been cut since its inception, (iii) the dates for any positions that were cut; (c) what are the details of the program’s financing, including (i) the cost to administer the program annually, (ii) whether there have been any financial cuts to the program since its inception, (iii) the dates of any cuts, if any; (d) what are all of the accomplishments of the program since its inception; (e) what third-party international organizations have recognized the program since its inception; and (f) what are the details of any external reviews of the program, including (i) the start date of the review, (ii) the end date of the review, (iii) who led the review, (iv) the structure of the review, (v) who specifically was consulted in the review, including, but not limited to, the Chief Science Advisor, granting councils, research networks, research organizations, and all researchers or experts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1866—
Mr. Scott Aitchison:
With regard to military housing and the Canadian Forces Housing Agency, in total and broken down by location: (a) what is the total number of rental housing units of military housing; (b) how many units are currently (i) occupied, (ii) unoccupied and available for rent, (iii) unoccupied and unavailable for rent; (c) outside of routine maintenance, how many units are currently in need of repairs, renovations or upgrades; (d) what are the details of the actions required in (c), including, for each, the description of what is needed and the projected completion date; (e) how many units are currently considered to be in disrepair; and (f) how many of the units in disrepair are currently (i) occupied, (ii) available for rent, (iii) unoccupied and unavailable for rent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1870—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Canada Dental Benefit, broken down by federal electoral district since the program’s inception: (a) what is the total number of applications (i) received, (ii) approved; (b) what is the total dollar value of payments delivered to eligible applicants; and (c) how many children, in total, have been helped by the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1871—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the measures in Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit), concerning GST credits, broken down by federal electoral district: (a) what is the total number of eligible Canadians who saw their GST credits double; and (b) what is the total dollar value of additional GST payments delivered to payees in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1872—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to Canada’s participation in the World Health Organization's (WHO) proposed international treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response: (a) what is the government’s formal position with regard to a proposed legally binding international treaty, and why; (b) what are the details of all documents the government has provided to the WHO or the World Health Assembly (WHA) related to the treaty or the International Health Regulations since July 2022, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; (c) what are the details of Canada’s submission or contribution to the 76th WHA meeting with regard to strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies; (d) which elected and unelected officials led Canada’s delegation at the 2023 WHA meeting, including the number of people in the delegations and their titles and positions; (e) what are the details of Canada’s contributions to the WHO’s Executive Board since May 2022, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; (f) what meetings, including the Global Affairs Canada call on July 11, 2022, have been and will be scheduled for public consultation with Canadians; (g) for each public consultation meeting in (f), what are the details of the meetings, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names and titles of the attendees, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) agenda items, (v) summary of what occurred at the meeting, including anything that was agreed to; (h) does the government have any plans to undertake a formal and public review of Canada’s whole-of-government pandemic response to inform future national pandemic planning, and, if so, what are the details; (i) what input fed into and/or informed the government’s rationale for recommending that the WHO include “other global health threats”, including climate change impacts in the scope of a pandemic instrument; and (j) what criteria did the government envision the WHO would use to determine when climate change impacts would reach a pandemic threshold?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1873—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to Canada's participation in the First Movers Coalition (FMC): (a) what will be the specific obligations and actions undertaken to fulfill its commitments as a partner of the FMC; (b) what are the projected annual expenditures or costs to the government as a result of the government's participation in the (i) current fiscal year, (ii) next fiscal year; (c) what are the details of any policy measures that have been or will be implemented as part of the FMC; (d) what private sector consultation or engagement has the government undertaken thus far, and what are the results of that consultation; (e) has the government signed any contracts or agreements related to its FMC membership or FMC-related commitments, and, if so, what are the details of any such contracts or agreements, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) summary of terms, (iii) vendor, if applicable, (iv) financial value, if applicable, (v) titles of signatories to the agreement or contract; and (f) what FMC meetings have taken place or are currently planned, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) list of invitees, (iii) meeting purpose, (iv) location, (v) agenda?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1874—
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces Reconstitution Directive released in October 2022: what are the details of all briefing notes, placemats, or analysis reports the government has in relation to the directive, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of document, (iii) title, (iv) sender, (v) recipient, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1875—
Mr. Mike Morrice:
With regard to bi-annual compliance reporting required by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) since April 2015, for each Designated Learning Institution (DLI) in Canada, excluding those located in Quebec: (a) what is the total number of international students reported, broken down by DLI, bi-annual reporting period, and student status (i.e. academic break, academic suspension, authorized leave, deferred enrolment, full-time studies, no longer registered/enrolled, no show, not started, part-time studies, program/degree completed, unknown/no record); (b) has IRCC identified any non-genuine or non-compliant international students as a result of the information collected through DLI’s bi-annual compliance reporting; and (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what is the total number of instances of non-genuine or non-compliant international students identified, broken down by DLI and bi-annual reporting period?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1876—
Mr. Arpan Khanna:
With regard to funding provided by the government to organizations for the purpose of advocacy, since 2019, and broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount of funding on advocacy, broken down by year; (b) what are the details of all government programs that fund advocacy or similar activities, such as lobbying, including, for each, the (i) name of the program, (ii) purpose, (iii) annual budget; (c) what are the details of all funding provided through the programs in (b), including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) purpose of the funding; and (d) what are the details of all funding for advocacy or similar types of activities that were not included in the response to (c), including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) purpose of the funding, (v) program under which funding was provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1877—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the ban on the use of TikTok on government devices: (a) what evidence was used as the basis for the ban; (b) who approved the ban; (c) how many security breaches involving TikTok is the government aware of, and what are the details of each breach, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) summary; and (d) what is the timeline for when the ban will either expire or be up for renewal?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1878—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the travel by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the accompanying delegation to the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development in late August 2023: (a) what are the details of the trip, including the (i) names and titles of all attendees, (ii) costs associated with the trip, in total, and broken down by each individual that incurred expenses and the type of expense; and (b) what are the details of each meeting attended by the minister or any member of the Canadian delegation, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) names and titles of attendees, (iv) purpose of the meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1880—
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the Canadian Forces Housing Agency (CFHA): (a) how many people have applied for, but have not yet been placed into, military housing, as of October 24, 2023; (b) within the current 2023-24 fiscal year, how many applicants to the CFHA waited (i) between one and 30 days, (ii) between 31 and 60 days, (iii) between 61 and 90 days, (iv) more than 90 days, between the date of application and the date of placement into military housing; and (c) during the (i) 2020-21, (ii) 2021-22, (iii) 2022-23, fiscal years, what was the greatest number of applicants on the waiting list on any one specific date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1881—
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to violent crimes and the firearms ban that prohibited certain firearms as of May 1, 2020: (a) in the last fiscal year, how many violent crimes, defined by Statistics Canada as “Crimes against the person involve the use or threatened use of violence against a person, including homicide, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and robbery”, involving firearms were committed with firearms that were included in the 2020 ban; (b) of the firearms in (a), (i) how many of the guns' origins could be traced via a serial number, (ii) how many guns' origins were traced back to the United States; and (c) how many violent crimes committed with firearms in the last fiscal year were committed by individuals without proper firearms licensing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1882—
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to Parks Canada expenditures: (a) how much money did Parks Canada spend on (i) gasoline, (ii) diesel fuel, in the last fiscal year; (b) what portion of the total in (a), in dollar amounts, was spent on (i) federal carbon taxes, (ii) provincial carbon taxes; (c) how much money did Parks Canada spend on building heating in the last fiscal year; (d) what portion of the total in (c), in dollar amounts, was spent on (i) federal carbon taxes, (ii) provincial carbon taxes; and (e) what are Parks Canada’s projections on how much more money the clean fuel regulations will add to their total expenditures on (i) gasoline, (ii) diesel fuel, (iii) building heating?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1883—
Mr. Arpan Khanna:
With regard to the Mortgage Loan Insurance Select program offered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, since 2016: (a) what are the details of all projects completed as a result of the program, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) number of units, (iii) value of the project, (iv) date of application, (v) date of approval; and (b) what was the number of units completed each year as a result of the program, including the current year to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1885—
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to expenditures by the government on cannabis intended for veterans: (a) what were the total expenditures on cannabis intended for veterans, broken down by year for the past five years; and (b) what are the details of all contracts that the government has for cannabis intended for veterans since 2018, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) amount of cannabis provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1887—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the design selection of the National Monument to Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan: (a) what surveys did the government conduct to solicit feedback on the monument’s design that were conducted (i) online, (ii) in-person, (iii) by mail; (b) on what date was each survey in (a) conducted; (c) how many respondents to surveys in (a) were (i) veterans of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, (ii) Canadian veterans, (iii) active service members in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), (iv) family members of CAF members or veterans, (v) family members of veterans who served in Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, (vi) members of the general public; (d) how was each survey in (a) communicated with potential respondents, especially with veterans of Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan, their families, and current CAF members; (e) what were the costs associated with each survey in (a), broken down by survey; and (f) what was the reason given by the government as to why survey results would be used to select the monument over the advice of the commemorative advisory committee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1888—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to sexual misconduct complaints within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) for calendar years 2022 and 2023: (a) what is the current total number of complaints received by the (i) chain of command, (ii) Military Police, (iii) Military Police Complaints Commission; (b) of the complaints received in (a), what specific administrative actions were taken, including the (i) initial counselling, (ii) recorded warning, (iii) counselling and probation, (iv) release from the CAF; (c) how many complaints are before a military tribunal; (d) broken down by province or territory, what is the total number of cases that have been transferred to (i) the RCMP, (ii) provincial police forces, (iii) municipal police forces; (e) what is the total number of cases that have been declined or sent back to the military; and (f) of the cases in (d) and (e), what is the average number of days for the relevant jurisdiction to accept or reject the case?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1889—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): (a) since 2017, what are the total expenditures by the CIB on projects that were not completed, indefinitely delayed or otherwise abandoned, including projects announced that never reached the Financial Close stage; (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures in (a) by (i) project name and project partners, (ii) category and type of expenditure; (c) to date, how many (i) unsolicited project proposals has the CIB received, (ii) solicited proposals has the CIB proactively pursued; and (d) of the projects announced to date, how many of those were the result of (i) the CIB seeking those investments out, (ii) unsolicited proposals in which partners sought out CIB investment in their project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1890—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to Canada’s census of agriculture and government information about farmland in Canada: (a) how many farm properties exist, broken down by federal electoral district; (b) how many different entities own agricultural land, broken down by federal electoral district; (c) how many different farm businesses are located in each federal electoral district; (d) what is the total number of acres of farmland in each federal electoral district; and (e) what is the average size of farms, in acres, in each federal electoral district?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1893—
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to the Federal Skilled Worker Program, in the past five years: (a) how many and what percentage of applications exceeded the six months service standard for processing; and (b) of the applications in (a), how many and what percentage took (i) six months to nine months, (ii) nine months to one year, (iii) one year to 18 months, (iv) 18 months to five years, (v) more than five years, to be processed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1894—
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to the Auditor General’s report entitled “Modernizing Information Technology Systems”, in section 7.44: (a) what are details of the 22 high-risk projects monitored by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), including, for each, the (i) name of the department or agency overseeing the project, (ii) project name, (iii) description, (iv) action taken by the government to address the concerns raised in the report; and (b) what are the total expenditures to date, and the project future expenditures of each of the 22-high risk projects monitored by the TBS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1895—
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to the Auditor General’s report entitled “Modernizing Information Technology Systems”, in section 7.50: (a) which departments or agencies have requested funding for “modernization needs” and how much has each one requested; and (b) which departments or agencies were represented by the 83% of Chief Technology Officers that expressed they were not satisfied with the available mechanisms for funding modernization projects?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1897—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities program, broken down by fiscal year and province or territory, since November 2015: (a) what is the annual budget of this program; (b) what are the details of all activities funded by this program, including the (i) community or First Nation that received funding, (ii) amount of funding received, (iii) number of children expected to benefit; (c) how many proposals for funding were denied funding; and (d) what is the total amount of lapsed spending by this program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1898—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Nutrition North program, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount of funding directed towards culturally appropriate retail and community-based nutrition education activities; (b) how many initiatives received funding for the purpose of (i) nutrition workshops, (ii) healthy cooking classes, (iii) in-store sampling of healthy food, (iv) knowledge and skill building related to traditional or country food harvesting and preparation, (v) gardening, (vi) training of community workers, (vii) the development of local nutrition education materials; and (c) what are the details of all initiatives in (b), including the (i) name of the community, organization, or company that received funding, (ii) date the funding was received, (iii) amount of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1899—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Recovery Benefit: (a) how much does the government estimate is owed in repayments; (b) how many individuals owe repayments; (c) how many individuals in (b) reported an income below the low-income cut off on their 2022 income tax return; (d) what is the lowest amount owed; (e) what is the highest amount owed; (f) what is the average amount owed; (g) of the individuals owing money, how many does the government estimate were victims of fraud; (h) of the total estimate amount owed, how much does the government expect to (i) successfully recover, (ii) recover from those whose income is below the low-income cut-off; and (i) how much does the government intend to spend on staff time and resources to recover these debts, broken down by department, agency or other government entity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1900—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB): (a) broken down by province or territory, what is the total number of individuals who have had their government benefits or credits applied to outstanding CERB or CRB debt; (b) of the individuals in (a), what is the total number who have had tax refunds or benefit payments offset to recover debt, broken down by costs recovered from (i) individual tax returns, (ii) the Canada Child benefit, (iii) provincial or territorial child benefits, (iv) GST or HST credits, (v) Canada Disability Benefits, (vi) Climate Action incentive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1902—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s response to the situation in Sudan: (a) how many people have been evacuated from Sudan who are (i) Canadian citizens, (ii) Canadian permanent residents, (iii) family members of Canadian citizens or permanent residents, since April 1, 2023; (b) what special immigration measures has the government implemented for people leaving Sudan; (c) what additional special immigration measures is the government examining or considering for people leaving Sudan; (d) is the government investigating allegations against any Canadian firms relating to their relationships with Sudanese military or paramilitary groups, and, if so, which firms are under investigation; (e) what is the government’s position regarding (i) the presence of the Wagner Group in Sudan, (ii) calls for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist entity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1904—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) posted in Europe: are members of the CAF still being asked to pay for their own meals upfront and then seek reimbursements, and, if so, how many are currently required to do this, in total, and broken down by rank and location of service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1906—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to Canadian citizens detained or incarcerated abroad, in total, and broken down by country of detention or incarceration: (a) how many citizens are detained or incarcerated; (b) how many citizens are detained in circumstances that violate their human rights; (c) how many citizens are detained for offenses that would not be considered offenses if committed in Canada; and (d) how many Canadian detainees is the government seeking to have released?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1907—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Northern Residents Tax Deduction: (a) what is the total number of claimants and the total amount of residency deduction claimed between 2018 and 2022, broken down by province; and (b) what is the total number of claimants and the total amount of residency deduction claimed by residents of Haida Gwaii between 2018 and 2022?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1908—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to federally owned lands in British Columbia: (a) what federally owned lands fall within the municipal boundaries of the (i) City of Terrace, (ii) the District of Kitimat, (iii) Town of Smithers, (iv) City of Prince Rupert; and (b) for each parcel in (a), what is the (i) size in hectares, (ii) current use?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1910—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to Health Canada’s authorization of the Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5 and Spikevax XBB.1.5 vaccines: (a) is there any clinical data demonstrating efficacy of these vaccines, and, if so, what data; (b) is there any clinical data demonstrating safety of these vaccines, and, if so, what data; (c) is there any data suggesting that previously authorized messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines are outdated with respect to currently circulating variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; (d) is there any concern that currently authorized mRNA vaccines will help select for more successful variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; (e) is there any data suggesting that disease-induced immunity is stronger than vaccine-induced immunity from authorized mRNA vaccines for COVID-19; (f) do currently authorized mRNA vaccines prevent COVID-19 infection; (g) do currently authorized mRNA vaccines prevent COVID-19 transmission; and (h) what positive health impact do currently authorized mRNA vaccines have on recipients?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1911—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the government’s policies governing information technology (IT) projects, delivery, and contracting: (a) what policies and procedures are in place to ensure independent assessment and oversight, as well as ensuring value-for-money, on IT projects over $2.5 million; (b) what contract vehicles are in place for departments and agencies to secure the resources needed to perform the procedures in (a); (c) what are the details of each contract related to (b), including, for each, the (i) date the contract came into force, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided; and (d) what were the total expenditures on federal IT (i) infrastructure, (ii) software, (iii) services, (iv) consultants, in each of the last three years, in total and broken down by department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1912—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the government’s approach to information technology (IT): (a) what were the total expenditures on (i) research or IT database subscription services, (ii) benchmarking, (iii) value-assurance services for IT, in total, and broken down by department or agency and by each client department of Shared Services Canada; (b) which companies or stakeholders were consulted when Public Services and Procurement Canada made the decision to eliminate the National Master Standing Offers for Research (IT database subscription services) and Benchmarking for IT services that was previously in place for research and benchmarking services; (c) what are the details of the consultations in (b), including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who was consulted, (iii) the feedback received; (d) what are the details of any outside consultants or service providers that have been involved in the development of a new contracting vehicle for these services, and what are the details of each, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) contract value, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) description of the goods or services provided; (e) how many government employees or full-time equivalents worked on the redesign and consultations; (f) what are the (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, costs associated with the redesign and consultations incurred to date, in total, and broken down by year and type of expense; (g) how many suppliers does the government use for research (IT database subscription services), benchmarking and value-assurance services relating to IT, and who are the suppliers; (h) how many of the suppliers in (g) include retired civil servants from the government; (i) what steps does the government take to ensure these service providers aren’t conflicted through partnerships, alliances, downstream implementation conflicts and other contractual arrangements; (j) how many and which departments and agencies use research (IT database subscription services), benchmarking and value-assurance services; and (k) for each department or agency in (j), what service providers are contracted to provide these services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1913—
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to government funding provided to Greenfield Construction or its subsidiaries: what are the details of all funding, since November 4, 2015, broken down by department or agency, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the type of funding (i.e. repayable loan, grant, contract), (iv) the purpose of funding or the project description, (v) the repayment terms, if applicable, (vi) whether there has been a change order associated with the funding, and, if so, what are the details, including the revised amount of the change order?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1914—
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to government funding provided for projects at or in the vicinity of North Head Harbour on Grand Manan Island, New Brunswick: what are the details of all funding, since November 4, 2015, broken down by department or agency, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the type of funding (i.e. repayable loan, grant, contract), (iv) the purpose of funding or the project description, (v) the repayment terms, if applicable, (vi) whether there has been a change order associated with the funding, and, if so, what are the details, including the revised amount of the change order?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1916—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to VIA Rail Canada: what are the details of all meetings involving the current President and CEO and one or more government officials not employed by VIA Rail Canada, including elected and non-elected officials of all federal, provincial, and municipal governments, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, including if the meeting was in person or virtual, (iii) names and titles of the attendees, (iv) purpose of the meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1917—
Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada and foreign aid funding: (a) what are the details of how much funding was received by (i) the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs funding, (ii) the United Nations Development Programme, (iii) the World Health Organization, (iv) the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, (v) the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, (vi) the World Food Programme, (vii) any other organization that received over $1 million in foreign aid funding in the last fiscal year; (b) for each organization in (a), on what date were they last audited to ensure that their funding was being spent appropriately; and (c) what were the findings of each audit in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1918—
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to efforts by the government to combat illegal fishing by vessels off the British Columbia coast, broken down by year since 2019: (a) how many boats were intercepted for allegedly engaging in illegal fishing; and (b) what are the details of each incident where a vessel was intercepted, including, for each, the (i) name, (ii) country of origin, (iii) location where the vessel was intercepted, (iv) type of alleged illegal fishing, (v) resulting action (i.e. fine, seizure, criminal charges, etc.), (vi) quantity of illegal fish caught, broken down by species?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1920—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to government expenditures on aircraft rentals or charters since December 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on the rental of aircraft; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) dates of rental, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) purpose of the trip, (vi) origin and the destination of flights, (vii) titles of passengers, including which passengers were on which segments of each trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1921—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to Indigenous Services Canada’s funding of the seasonal ferry Aazhaawe that travels between Virginia Beach, Ontario, to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation on Lake Simcoe: (a) how much funding has been provided related to the ferry by Indigenous Services Canada, broken down by year for each of the last five years; and (b) what costs are covered by this funding, including whether (i) fuel costs, (ii) maintenance and repair costs, (iii) operations costs, (iv) other costs, broken down by type, are covered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1924—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) what was the average hourly catch rate, per net, of northern cod, broken down by area for fishing areas 2J, 3K and 3L, in 1988, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, for the commercial and stewardship fisheries; (b) what was the average catch rate, per net, of northern cod, broken down by area for fishing areas 2J, 3K, and 3L, in 1994, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, in the sentinel fishery program; and (c) what is the annual cost to carry out the sentinel cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1994, 2005, 2015, 2020 and 2022?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1926—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to the Auditor General’s report entitled “The Benefits Delivery Modernization Programme”: (a) what were the total expenditures associated with the June 2022 review by the Treasury Board Secretariat; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by line item and type of expense; (c) what were the total expenditures associated with the March 2021 schedule review; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by line item and type of expense; and (e) what were the costs associated with the delays associated with the March 2021 schedule review?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1928—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the export of Canada’s plastic waste under the Basel Convention: (a) what measures are in place to ensure that plastic waste exported without a permit is clean, sorted, and intended for recycling; (b) how many times since January 1, 2021, has the government imposed punitive measures on companies for failing to comply with these requirements; (c) does the government monitor the final country of destination for plastic waste exported to the United States, and, if so, what specific processes are in place to accomplish this; (d) does the government track the exported plastic waste that is (i) covered under export permits, (ii) exempted from the permit process, to determine if this waste is recycled or disposed of safely, and, if so, what specific processes are in place to accomplish this; (e) since November 4, 2015, has the government conducted research to evaluate the potential impact that banning the export of plastic waste would have on stimulating investments in a national circular economy, and, if so, what are the details of this research, including (i) who conducted it, (ii) its methodology, (iii) its findings; and (f) what are the details of each punitive measure in (b), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) name of the company, (iii) type of punitive measure, including the amount fined, (iv) incident summary?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1929—
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to the carbon footprint resulting from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s air travel: (a) what are the details of all trips involving air travel taken by the minister since January 1, 2019, including, for each, the (i) dates, (ii) origin and the destination, (iii) purpose of the trip, (iv) number of travellers accompanying the minister, (v) estimated carbon footprint resulting from the minister’s travel, (vi) estimated carbon footprint resulting from the delegation’s travel, (vii) total expenditures related to the trip, broken down by each traveller and type of expense; and (b) for each trip in (a), were virtual or other options that did not involve air travel considered, and, if so, why were the other options not chosen?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1930—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to federal spending on settlement services and newcomer housing in the electoral district of Winnipeg Centre, broken down by fiscal year since November 2019: (a) what is the amount of federal funding committed for the purpose of (i) settlement services, (ii) newcomer housing; (b) what are the details of all initiatives that received funding, including the (i) name of the organization that received funding, (ii) date the funding was received, (iii) amount of funding; and (c) what is the total amount of lapsed spending?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1931—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to the government’s response to homelessness and tent cities: (a) what are the details of all programs currently in place to deal with homelessness and tent cities; (b) for each program in (a), how much funding is allocated in (i) the current fiscal year, (ii) each of the next five fiscal years; (c) which of the programs in (a) involve funding for addiction treatment and recovery; (d) how is the funding for each program tracked, monitored and audited; and (e) does the government have any quantifiable goals for reducing the number of homeless Canadians, and, if so, what are they, nationally and broken down by region?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1932—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to expenditures on social media influencers, including any contracts which would use social media influencers as part of a public relations campaign, since January 1, 2021: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) campaign description, (iv) date of the contract, (v) name or handle of the influencer; and (b) for each campaign that paid an influencer, was there a requirement to make public, as part of a disclaimer, the fact that the influencer was being paid by the government, and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1934—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s (GLFC) machinery of government interface with the government, its financing and its obligations to Canada under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries Between the United States of America and Canada (1954): (a) from what statute(s) or Act(s) of Parliament does the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard derive the legislative authority to function as the lead minister; (b) does the existing legislative authority of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard negate, alter or eliminate the GLFC Privileges and Immunities Order (originally made under section 3 of the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act and subsumed into section 16 of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act); (c) what are the primary functions and operational limitations of the ministers responsible for the interface functions pursuant to all relevant statutes and regulations; (d) does the Great Lakes Convention Act, or any other statutes, regulations or Acts of Parliament, provide any ministers with the authority to direct the commission or the commission’s routine activities and programming beyond Parliament’s prerogative to approve annual budget allocations to the Commission; (e) what are the implications of paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act for the interaction of Canada with the commission; (f) has Canada’s annual financial allocation to the commission been “fenced” as described by the Department of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard (DFO) officials during their testimony on June 8, 2023, to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO); (g) what is the precise nature, structure and limitations of the “fencing” structure described by DFO officials during testimony on June 8, 2023, to the FOPO; (h) what sources, officials, or departments would possess the authority to alter, reverse or eliminate the financial “fencing” described by DFO officials during their testimony on June 8, 2023, to FOPO; (i) who or what body is the Canadian Contracting Party as described under Article II; (j) what is the role of Parliament with regard to supervision, directing and oversight of the activities and programming of the commission; (k) if the Contracting Party is not Parliament, what is the role of Parliament with regard to the supervision, direction and oversight of the Contracting Party; (l) does the existing legislative framework provide the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard with the authority to administer the Great Lakes Fishery Convention Act or does the legislative framework provide specific ministerial authority, and, if so, what is the precise nature and limit of that authority; (m) does the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries Between the United States of America and Canada (1954) stipulate that commissioners are representatives of the Contracting Parties, and, if so, does this stipulation provide commissioners with the authority to represent Canada at Commission meeting and events; and (n) does the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries Between the United States of America and Canada (1954) provide for a specific authority for any minister(s) to directly represent Canada at commission meetings and events?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1935—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the housing crisis and affordable housing in Canada: (a) will the government commit to the recommendations of the Canadian Real Estate Association to (i) create a permanent national housing roundtable to bring together housing stakeholders in order to address the housing crisis through an inclusive, holistic approach that emphasizes collaboration, innovation and policy coordination, (ii) leverage federal infrastructure funding with municipal, provincial and territorial partners requiring the creation of more housing supply, (iii) develop a housing workforce immigration strategy to attract tradespeople from abroad while streamlining the immigration process for qualified professionals willing to work in the construction industry; and (b) how much funding for affordable housing has been distributed to the City of Windsor, Ontario, through federal government programs over the last five years, from January 1, 2018, through present, including (i) what federal funding programs were applied for, (ii) the amount of funding distributed, (iii) the list of specific projects funded, (iv) whether the funding was in the form of grants or loans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1939—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) funding for Indigenous housing in Edmonton, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what are the details of all funding applications received, including the (i) name of the requester, (ii) amount requested, (iii) status of the application, (iv) amount of funding granted, (v) progress on the project; (b) what actions has the CMHC undertaken to make it easier for Indigenous housing providers to apply for funding; (c) does the CMHC record data on potential applications who have abandoned projects because of burdensome or overly complicated application procedures, and, if so, what indicators does the CMHC use to make the process easier; and (d) what is the CMHC doing to ensure that Indigenous housing providers, such as Tribal Chiefs Ventures Inc., are not encumbered by debt when co-investing in Indigenous housing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1940—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to the Post-Secondary Student Support Program, broken down by fiscal year since 2008-09 and by province or territory: (a) what are the details of all funding arrangements made with Indigenous governments and organizations concerning this program, including the (i) name of the First Nations or First Nations-designated organization, (ii) amount of funding to cover eligible expenses for students, (iii) number of students who received support; and (b) what is the total annual expenditure by the government on this program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1941—
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to contract work performed for the Canadian Border Services Agency, since November 2015, and broken down by fiscal year: (a) what is the total number of contracts awarded to (i) GCStrategies, (ii) Dalian Enterprises Inc., (iii) Coradix Technology Consulting, (iv) Moravej Inc., (v) 10583308 Canada Inc.; (b) what are the details of all contracts in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of amendments to the initial contract; and (c) what is the total number of government employees who reviewed, processed and approved each contract in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-441-1862 Firearms Buyback Program8555-441-1865 Dimensions program8555-441-1866 Military housing and Canad ...8555-441-1870 Canada Dental Benefit8555-441-1871 GST credits8555-441-1872 World Health Organization8555-441-1873 First Movers Coalition8555-441-1874 Canadian Armed Forces Reco ...8555-441-1875 Immigration, Refugees and ...8555-441-1876 Government funding for advocacy8555-441-1877 TikTok ban ...Show all topics
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House for the last time, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.
I hope that territorial recognition will soon be included at the opening of the House every day.
Some members, especially my karaoke friends, might have thought that I would start by singing my best karaoke version of Wind Beneath My Wings and then dedicate it to all the staff, volunteers and colleagues, or maybe I would just reiterate my advice to women in politics: no high heels and never check a bag. I hope members are not disappointed.
I have now represented the engaged citizens of Toronto—St. Paul's for more than 26 years. It is longer than I practised medicine, and next year will be my 50th anniversary of graduating from medicine, “class of 7T4”, U of T. When I got to my 18th year in Parliament, I joked that the over 2,000 babies I had delivered could now all vote. I promise that was never the long-term strategy of “the doctor delivers”.
After being a family doctor for over 20 years and our successful fight for the independence of Women's College Hospital, I had an unsuccessful run in provincial politics in 1995. I remember that when I was first asked to run, I answered that I know nothing about politics. The response was, “What do you think you just did? Saving Women's College Hospital was politics.”
Whenever I visit the grade 5 classrooms, I ask the students why anyone would leave the respected profession of medicine to become a politician, which is one of the least-respected callings there is. Sometimes after much discussion, there is an answer that makes me smile: “You wanted to make a difference. You wanted to help more people.” As difficult as it was to make a decision to leave my patients, I have never regretted the choice.
I have loved the work here in Parliament, but also the inspiration of the Toronto—St. Paul's community: the farmers' markets at Wychwood Barns and Little Jamaica; the transformation of the Spadina Museum and Casa Loma to better reflect the diversity of Toronto, ensuring that everyone feels included. I love walking in the ravines, along the Beltline Trail and being stopped by neighbours with great suggestions for building a better and fairer community, country and a sustainable planet; working on the Toronto—St. Paul's summits with Josh Matlow and Shelley Laskin; and conspiring at Aroma with my Yonge and Eglinton MP neighbours, the member for Don Valley West and the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. I am grateful to William Watson, who has been my riding president for over a decade, for his leadership, friendship and invaluable editorial skills, especially grammar and punctuation.
As an MP, like a doctor, every day we are learning something new and helping people. In 1995, when introducing Liberal leader Lyn McLeod at a campaign event in downtown Toronto, I defined leadership as vision, values and risk-taking. I still believe that. Leadership is not defending the status quo. We have all come to this place to build an even better Canada. I am proud that from the very first day I stepped onto Parliament Hill as an MP, I have profoundly understood the responsibility and the privilege of being part of a small group of Canadians who steer the direction of the best country in the world. That has not changed in over 26 years. Every day, I come to this place still acutely aware of my responsibility to do the best I can to support the policies that are good for the most people or the people who need it most.
In 1997, I knew that I had been elected in a bellwether riding: Roland Michener, Ian Wahn, Ron Atkey, John Roberts, again Ron Atkey, John Roberts, Barbara McDougall and Barry Campbell.
I decided that I needed to take my family doctor's understanding of patient as partner into my my new role as an elected representative and have it shape a respectful two-way relationship with the people I was representing. The parallel was important. As a doctor, I would ask what was wrong, I would listen and then together with the patient we would make a plan. The patient knew their body best. I knew the system best. It was a partnership, with the sum greater than the parts.
From the beginning, it was clear that the people I represented knew what was working and what was not, and they so often had impressive advice and solutions.
I took Jane Jacobs' advice that good public policy comes when the decision-makers can keep in their mind's eye the people affected.
I also learned from Professor Stephen Coleman, the British expert on citizen engagement, that citizens do not want to govern, but they do want to know that they have been heard. I learned from my friend Richard Allan, now in the Lords at Westminster, on the potential of e-democracy.
Over the past few months, I have been sorting through many boxes. There are boxes from my early years in this House as chair of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities, chair of the Canada-Israel parliamentary friendship group, chair of the women's caucus twice, minister of state for public health, and in opposition, my various critic roles. From 2011 to 2015 was a life-changing experience, as Bob Rae appointed me the critic for indigenous affairs. There were boxes from my cabinet roles in this government.
I found that the biggest box by far dealt with the ongoing theme of democratic reform. Democratic reform to me has always included four things: parliamentary reform, party reform, electoral reform and meaningful citizen engagement. The last one I call democracy between elections. It became my brand. I actually found another box at the cottage. It was research and outline for a book I began 10 years ago, “Democracy between elections: a politician's guide to listening and a citizen's guide to being heard”. I may have to get back to that.
I have had the benefit of a posse of inspiring feminists who have kept the titanium in my spine: the late Doris Anderson, Ursula Franklin and Monique Bégin. The status quo was not okay.
Ursula helped me understand that government must be fair, transparent and take people seriously. She warned that if we were not fair, transparent and respectful of what people had to say in our small organizations and in our political parties, why would anybody think we would govern in a serious representative democracy?
Doris, who was chair of Fair Vote Canada, often asked if my support for electoral reform was a career-limiting move.
Monique and my constituent, the late John Turner, were always in our corners as MPs to make sure our voices were heard. As we know, Monique and her posse of députés had been responsible for getting MPs offices in their ridings instead of just on Parliament Hill.
In 2006, I ran for the party leadership on a platform of the urgent need for party reform. I said that we had to do things differently. No longer could we act as though we were the natural governing party. I was proud when the late Star journalist, Jim Travers, characterized my candidacy as “the reformer”.
We need to remove the barriers to women in politics, the nomination processes and fundraising. We need to listen to the riding associations from coast to coast to coast, not just in those ridings that are considered to be winnable. Parliamentary reform will require MPs to take a less partisan approach, especially at parliamentary committees.
The analysts at the Library of Parliament do an amazing job. We need to do everything we can to have unanimous reports, as Bill Young did with us when we had the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. Unanimous reports inform government of a consensus reached because all the members listened to the witnesses and were able to distill recommendations that would chart a way forward.
Committees need to travel more. They need to get out across the country to be available to hear first-hand the points of view of the regions. In my experience, committee travel was where colleagues in Parliament got to know one another across party lines and find out that we actually liked one another, with maybe a few exceptions.
Committee travel is also where we hear the stories we need to know and harvest solutions to the problems Canadians face every day. We also must insist on proper disaggregated data in all formal policy-making exercises. Stories and data; we need them both in order to deliver in our work Canada's core value: fairness.
I hope that wherever the privilege of being an MP has taken me, I have been there to listen and learn. In order to do the best for Canada, MPs can not only represent their own ridings and understand their own regions; they also need to understand the challenges we face from coast to coast to coast. From Cape Spear to Haida Gwaii, and from Grise Fiord to Point Pelee, our complex federal system requires MPs to have a deep understanding of the needs and aspirations of every region of this country.
I used to think that inclusive decision-making was a feminist value. I later learned that it was actually indigenous. Haudenosaunee women advised the first wave of North American feminists about the principles of indigenous leadership of asking, not telling, and how to work in a circle where everyone gets to speak.
People may find that there is already a consensus or that people are asking for more information before they are prepared to weigh in on a decision.
I have learned so much from extraordinary indigenous women. My fondest memories are of berry picking with Mary Simon in Kuujjuaq, tea with Maria Campbell at Gabriel's Crossing in Saskatchewan and ceremony with Sylvia Maracle at her office in Toronto. So many first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and young people have been there to teach and correct my mistakes.
I have described seven settler learnings, which could help all of us join on the journey of humility and reconciliation. What if we had listened to the first peoples and respected their imperative of protecting mother earth, thinking seven generations out? What if we understood the important teachings of the medicine wheel, focused on keeping people well, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, rather than relying on the medical repair shop model that I was taught in medical school? What if we were to practise the indigenous pedagogy of learning by doing, so that the land and the water themselves were the teachers of biology, chemistry and physics? What if we respected our elders instead of dismissing the elderly, if we listened to wise women and if we put children first in all decisions? What if we practised the indigenous leadership of asking, not telling? We can imagine these things.
The foundation of our democracy is that great people will run for public office. I have had the privilege of persuading many great women and indigenous people to run. Some were elected. All affirmed the importance of our democratic institutions by leaving jobs they loved and spending time away from their families in order to campaign for the opportunity to contribute to making this country even better than it is now.
I am a feminist and a politician. I look forward to a day where neither “feminist” nor “politician” is treated like a four-letter word. I am so proud to have served under this feminist Prime Minister, whose vision and values inspire us all. He has always been a leader, not a boss. He has always demonstrated that he knows that good ideas can come from many places. He is curious. He listens. He walks the talk of hope and hard work. He has always had my back. Every day, he shows us that better is indeed always possible.
In election campaigns, it has been important for me to explain that the Prime Minister is a true leader, not a boss. Leaders see themselves at the centre of a circle. Bosses see themselves at the top of a pyramid, barking orders, in their singular view, to those below. “Father knows best” has never worked. The Prime Minister has vision and values, and he can take risks. I am proud that we have been able to implement the ambitious risk-taking platform of 2015, even the legalization of cannabis.
We have changed history, but I am worried. Cynicism is at an all-time high. Voter turnout is down. The safety of parliamentarians is under threat. I truly believe that it is essential for us to re-engage in a meaningful way with citizens. Consultation that is shallow or not genuine is bad for democracy. It fuels cynicism. People are turned off by it, and then they tune out. People either believe that we get better policy when we include the views of those who will be affected by the policy, or they do not. If they do not, if they already think they know everything, then they should not waste people's time. Cynicism is also being fuelled by the ideology that proclaims that all government is bad and all politicians are bad or useless; it asks, “Why bother to vote at all?” It is wise to remember that the perma-mad people always vote.
We need to acknowledge that democracy is fragile. We should tackle, as a priority, the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, as well as the toxicity and anonymity of social media. There are ways to protect or immunize people from the onslaught of mis- and disinformation. People's ability to perform critical appraisal is heightened by greater civic literacy, health literacy, mental health literacy and digital literacy.
However, we must be concerned about more than mis- and disinformation. We cannot ignore that those who were once only keyboard warriors are now actually throwing stones and vandalizing, as well as threatening people in person. The safety of parliamentarians and those groups that are most often victims of hate and discrimination is at risk. At this dangerous time for democracy, it is important to remember the teaching of Ursula Franklin: Good government must be “fair, transparent and take people seriously.”
People are truly worried about so many aspects of our world today: the economy, the environment, their future and their children's well-being and opportunity. We need to let people know their concerns are being heard and taken into account, and we need to explain government decision-making in ways that will make sense.
As I look back, I remember how devastated I was in 2006 when we lost. We lost Kyoto, kids and Kelowna. The progress on climate change, child care and reconciliation were instantly rolled back. We had to fight back, and we did. I am proud now that Canada has made serious advances on climate change, child care and reconciliation.
As minister responsible for public health, the TRC calls to action, MMIWG and later mental health and addictions, I hope I have been able to help government bust through the silos and address complex issues across all government departments. I believe there is a role for government in people's lives. Our complex federal system requires real relationships among all orders of government, municipal, provincial and territorial, federal and indigenous, in order to deliver effective supports and services to the people who need them most.
In closing, I want to thank Barry Campbell for asking me to run in 1997. I want to thank the wind beneath my wings for 26 years, the EAs: Michael Spowart, Rob White and Tricia Geddes. They all came back to work in my office when I was minister of state for public health in 2003. Lynne Steele, Rick Theis, Sarah Welch and Carlene Campbell put together teams that shared our vision and values of accessibility and democracy between elections. They were always able to give fearless advice.
These are amazing teams, and I want to thank every single one of them. They continue to work on this truly important project of democracy. Thank yous are dangerous; I do not want to leave people out. Today I wanted to thank those who have travelled with me for almost a quarter century: Mary Eberts, Bill Young, Philippe Bussy, Michel Amar, Frank Graves, Jim Anderson, Robin Sears, Susan Delacourt, Don Lenihan, Anna and Paul Brehl, Constance Backhouse, Karen Breeck, Nora Spinks, Terry Hancock, Margo Greenwood, Will Falk, Stan Kutcher and, of course, Paul Martin and Bob Rae.
Today especially, I miss Bill Graham and Andy Scott.
I am so grateful to all my colleagues here. Many of my friends outside politics have paid me the biggest compliment, saying that being elected did not change me. I am still Carolyn, or Dr. Carolyn to some.
I want to thank my French teachers Géraldine, here in Ottawa, and Michel and Huguette from Logibec, in Quebec City, as well as my host family, René Courchesne and Claro Picard.
Their love for the beauty of the French language and culture was absolutely contagious.
Peter O'Brian is the best political spouse in the world. When graduating from college, he put “support a politician” on his bucket list. I am not sure he meant sharing these decades of ups and downs. Once, while canvassing, he asked at the door of a household in our neighbourhood if the resident wished to meet the candidate. He was told, “I would rather have my eyeballs taken out with fish hooks.” He quickly moved to become sign chair.
As all my colleagues in the House present and past know all too well, an MP's family has lots of these fish-hook moments over the years, of all different types, intensities and durations. I am grateful for the love of my sons, Jack and Ben, and the sacrifices they have made, happily and unhappily, to allow me to serve Canada as I have for over a quarter century.
For 26 years, I have been able to honestly reply to the critics with a question: “What country would you rather live in?” For 26 years, the answer has been the same, which is a moment of silence and then an acknowledgement that as much work as there still is to do, we are proud Canadians. I have never heard one word of other country envy.
I will miss my amazing parliamentary colleagues. I think we remember that moment in the House this fall when President Zelenskyy from Ukraine quoted Governor General Mary Simon with a word in Inuktitut: “ajuinnata”. As he said, it means “Don't give up. Stay strong against all odds”.
In these difficult times, I have every confidence that we will continue to fight together to make the best country in the world even better.
Merci. Meegwetch. Thank you. Ajuinnata.
View Patrick Weiler Profile
Lib. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, exactly five years ago today, Parliament passed the Cannabis Act, legalizing access to recreational cannabis in Canada. It created a $43.5-billion boost to our GDP, 98,000 jobs and over $1.2 billion a year in tax revenue to the provincial and federal governments.
It also created a regulated cannabis market that protects public health and has not increased youth consumption of cannabis or realized any of the other fears that were raised in the debate in this place. Rather, legalization has meant that people no longer get criminal records for simply possessing cannabis, which unjustly constrained the ability of Canadians to secure housing, employment and travel for many decades.
Canada became a world leader by legalizing cannabis in 2018, but our experience since shows that we must continue to work on the legal framework to maintain our advantage. We need to reform the regulatory structure that is causing significant challenges to the industry and those who would consider joining it. We need to improve enforcement to displace the ever-existing illegal market and facilitate the expungement of records for those who have been criminalized in the past. As this legislation is reviewed, I look forward to working with all members in this place to bring these and other changes into effect.
View Rob Morrison Profile
CPC (BC)
View Rob Morrison Profile
2023-10-04 16:00 [p.17246]
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from the residents of Parsons, British Columbia. Citizens from Parsons and across Canada call upon the government to include outdoor cannabis farming emissions as part of the 2023 Cannabis Act review and to require Health Canada to set rules for emission controls for outdoor cannabis farming.
View Stephen Ellis Profile
CPC (NS)
View Stephen Ellis Profile
2023-09-25 12:31 [p.16863]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here and represent the folks in our country who suffer from mental health issues. Bill C-323 is a common-sense initiative. We know very clearly that the Liberal government has failed to support the mental health of Canadians, even though we know this is a burgeoning issue.
We know very clearly, from statistics, that more than 6.7 million Canadians are affected by mental health issues. By age 40, which we have heard before, almost one in two Canadians will have suffered with a mental health diagnosis. Sadly, the Liberal government, in its multiple failures, has failed to honour the $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer that it announced in platform 2021. It has never been allocated.
The difficulty with that is it was a much-lauded announcement about how the Liberals were going to look after the mental health of Canadians. It was very sanctimonious with much pomp and circumstance. Of course, Canadians were, once again, left disappointed with the Liberal government's lack of action. It is very good at making announcements and very poor at doing things.
We know very clearly that there is a significant cost to the economy when we speak about the effects of mental health. We know, from The Centre of Addiction and Mental Health, that nearly 500,000 Canadians are prevented each week from attending work due to mental health issues. It also notes on its website that the cost of leave due to mental health is nearly double the cost of physical health problems.
Finally, I would point out that the cost to the Canadian economy is almost $51 billion per year when direct health care costs, lost productivity, and reductions in mental health and quality of life are taken into consideration.
The other thing, which is a very sad issue, is that nearly 4,000 Canadians die by suicide every year. On average, that is 11 Canadians every day. The other thing we know is that people with mental illness are more than twice as likely to have a substance use problem than those who do not. We know clearly, as these are things we have heard in this House many times, that almost 20 Canadians are dying every day due to overdose.
A third of Canadians over the age of 15 report having unmet mental health needs. We know, from the report that Statistics Canada released September 22 about mental disorders and access to mental health care, that this is clearly an issue for Canadians and it is something that needs to be addressed.
We already know that 6.7 million people have difficulties with their mental health. This report states that nearly five million people meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, cannabis use disorder and other substance use disorders.
More Canadians met the criteria for a mood or anxiety disorder in 2022 than in 2012. The prevalence has basically doubled. I sense a theme here. Perhaps there is a connection to mortgage costs, rental costs, food costs and heating costs, all of which have doubled under the Liberal government.
Sadly, only half of those with a mood, anxiety or substance use disorder have spoken to a health care professional. In the words of this report, disparities in coverage for counselling services will need to be addressed.
This bill may need minor additions, and certainly I am open to having those amendments made at committee. I urge members to support Bill C-323 for the sake of the 20% of Canadians struggling with mental health issues at this current time.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1487—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the government's Black-tailed Prairie Dogs recovery program and to the designation of the prairie dog as an endangered species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: (a) what is the population threshold that must be met for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog to no longer be considered an endangered species; (b) when listing the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as an endangered species, does the government consider (i) the large population of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs outside of Canada, (ii) that southern Saskatchewan is only the northern tip of a much larger and more expansive habitat which runs through the continental United States and down to Mexico; (c) if the government does not take the factors in (b) into account, why not; (d) how much funding was allocated to research and programming for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog recovery program since 2021; (e) what parameters are put in to determine the success of the recovery program; (f) what progress has been made; and (g) has the implementation of the program had any adverse effects on (i) private property in the vicinity of Grasslands National Park, (ii) other wildlife within Grasslands National Park?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, is listed as threatened on schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act, as recommended by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Its status is based on the threat of increased drought and sylvatic plague, which are expected to cause significant population declines if they occur frequently. Drought is expected to increase in frequency due to a changing climate. Although most of the Canadian population of the species is within Grasslands National Park, it is isolated and has no connectivity between or with other populations, all of which are in the United States. The national recovery of species at risk is determined based on whether population and distribution objectives are met as outlined in federal recovery strategies. The population and distribution objectives can be found in the Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Canada, found on the following web page: https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/plans/Rsap-Btpd-v00-2021Aug-Eng1.pdf
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada status assessments are determined by using quantitative criteria that are based on International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List criteria. Reaching a particular population threshold alone will not reduce the level of risk for the black-tailed prairie dog in Canada in part because they are found in a single small area and are isolated from the nearest populations found in the United States, thus the entire Canadian population could be critically impacted by threats.
With regard to part (b), when the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which is an arm’s length group of experts, assesses species in Canada, it examines neighbouring populations. It considers whether the other population can “rescue” the Canadian population. Rescue can only take place if individuals from the foreign population can join the Canadian one. In this case, the nearest United States black-tailed prairie dog colony was too far away to do so.
Canada applies the Species at Risk Act found at https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/ with the goal of maintaining our country’s biodiversity, recognizing that the rate at which wildlife disappears from our planet will only be slowed if the world’s governments take responsibility for the species within their own borders.
With regard to part (c), yes, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and the federal government considered these things before identifying that this species’ status under schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act should be changed from special concern to threatened.
With regard to part (d), from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023, approximately $129,000 was spent.
With regard to part (e), the Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Canada, posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html in 2021, identifies the population and distribution objectives that will assist in the recovery of the species, and actions that can be taken to reach these objectives. A report on the progress towards meeting these objectives is required under section 46 of the Species at Risk Act and will be posted on the Species at Risk Registry in 2026.
With regard to part (f), progress towards the recovery of black-tailed prairie dogs within Grasslands National Park, and recovery measures that were implemented from 2016 to 2021, is outlined in the Implementation Report: Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park, found at https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/Rprdi-PnpGnp-v00-2021Dec-Eng.pdf.
With regard to part (g)(i), Parks Canada is unable to comment on any adverse effects on private property in the vicinity of Grasslands National Park, in part because we do not have any information on the distribution or numbers of prairie dogs found outside the national park boundary.
With regard to part (g)(ii), Black-tailed prairie dogs are a keystone species in the prairie ecosystem. Their benefits to the ecosystem are numerous, and include aerating the soil, providing habitat and burrows for other species such as burrowing owls, endangered, and prairie rattlesnake, special concern. Their burrows provide refuge for birds, amphibians and small mammals from predators and extreme seasonal temperatures. Sustainable black-tailed prairie dog populations are also critical, as identified within the Recovery Strategy for the Black-footed Ferret in Canada, as a species that is currently extirpated from Canada, listed as endangered in the United States and classified as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Black-tailed prairie dogs are food for predators including coyotes, badgers, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, and red-tailed hawks. Adverse impacts of black-tailed prairie dogs have not been extensively studied; however, the implementation of dusting colonies on a rotational basis to manage sylvatic plague can have negative impacts on local invertebrate and amphibian communities.

Question No. 1488—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the government’s response to the decision by the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST) that recommends to transplant centers and to provincial health transplant programs to deny transplants to individuals who have not received their COVID-19 vaccine: did the Minister of Health or anyone acting on behalf of the government suggest or advise this course of action to the CST or any transplant center and, if so, what are the details, including (i) who provided the suggestion or the advice, (ii) the date, (iii) the summary of suggestion or advice?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the National Transplant Consensus Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccine was written by the Canadian Society of Transplantation’s transplant infections disease group, reviewed by its ethics committee and endorsed by the board of directors. The Government of Canada was not involved in these guidelines.
The published document National Transplant Consensus Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccine lays out the reasons that patients should be vaccinated against COVID-19 prior to organ transplantation. Many transplant programs had already adopted this policy in principle. By way of the guidelines, the CST formalized the policy, while acknowledging that there may be cases where exemptions should be considered.
These guidelines do not recommend that transplant programs deny organ transplants to individuals who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19.
In Canada, health care is provincially administered, which may contribute to the degree of heterogeneity in ways the guidelines have been applied.

Question No. 1490—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the government’s deal with Volkswagen to build a plant in St. Thomas, Ontario, and the Prime Minister’s claim that “There were places in the United States that were putting up way, way more money than we put on the table”: (a) which specific places was the Prime Minister aware of that made such offers; (b) through what sources did the government become aware of each of such offer; (c) how much more money did each place in (a) offer, broken down by location; (d) for each offer in (c), what non-monetary measures were included with the offer; and (e) what non-monetary measures did the government offer Volkswagen?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has committed to facilitating the industrial transformation of the automotive sector to a net-zero future and taking the actions needed to remain competitive. The specific details sought were obtained in confidence during commercial negotiations and cannot be disclosed. The PowerCo. investment is a testament to Canada’s strong value proposition, including its highly skilled workforce, clean energy, abundance of critical minerals, access to markets, and a flourishing automotive and battery sector.

Question No. 1491—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) enforcement related to elver poaching in Nova Scotia since January 1, 2023: (a) how many individuals have DFO authorities charged or taken other enforcement action against; and (b) what are the details of each incident where an enforcement action was taken, including the (i) date, (ii) description of what occurred, (iii) number of individuals having had an enforcement action taken against them, (iv) location, (v) enforcement action taken, including whether any arrests were made or charges laid, (vi) items that were seized, if applicable?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, from January 1 to June 8, fishery officers in Nova Scotia have conducted patrols of known elver harvesting sites across the province that resulted in 68 arrests and the seizure of 122 fyke nets, 104 dip nets and six vehicles. During this time, the abovementioned arrests and seizures were related to fishing without an authorization from Fisheries and Oceans Canada or for fishing contrary to a fisheries management order.
As these matters are under investigation, no further details will be provided at this time.

Question No. 1492—
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to action planned by the Minister of Transport to lower airline ticket prices and fees to improve the competitiveness of prices of flights departing from Canadian airports in close proximity to the United States: what action, if any, is the minister planning to take and on what date will such action occur?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes that Canadians rely on air transport more than many other countries to conduct business and connect with friends and family. Air transport also provides essential goods and services to regional and remote communities. Air transport in Canada is provided in the context of the country’s vastness and thinly distributed population, which make economies of scale more difficult to generate than other jurisdictions such as the United States, particularly with regard to many small, northern or otherwise remote communities.
Due to Canada's geography and the location of some of Canada's major airports, the catchment areas for the large airports sometimes overlap with those of the smaller U.S. airports located close to the border. Large Canadian airports often provide a wider range of services and attract passengers from small U.S. airports, which offer a limited range of services. Overall, some travellers may find it more convenient to cross the border to access certain services depending on the services being offered by the airlines at that airport.
Canada’s air carriers and airport authorities are private-sector companies, and, as such, make their own business decisions in order to remain viable and competitive. In Canada, the frequency of flights, the services offered and the prices charged by airlines are determined based on market forces. The government does not regulate air fares, and all airlines are free to set their prices in accordance with their business plans. Other factors contributing to air ticket prices include fluctuating currency rates, fuel prices and interest rates. Federal policy encourages competition between air carriers, which is ultimately the best way to establish a fair price for a service.
Similarly, airports are economically deregulated, and major airports are operated by private, not-for-profit airport authorities that are solely responsible for the operation, management and development of their airports, and that includes setting the fees that enable them to recover their costs. Like the rest of the industry, airport fees are economically deregulated. The federal government does not set or control the fees airports charge. The same applies to Nav Canada, the private corporation that provides air navigation services in Canada. It charges airlines for its services on a per flight basis, and Nav Canada's fees are also not subject to government controls.
Nevertheless, the government has introduced and will continue to introduce legislation and regulations that promote a healthy and competitive air sector. More specifically, the Transportation Modernization Act encouraged increased competition in the Canadian market by, among other things, allowing more foreign investment in Canadian air carriers. This measure should have positive impacts on competition and, ultimately, the prices paid by Canadian travellers. In addition, there are more ultra-low-cost carriers now than before the pandemic, which will provide Canadians with more low-cost options.
The government also supported the air carriers through the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure that services remain available to Canadians. While some large air carriers availed themselves of financial assistance under the large employer emergency financing facility, the government also provided funding to ensure continuity of essential air access to remote communities through bilateral agreements with provinces and territories under the remote air service program, which supported the provision of essential levels of air services to remote communities and complemented existing funding mechanisms for air carriers. The regional air transportation initiative was also created as part of Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan to provide support over two years to eligible regional businesses, including air carriers that directly contribute to regional air transportation, and was designed to help ensure that regional air connectivity and services, which are critical to economic growth, are maintained and that regional routes are reconnected across the country. Finally, air carriers were also able to avail themselves of programs of general application such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy.
Please be reassured that Transport Canada continues to work with a range of air industry participants, the organizations that represent them and other government departments to assess appropriate options to support Canada’s air transport sector generally, thereby ensuring that Canadians have the services they need at a reasonable cost.

Question No. 1493—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Order Amending Schedules 2 and 3 of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 155, Number 25: (a) has the consultation period length to receive feedback on the proposed regulations ended; (b) what is the timeline for the government to decide on final regulations for flavoured vaping products; and (c) is the government still committed to reducing youth vaping rates through a targeted ban on flavours, including mint and menthol, that appeal to youth?
Response
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the consultation period for the proposed order closed on September 2, 2021. Health Canada received over 25,000 submissions and continues to assess the input it received from Canadians.
The Government of Canada remains committed to preventing youth vaping and has taken a number of measures to that effect. The Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, TVPA, prohibits the sale of vaping products to young persons and bans advertising that could be appealing to young persons. The TVPA also contains certain restrictions with regard to flavours to help protect young persons from enticement to use vaping products. Confectionery, dessert, cannabis, soft drink and energy drink are flavours that cannot be promoted or sold in relation to vaping products labelling, promotion or packaging.
Three sets of regulations came into effect between 2020 and 2021, the vaping product labelling and packaging regulations, the nicotine concentration in vaping products regulations and the vaping products promotion regulations. The labelling and packaging regulations require a standardized nicotine concentration statement and a health warning about the addictiveness of nicotine as well as a toxicity warning. The nicotine concentration regulations cap nicotine at 20 mg/mL of liquid. The vaping promotion regulations prohibit advertising and display of vaping products at retail locations, including online, that can be seen by youth.
Health Canada continues its efforts to improve compliance with TVPA provisions on youth access to vaping products and promotions. In fiscal year 2022-23, for example, these efforts included inspecting 1,180 vaping product retailers and seizing non-compliant products at 177 establishments; and conducting inspections of 255 online vaping product retailers and issuing 230 warning letters.
With respect to public education, Health Canada has invested more than $14 million to date in its “consider the consequences of vaping” campaign, which seeks to inform youth and their parents about the risks and harm associated with vaping. The campaign includes traditional and online advertising, as well as interactive learning tours in schools.
Finally, a new federal excise duty on vaping products came into effect on October 1, 2022. Health Canada is committed to working closely with the Department of Finance to ensure that Canada’s product taxation policy is consistent with the government’s health objectives. The Government of Canada will monitor the impacts of the excise duty to ensure its intended benefits are being achieved.
Protecting the health and safety of youth is a top priority.

Question No. 1494—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Skills for Success Program launched in May 2021, broken down by funding stream: (a) what are the details of all applications that have received funding, including the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) amount received, (iii) under-represented labour group represented; (b) on what dates were applicants informed of whether they were approved for funding; and (c) what metrics does the government use to measure the literacy, numeracy, and digital skills targeted through the program?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ESDC reviewed all grants and contribution programs by conducting data searches within the common system for grants and contributions, CSGC, as well as through conducting internal consultations.
With regard to part (a), the skills for success, SFS, program launched a new model in May 2021. Following this, the department developed an investment strategy that included five investment approaches: the expansion of some existing projects; the funding of 12 unsolicited proposals that met the objectives of the program; a solicited call for organizations that was launched in 2021; a solicited call for provinces and territories that was launched in 2021; and a call for proposals, CFP, that was launched in January and closed in March 2022. The first three of the intake approaches are complete and all projects stemming from those approaches are now advancing. Funding decisions for the final two approaches are being finalized, i.e., projects are still being assessed. Therefore, a full list of applications that have received funding with additional details cannot yet be provided.
With regard to part (b), on the CFP specifically, funding decisions are being communicated at varying times, depending on whether proposals sought to support persons with disabilities, racialized Canadians or Canadians from one or more of the other identified underserved groups. As a result, some organizations have received a funding decision under the training and tools or research and innovation streams of the CFP; however, final notifications are expected to be fully confirmed by early summer 2023.
With regard to part (c), the SFS program uses the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies survey data results to help guide policy direction for the program. This survey includes measures of literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments on a scale of 1 to 5.

Question No. 1501—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the re-negotiated terms and conditions of the Canadian North and First Air merger announced on April 21, 2023: (a) what is the current average passenger load for each route over the last six months; (b) what were the average annual fares for each route (i) at the time the merger was approved, (ii) as of May 3, 2023; and (c) how will the government protect passengers from rate increases for airfare and cargo rates?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), the requested information is confidential due to its commercial nature.
With regard to part (c), as per the new agreement, Canadian North must limit average annual regional fare increases for both passenger and cargo transportation to 25% per region within a calendar year unless it can be demonstrated to the Minister of Transport that this limit would result in operational losses to the company. Further, the 10% profit cap on all scheduled passenger and cargo activities will in essence constrain the company’s ability to increase its fares and adherence to this cap will be monitored on an annual basis. These conditions will be in place for the next three years.
Additionally, Transport Canada will be retaining an independent monitor to report directly to the Minister of Transport on a quarterly basis ensuring that the airline is meeting its obligations. Furthermore, should the airline not be meeting its obligations under the new terms and conditions and unwilling to adjust its behaviour to become compliant, there are measures under the Canada Transportation Act, which can be fines of up to $10 million.

Question No. 1502—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the Airports Capital Assistance Program and other investments meant to improve the safety of passengers and assets of airports in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, since 2015: (a) what are the details of all projects that have received funding, broken down by fiscal year; (b) how many applications related to paving gravel runways were received for funding; and (c) of the applications in (b), which applications received funding?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), under the airports capital assistance program, 39 projects have received funding in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and Yukon since 2015. The total value of these projects was $73.7 million. Any grants or contributions awarded are reported to Canadians through the federal proactive disclosure process, which can be accessed at the following web page: https://open.canada.ca/proactive-disclosure.
With regard to parts (b) and (c), no applications were received for paving gravel runways. Under the terms and conditions of the airports capital assistance program, gravel runways are eligible for funding to support the rehabilitation of gravel surfaces. However, this does not include paving gravel runways with asphalt.

Question No. 1503—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the Canadian North and First air merger approved by the Minister of Transport in June 2019: (a) did the government identify any compliance issues with the original terms and conditions of the merger; (b) what are the details or all identified compliance issues identified by the government; (c) what are the details of all meetings undertaken to discuss compliance measures, including the (i) date of the meeting, (ii) attendees, (iii) compliance measures discussed?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), no compliance issues were identified. However, it should be noted that Canadian North was exempt from its scheduling obligations from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, April 2020, to the implementation of the new terms and conditions, April 2023.
With regard to part (b), there were no compliance issues identified by Transport Canada.
With regard to part (c), there were no meetings to discuss compliance measures as the airline was never in breach of its commitments.

Question No. 1504—
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the commitment to lowering credit card transaction fees for small and medium-sized businesses in budget 2023: (a) on what date will the details of this commitment be released; (b) what is the total number of meetings the government has had with Visa and Mastercard related to the measures announced; and (c) does the government intend to introduce lower transaction fees for other payment options, including American Express or Interac?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2023, the government announced that it had secured agreements with Visa and Mastercard to lower credit card transaction fees for small businesses, while also protecting reward points for Canadian consumers offered by Canada's large banks, fulfilling commitments expressed in budget 2021, budget 2022 and the 2022 fall economic statement.
The government announced further details on the agreements on May 18, including the eligibility criteria for receiving lower rates with each network.
For qualifying small businesses, Visa and Mastercard have agreed to reduce domestic consumer credit interchange fees for in-store transactions to an annual weighted average interchange rate of 0.95%; reduce domestic consumer credit interchange fees for online transactions by 10 basis points, resulting in reductions of up to 7%; and provide free access to online fraud and cybersecurity resources to help small businesses grow their online sales while preventing fraud and charge-backs.
Small businesses will qualify with each credit card network individually. Specifically, small businesses with annual Visa sales volume below $300,000 will qualify for the lower interchange fees from Visa, and those with annual Mastercard sales volume below $175,000 will qualify for the lower fees from Mastercard.
It is estimated that more than 90% of credit card-accepting businesses in Canada will qualify for lower rates and see their interchange fees reduced by up to 27% from the existing weighted average rate.
In working towards the agreements, the government engaged with the credit card industry and businesses through a combination of in-person and virtual meetings, calls, and other exchanges. The comprehensive engagement approach included several touchpoints with small and medium-sized business groups, credit card networks, financial institutions and their industry association, acquirers, payment processors and external reward programs.
The government expects other credit card companies, such as American Express, to take similar actions to lower fees for small businesses.
Interac is a low-cost debit network and does not facilitate credit card transactions.

Question No. 1505—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the Skills for Success Program: (a) how many organizations applied to the program prior to the closing date, broken down by stream; (b) what was the total value of funding requests received, broken down by stream; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by province or territory; (d) how many organizations have been approved for the program, broken down by organization type; (e) what was the dollar value of the funding (i) approved, (ii) transferred to the recipient, as of May 5, 2023; (f) what is the breakdown of (d) and (e) by province or territory; (g) how many approved organizations have already received funding through the program; (h) what are the details of all projects and entities funded through the program, including, for each, the (i) recipient name, (ii) location, (iii) amount of funding approved, (iv) amount of funding delivered, (v) project description, (vi) start date of the project; and (i) have any third parties outside of Employment and Social Development Canada been given any responsibilities related to the application process or administration of the program, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, the (i) name of the entity, (ii) summary of the mandate or work assigned, (iii) amount of financial compensation provided by the government?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ESDC reviewed all grants and contributions within the skills for success program by conducting data searches within the common system for grants and contributions, CSGC, as well as conducting internal consultations.
The skills for success, SFS, program was launched in May 2021. The department developed an investment strategy that included five investment approaches: expansion of some existing projects; funding of 12 unsolicited proposals that met the objectives of the program; solicited call for organizations that was launched in 2021; solicited call for provinces and territories that was launched in 2021; and call for proposals that was launched in January 2022 and closed in March 2022.
The first three of the investment approaches are complete and all projects stemming from those approaches are now advancing. Funding decisions for the final two approaches are being finalized, i.e., projects are still being assessed. It has been assumed that the questions relate specifically to the call for proposals, therefore, a full list of applications to respond to parts (d) to (h) cannot yet be provided. Final funding decisions are expected to be confirmed by early summer 2023.
With regard to part (a), under the skills for success 2021 call for proposals, approximately 433 applications were received for stream 1, tools and training stream; and 120 applications were received for the stream 2, research and innovation stream.
With regard to part (b), under the skills for success 2021 call for proposals, approximately $904,092,567 was requested under stream 1, tools and training stream, adult learning literacy and essential skills program, skills for success, contribution; and $197,652,753 was requested under stream 2, research and innovation, national essential skills initiative, skills for success, employment insurance, EI, part II.
With regard to part (c), under the skills for success 2021 call for proposals, please note the following. The following funding was requested under stream 1, tools and training, adult learning literacy and essential skills program, skills for success, contribution: Alberta: $0; Newfoundland and Labrador: $23,360,911; Nova Scotia: $27,431,518; Prince Edward Island: $5,420,630; New Brunswick: $26,362,514; Quebec: $51,788,867; Ontario: $432,564,687; Manitoba: $35,862,467; Saskatchewan: $25,038,378; Alberta: $137,992,934; British Columbia: $116,716,438; Northwest Territories: $19,776,998; Yukon Territory: $1,566,225; and Nunavut: $210,000.
The following funding was requested under stream 2, research and innovation, national essential skills initiative, skills for success, EI, part II: Newfoundland and Labrador: $1,974,762; Nova Scotia: $4,697,655; Prince Edward Island: $755,111; New Brunswick: $2,362,673; Quebec: $7,562,772; Ontario: $112,304,390; Manitoba: $5,205,579; Saskatchewan: $8,147,682; Alberta: $32,978,421; British Columbia: $18,636,406; and Northwest Territories: $3,063,302.
With regard to part (i), no third parties, outside of ESDC, have been given any responsibilities for the skills for success program related to the application process or administration of the program.

Question No. 1508—
Mrs. Rachael Thomas:
With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): what are the details and dates of all actions taken by the CRTC related to the implementation of measures contained in Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts?
Response
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all details and dates of all actions taken by the CRTC related to the implementation of measures contained in Bill C-11 can be found here at the following web page: Regulatory Plan to modernize Canada's broadcasting system | CRTC.

Question No. 1511—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to government information on the impact of windmills on wildlife: (a) how many (i) birds, (ii) other animals, does the government estimate were killed in Canada from windmills in the last five years, broken down by species; and (b) what impact analysis has Environment Canada conducted on (i) wildlife habitat, (ii) migration patterns, and what were the findings?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, scientists have participated in a number of studies on the impacts of wind turbines on wildlife in Canada. In 2013, the journal Avian Conservation and Ecology published a special feature called “Quantifying Human-related Mortality of Birds in Canada”. This included nine research papers evaluating the impact of various sources of mortality to birds, together with an introductory overview and a synthesis paper.
A paper in that issue by Zimmerling et al., 2013, studied the impact of wind turbines on birds. They estimated an average of 8.2 birds were killed per turbine per year after correcting for the number of carcasses that would be missed by searchers. Based on 2,955 turbines installed by the end of 2011, they estimated 23,300 birds killed per year across Canada.
Based on data from the Canadian Wind Energy Association, CANWEA, website, by the end of 2022, the installed wind capacity in Canada had increased to about 15,000 megawatts. Assuming average wind turbines are now 2-3 megawatts, this corresponds to about 5,000-7,500 turbines. Thus, if mortality rates remain similar, the number of birds killed would now be estimated at about 62,000 per year.
This number is much lower than the number of birds estimated by Calvert et al., 2013, to be killed by other human-related sources such as 200 million birds per year by domestic and feral cats, 25 million birds per year by power transmission lines, 22 million birds per year by collisions with windows in residential houses and 14 million birds per year by collisions with vehicles.
With regard to part (a)(i), Zimmerling et al., 2013, also reported data on the species composition of birds killed at wind turbines in Canada, based on available data from carcass searches. The most frequently reported species were Horned Lark, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Red-eyed Vireo, European Starling, and Tree Swallow all of which are abundant species in Canada. There was no evidence that mortality rates for any species were high enough to cause population-level impacts.
With regard to part (a)(ii), in a separate study, Zimmerling and Francis, 2016, estimated the impact of wind turbines in Canada on bats. They estimated an average of 15.5 bats killed per turbine representing about 47,000 bats per year in 2013. If mortality rates remain similar now, that would now represent 75,000-116,000 bats per year based on an estimate of 5,000-7,500 turbines. Most of this mortality occurred for only four species: Hoary Bat, 34%, Silver-haired Bat, 25%, Eastern Red Bat, 15%, and Little Brown Myotis, 13%.
There is growing evidence that mortality rates of bats due to wind turbines may be high enough to be causing population declines. Davy et al., 2020, found evidence of declines in populations of some migratory bat species in Ontario. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, recently recommended that Hoary Bat, Red Bat and Silver-haired Bat should all be listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act. The reason for designation indicated that populations were declining by more than 50% over three generations, with the major threat the high risk of mortality at wind energy facilities. Please see the following web page: https://www.cosewic.ca/index.php/en-ca/assessment-process/detailed-version-may-2023.html. Portions of the populations of all three species migrate from Canada to the southern United States so they would be exposed to risk of mortality at wind turbines in both countries.
With regard to part (b)(i), ECCC has only participated in limited studies on the impact of wind turbines on wildlife habitat. Zimmerling et al., 2013, estimated habitat loss from wind turbines at about 1.2 hectares per turbine. Extrapolated to the current number of turbines, this would suggest a loss of 6,000-9,000 hectares of wildlife habitat based on estimated number of turbines in 2022. However, this study did not consider habitat loss that may be associated with new roads or transmission lines for turbines installed in remote areas, and data are not currently available on those potential impacts.
With regard to part (b)(ii), ECCC has not undertaken any studies on changes to migration patterns as a result of wind turbines.
Please see the following references: Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11.
Davy, C.M., K. Squires, and J.R. Zimmerling. 2020. Estimation of spatiotemporal trends in bat abundance from mortality data collected at wind turbines. Conservation Biology 35:227-238.
Zimmerling, J. R., A. C. Pomeroy, M. V. d'Entremont, and C. M. Francis. 2013. Canadian estimate of bird mortality due to collisions and direct habitat loss associated with wind turbine developments. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 10.
Zimmerling, J. R. & C. M. Francis. 2016. Bat mortality due to wind turbines in Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management, 80: 1360-1369.

Question No. 1512—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the response by Parks Canada to the results of water samples received on January 23, 2023, indicating the presence of environmental DNA from zebra mussels in Clear Lake at Riding Mountain National Park: (a) what external suppliers, contractors, consultants were contracted by Parks Canada in relation to the response, and what are the details of each such contract, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) goods or services provided, including the type of information or advice provided, if applicable; (b) for each consultant or advisor contracted by Parks Canada in relation to this matter, what advice, recommendations, or results did the government receive; (c) who has the government consulted with on the future use of Clear Lake since the results were received; (d) which individuals and organizations were invited to Parks Canada’s aquatic invasive species information meeting, held on April 24, 2023, in the Riding Mountain National Park Visitor Centre; (e) how many consultations did Parks Canada host on the future use of Clear Lake that were open to the general public prior to May 5, 2023, including, for each meeting, (i) the date, (ii) the location (iii) how the public was notified, (iv) the date the public was notified; and (f) what are the details of all decisions made by Parks Canada on the future use of the lake since the results were received, including, for each decision, the (i) date of the decision, (ii) decision, (iii) summary of terms, (iv) date the decision was published?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Parks Canada did not contract suppliers or consultants related to Q-1512.
With regard to part (b), Parks Canada did not contract consultants related to Q-1512.
With regard to part (c), Under the Canada National Parks Act, the superintendent has authority over decisions related to use of Clear Lake. While a consultation process was not required, in recognition of the high public interest and potential implications to partners and stakeholders that decisions around seasonal operations at Clear Lake could have, the park undertook an engagement process with key stakeholders including: first nations partners from the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation and the Coalition of First Nations with interests in Riding Mountain National Park, including leadership and band members; the local member of Parliament; provincial members of the Legislative Assembly; reeves and council representatives from local municipal governments; other federal and provincial departments and ministries; watershed districts; local business owners and chambers of commerce; cottage and cabin owners; provincial and local tourism industry representatives; environmental non-governmental organizations; volunteer groups; boaters; anglers; paddlers; and private citizens.
With regard to part (d), individuals and organizations invited to Parks Canada’s aquatic invasive species, AIS, information session on April 24, 2023 were the following: Coalition of First Nations with Interests in Riding Mountain National Park; Rural Municipality of Harrison-Park; Rural Municipality of Clanwilliam-Erickson; Clear Lake Cottage Owners Association; Clear Lake Cabin Owners Association; Clear Lake Country Destination Enrichment (Marketing) Organization; Clear Lake Marina operator; Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce; Erickson and District Chamber of Commerce; Travel Manitoba; Riding Mountain National Park Biosphere Reserve; Nature Conservancy of Canada; Friends of Riding Mountain National Park; former MP for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Robert Sopuck; Sandy Lake AIS Volunteer Program; Assiniboine West Watershed District; Camp Wannacumbac; and Elkhorn Resort and Spa.
With regard to part (e), three stakeholder engagement meetings were held: February 22, 2023; March 14, 2023; and April 24, 2023, at Riding Mountain National Park Visitor Centre, Wasagaming Townsite. Organizations were asked to share with their networks. The public was able to attend. The date the public was notified depended on when the organizations shared the information.
With regard to part (f)(i), discussions on potential enhancements to the aquatic invasive species program began when the eDNA results were received in January 2023. The decision to implement the enhanced program was formalized in late April, after consultations with indigenous partners, stakeholders and the public.
With regard to part (f)(ii), implementation of enhancements to the existing aquatic invasive species monitoring program, which consisted of boat and trailer inspections and a decontamination program prior to launching in Clear Lake. Additional measures in place for 2023 will include a tag process for trailered boats to lower the risk of transporting zebra mussels from other water bodies.
With regard to part (f)(iii), implementation of an enhanced aquatic invasive species program to include a tag process for trailered boats. Program enhancements are temporary. Permanent changes to the aquatic invasive species prevention program will be subject to further engagement.
With regard to part (f)(iv), interim measures for 2023 were communicated to local MPs, MLAs and municipal leaders on May 5, with information shared widely on social media on May 5 and 6.

Question No. 1513—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the advance purchase agreement, reached between the government and Medicago on November 13, 2020, for the vaccine approved by Health Canada on February 24, 2022: what are the government’s reasons for not purchasing this vaccine?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on November 13, 2020, Public Services and Procurement Canada signed an advance purchase agreement, APA, with Medicago for the supply of 20 million firm doses, with options for up to an additional 56 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine.
While Medicago’s COVID-19 vaccine was approved in Canada in February 2022, due to unanticipated manufacturing issues, Medicago was not able to market any lots of its COVID19 vaccine for commercial use.
On February 2, 2023, Mitsubishi Chemical Group announced its decision to cease all Medicago operations due to lack of global demand for COVID-19 vaccines and delayed production at scale as purchasers now expect bivalent vaccines. The Government of Canada is working together with Medicago to conclude Canada’s APA while protecting Canada’s interests.

Question No. 1514—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the advance purchase agreement, reached between the government and Johnson and Johnson on November 30, 2020, for the vaccine approved by Health Canada on March 5, 2021: what are the government’s reasons for discontinuing the purchase of more vaccines from Johnson and Johnson after purchasing 9.98 million doses?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when the pandemic started, it was not known which vaccines would be successful or when they would be available. Experts therefore advised Canada to secure many different types of vaccines. To secure fast access to vaccines for everyone in the country, Canada set up advance purchase agreements, APAs, with seven manufacturers: Moderna, Novavax, Medicago, Pfizer-BioNTech, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), and AstraZeneca.
To date, Canada has received over 164 million COVID-19 vaccine doses. Over 98 million doses have been administered, including 24,000 doses of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine. Most of the Johnson & Johnson doses were administered to individuals with a preference for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and/or with a contraindication to other types of vaccine. In April 2021, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, issued a preferential recommendation that a complete series with an mRNA COVID19 vaccine, i.e., Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, should be offered to individuals in the authorized age group without contraindications to the vaccine, while a viral vector COVID19 vaccine, i.e., AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccines, may be offered to individuals in the authorized age group without contraindications to the vaccine to initiate a series when other authorized COVID-19 vaccines are contraindicated or inaccessible.
Given NACI’s preferential recommendation for mRNA vaccines, the adequate supply of mRNA vaccines available in Canada, and a lack of demand from provinces and territories for viral vector vaccines, Canada has terminated its APA with Johnson & Johnson. A small reserve of frozen Johnson & Johnson vaccine continues to be held in inventory in Canada, should it be needed.

Question No. 1515—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the advance purchase agreement, reached between the government and AstraZeneca on November 21, 2020, for the vaccine authorized by Health Canada on February 26, 2021: after purchasing 20 million doses, what are the government’s reasons for discontinuing the purchase of more vaccines from AstraZeneca?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when the pandemic started, it was not known which vaccines would be successful or when they would be available. Experts therefore advised Canada to secure many different types of vaccines. To secure fast access to vaccines for everyone in the country, Canada set up advance purchase agreements, APAs, with seven manufacturers: Moderna, Novavax, Medicago, Pfizer-BioNTech, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), and AstraZeneca.
To date, Canada has received over 164 million COVID-19 vaccine doses. Over 98 million doses have been administered, including approximately 2.8 million doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine. Most of the AstraZeneca doses were administered early in the pandemic, when vaccine supply was limited, or to individuals with a preference for the AstraZeneca vaccine and/or with a contraindication to other types of vaccine. In April 2021, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, issued a preferential recommendation that a complete series with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, i.e., Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, should be offered to individuals in the authorized age group without contraindications to the vaccine, while a viral vector COVID-19 vaccine, i.e., AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccines, may be offered to individuals in the authorized age group without contraindications to the vaccine to initiate a series when other authorized COVID-19 vaccines are contraindicated or inaccessible.
Given NACI’s preferential recommendation for mRNA vaccines, the adequate supply of mRNA vaccines available in Canada, and a lack of demand from provinces and territories for viral vector vaccines, Canada has terminated its APA with AstraZeneca.

Question No. 1521—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): (a) what measurable goals are projected to be obtained at the onset of this agreement; (b) what is the projected benefit from this agreement to the Canadian economy within the next five years; and (c) does the CPTPP conform with the World Trade Organization rules?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to part (a), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP, has been in force since 2018, and has now been ratified by all original 11 signatories, with Brunei Darussalam most recently notifying on May 14, 2023. It is an ambitious and high standard agreement that strengthens the rules-based international trading system. By eliminating tariffs and creating consistent and transparent rules and procedures for doing business, the CPTPP will generate long-term GDP gains for Canada.
These benefits are already being realized by Canadian businesses. In the fifth year since entry into force, total merchandise trade between Canada and all CPTPP partners was $123.6 billion in 2022, growing by 26.1% as compared to 2018. These results are significantly higher than the gains that were projected under the economic impact assessment, EIA, that was conducted by the Government of Canada based on the negotiated outcomes of the CPTPP, which projected Canada’s exports to other CPTPP countries to increase by only 4.2%. Canada’s merchandise exports to CPTPP partners reached a record high of $37.5 billion, rising by 31.1% in 2022, as compared to 2018. Canadian merchandise imports also experienced strong growth over this period, rising 24.1% to reach $86.1 billion in 2022. In 2022, Canada merchandise exports to Japan, a market that Canadian businesses gained preferential access to under the CPTPP, reached $18.0 billion, rising 38.8% compared to 2018. This is significantly greater than the 8.6% increase projected under the EIA. Further, in 2022, agricultural goods led Canada’s top exports to Japan at $5.4 billion, representing an 18.8% increase over 2018. Japan is the third-largest export destination for Canadian agriculture and agri-food products after the United States and China.
With regard to part (b), the CPTPP is expected to continue having a positive impact on the Canadian economy in the next five years and beyond, especially as it enters into force for all original signatories. With the recent conclusion of negotiations for the United Kingdom’s accession to the CPTPP and six other economies having applied for accession, the CPTPP has a high growth potential. Accessions will expand the benefits of the CPTPP that could lead to new investment and export opportunities for Canada. Accessions provide an efficient path for securing preferential access to new markets or enhanced access to markets already covered by Canadian FTAs. Further, accessions will expand the single set of rules between Canada, CPTPP members and accession candidates, making trade more predictable, transparent and accessible for Canadian businesses.
With regard to part (c), the CPTPP, like all of Canada’s free trade agreements, conforms with the World Trade Organization, WTO, rules. The three WTO agreements cover goods, services and intellectual property. The WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, and General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS, were established with the objectives of creating a credible and reliable system of international trade rules; ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all participants, principle of non-discrimination; stimulating economic activity through guaranteed policy bindings; and promoting trade and development through progressive liberalization by elimination of discriminatory measures and/or prohibition of new discriminatory measures. The CPTPP incorporates the requirements of GATS and GATT throughout the text of the agreement, including in article 1.1, which establishes that the CPTPP is “consistent with Article XXIV of [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] GATT 1994 and Article V of [General Agreement on Trade in Services] GATS.”
The WTO agreement on intellectual property, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS, plays a critical role in facilitating trade in knowledge and creativity, in resolving trade disputes over intellectual property, and in recognizing the significant links between intellectual property and trade. The CPTPP incorporates the TRIPS agreement throughout the Intellectual Property chapter.
The CPTPP was reviewed by the WTO committee on regional trade agreements, CRTA, on June 21, 2021. The WTO CRTA considers individual regional agreements, is mandated to hold discussions on the systemic implications of the agreements for the multilateral trading system and undertakes to assess the compatibility of individual trade agreements with WTO provisions. WTO members submitted multiple questions to CPTPP parties regarding CPTPP provisions. No members objected to the CPTPP’s compliance with the WTO rules.
Air transportationAirportsAlghabra, OmarApplication processAstraZenecaBiomanufacturingBittle, ChrisBlack-tailed prairie dogBrière, ÉlisabethBroadcastingC-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting A ... ...Show all topics
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
View Warren Steinley Profile
2023-06-12 11:23 [p.15732]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-252. I will not be supporting it, for various reasons, and I am going to walk through those reasons now. A lot of people in this place are parents, and I am a parent of three young children. Jameson is six. Clare is turning eight in July, and my son Nickson is 10, and we do talk a lot about nutrition in our family. I think a very important role of a parent is to begin healthy eating habits early in life.
With respect to kids being marketed to and Health Canada wanting to pull back some marketing, it seems like Health Canada always wants to bring in more and more bans. I remember that last year we were fighting Health Canada when it was trying to make amendments to front-of-package labelling to label whole beef and whole pork as unhealthy. It did that labelling for before the whole beef or whole pork was actually cooked. Once it is cooked, it loses a lot of its trans fats; the oil drips off, and then we actually have a healthier meal. That is another example of the banning that the government, seemingly continuously, wants to do, taking more and more control over the lives of Canadians. They are just expected to listen to exactly what the government says, and I think that is a dangerous road to go down.
One thing the government was doing was talking about marketing. It struck me as funny that, as I was driving down a road in Ottawa, I saw a candy store frontage, but it was not actually a candy store; it was a cannabis store. When we talk about taking on some marketing and some advertising, maybe we should start with not allowing certain companies to actually make cannabis look like candy. It would be a really good start in this country to actually tackle some of that marketing.
When we were looking at other aspects of Bill C-252, my colleague from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies came over and talked about why we were trying to fight against the bill in its previous iteration with Senator Greene Raine. The unintended consequence of the bill is that it would take away opportunities for sponsorship in youth sports. Timbits hockey actually sponsors 300,000 kids to play sports in Canada. When we want to have these opportunities for kids who cannot play, because sometimes sports are becoming expensive, we need sponsorship like this. Why would we take a bill that would bring forward government regulations to, and I disagree with my colleague opposite, tell parents what to feed their kids, what is healthy and what is not?
Do members know how much access we are able to have to information on ingredients in the grocery store? My wife takes our kids grocery shopping all the time, and she actually shows them the ingredients that are in the stuff they want her to buy. They look at the first ingredient, and it is sugar. She says, “Why would we buy this? It is full of sugar and it is not going to make us healthy or give us energy.” That is what parents should do; they should create healthy eating habits. The member who spoke previously, the sponsor of the bill, did say that we have to have a multi-faceted approach to kids when it comes to treating obesity and bringing obesity rates down. That approach does involve physical activity.
We have been talking about all the marketing kids are seeing, but my kids do not see a lot of marketing. They are on an iPad or a cell phone one hour a week; on Saturdays they get to play a game. The rest of the time, we go outside and play. We are very active. This weekend I was at home, and I watched six flag football games because our kids were outside. When they were not playing flag football in the league, they were practising with other kids in the park. That fights obesity. Something we should be more focused on is getting our kids outside and playing, and that is something my wife and I have, as parents, taken to heart.
Also, parents should show a healthy lifestyle to their kids. We should be role models for our kids. We do not need the government to tell us how to feed our kids and what they should and should not be doing. Parents need to be better role models across this country for their children, and I think that is something we really need to focus on. I see it time and time again when intermingling with some other parents, where the first thing their kid does is to grab their iPhone from their pocket and sit with it for an hour. We need to be more involved. That is not government's job; that is our job as parents, and it is our job as to what we should be teaching our children. This is why, when legislation like this is brought forward, I am actually quite disappointed.
This legislation is not new; it has been done in Quebec. For 40 years, this legislation has been in place in Quebec. I asked the member very directly how much the obesity rates have gone down in Quebec with this legislation. Members probably noticed that she would not give a number. She would not answer, because government legislation does not have that much of an affect on what kids are going to eat; parents do, and that is what we should be focusing on.
The member talked about $10 million in the 2023 budget for keeping kids active. When that is spread across the country, it is not a lot of money to keep Canadian youth active. However, legislation such as this has actually been done in Canada and proven not to be as helpful as some members like to say. This seems to me to be the definition of insanity: doing the same things over and over again and expecting different outcomes. I see that a lot with the government.
The government talks about marketing to children and trying to make sure that children are not affected by it, because they might respond negatively. However, we also have to teach our kids that they are going to see things in their lives, but they have to learn and be able to look at it, say that it is not for them and move on. We should actually teach our children to see marketing, look at the package on the label when grocery shopping and make the decision not to eat it and put it in their body. The government does not have to do that for parents and kids.
There are a lot of roles where I know there is not a big difference between the Liberals and the NDP members, who think that government can do nothing wrong. Over here, we think government should be less and less involved in the everyday lives of Canadians; this legislation is a perfect example of that. I do not want the government to look after me or my children from cradle to grave. I want us to be able to make our own decisions.
Kids might make mistakes. We work hard, but we are not perfect. Our kids do get the odd stomach ache from eating too much candy or too many chips, but the kids actually learn a lesson from that as well. They realize that they cannot put all this artificial food in their system, because it actually makes them feel unwell; that is a learning experience.
However, to say that the government can control what kids are going to see and control marketing is an issue. In an earlier part of my speech, I brought forward a very valid point, which is that if we want to talk about marketing to children, we need to talk about the fact that people are trying to market cannabis to children and call it a “candy shop”. We should look at tackling some of those issues, which are actually dangerous to kids, and let the parents tackle issues of healthy dietary habits, healthy habits when it comes to staying active and making sure that we are more involved in our kids' lives, day in and day out.
The government is not going to solve those problems; the government of the day definitely will not solve many problems. However, as an engaged parent and a member of society who actually wants to help out and make sure that kids are making healthier choices, I think we have to have more education system involvement when kids have phys. ed. class. Kids can quite often opt out of phys. ed. class. We have to stay active, and we have to stay motivated to make sure that we are making healthy lifestyle choices; that can be a part of it.
My Liberal colleagues have said that we need a multi-faceted approach, but maybe they can take all the effort that has been put into the bill before us into keeping kids more active. In that way, when they get older and have to make choices by themselves, they are going to stay active. They will have a healthy lifestyle, and they will have a healthier diet. This is how we are trying to train our kids so that they can make their own choices. They can read what is on the label and decide that if the first ingredients are sugar and carbonated water, it is not going to be healthy for them. However, we need to train the next generation to actually make decisions on their own, because the government cannot make every decision for them.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 1420—
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the funds allocated for future Arctic offshore oil and gas development in budget 2023 and the 2016 moratorium on oil and gas activities in Canada’s Arctic waters: (a) what are the details of the proposed funding; and (b) are future Arctic offshore oil and gas developments and an end to the moratorium being considered?
Response
Hon. Dan Vandal (Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), funding announced in budget 2023 will support evidence-based oil and gas decision-making in the Arctic offshore to ensure that any future oil and gas development in Canada’s Arctic waters is consistent with the highest safety and environmental standards and with Canada’s national and global climate and environmental goals.
The funding will support the co-development of a five-year climate and marine science-based assessment of Canada’s Arctic waters. The climate and marine research projects will complement the science-based research carried out as part of the initial five-year science-based review. The Government of Canada will commence work with northern partners to identify gaps in climate and marine-based research in the Arctic offshore, with a focus on climate change impacts across the region. The funding will also support work with northern partners to prepare a final report on the findings of the science-based assessment for consideration by the Government of Canada in respect of whether to maintain the moratorium.
With regard to part (b), the Arctic offshore oil and gas moratorium announced in December 2016 is indefinite and will remain in force until such time as it may be repealed.

Question No. 1421—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to the report in the Washington Post that the Prime Minister has told NATO officials privately that Canada will never meet the military alliance's defence spending target: (a) what did the Prime Minister tell NATO officials about whether Canada will meet the spending target; and (b) when does the government anticipate it will reach NATO's spending target of at least two percent of the GDP on defence?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada remains committed to maintaining the defence budget increases that were set out in Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. This will increase Canada’s total defence budget from $18.9 billion in 2016-17 to $32.7 billion by 2026-27, an increase of more than 70%.
This is an ongoing process and figures on planned spending continue to be refined. Indeed, at any given time, projected calculations can fluctuate based on changes in defence investments, capabilities and needs. Further, Canada’s defence spending and procurement will be based on threat analyses and assessments of needs.
For capabilities more specifically, Canada will begin exceeding the 20% guideline on military equipment spending in 2023, reaching approximately 33% by 2026.
In addition, Canada continues its steady and reliable commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO missions, operations and activities. Canada has been leading enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup Latvia since its inception, and working on a significant expansion of it, in line with the commitments made in Madrid. Canada has recently led one of the Standing NATO Maritime Groups. Canada will host a NATO Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence in Montreal. Halifax had been proposed as the location for the North American regional office of NATO’s defence innovation accelerator for the North Atlantic, DIANA.
Annual reports on defence expenditures of NATO countries, including Canada, are published in March of each year, and can be found at the following web page: NATO - News: Defence expenditure of NATO countries (2014-2022), 21-Mar.-2023.
Finally, as announced in budget 2022, National Defence is undertaking a review of its defence policy, which will include considerations for defence spending.

Question No. 1422—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the legislative review of the Cannabis Act launched by Health Canada in September 2022 and the related online questionnaire: (a) how was the online questionnaire advertised to the public; (b) over what time period did each of the advertising methods in (a) take place; (c) how many individuals provided feedback through the questionnaire; and (d) what is the breakdown of the responses to each question in the questionnaire?
Response
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the online questionnaire was first communicated to the public on September 22, 2022, when Canada’s federal health ministers, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, announced the launch of the legislative review of the Cannabis Act at an in-person event alongside the chair of the independent expert panel.
As part of this launch, the opportunity to participate in online engagement was announced, thereby commencing the 60-day online public engagement period. On this day, Health Canada published two discussion papers online, one for the general public and stakeholders, including a supporting questionnaire to receive feedback, with a closing date of November 21, 2022, and the other one specific to first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, which originally was slated to also close November 21, 2022 but was extended to January 15, 2023, due to requests from indigenous peoples that they required more time to provide feedback. Announcement activities were supported by a news release, social media and the launch of a dedicated web page that included links to participate in the consultation and provide feedback to the questionnaire. Emails from Health Canada were also shared directly with stakeholders and indigenous partners, inviting them to participate in the online engagement process.
With regard to part (b), social media was issued frequently throughout the duration of the engagement period, including a push near the end of the consultation period to remind Canadians to participate in the consultation prior to its closing date.
As per the response to part (a), on the day of the consultation launch, September 22, emails from Health Canada were shared directly with stakeholders and indigenous partners, inviting them to participate in the online engagement process. Emails reminding these same groups to participate were also sent midway through the consultation and just before the closing date.
The consultation was also posted on the “Consulting with Canadians” page on Canada.ca.
With regard to part (c), the public engagement gathered feedback from more than 2,300 individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders. A total of 2,158 individuals responded to the questionnaire. Additionally, a total of 211 email and mail submissions were received
With regard to part (d), the questionnaire consisted of 17 open-ended and 11 closed-ended questions, nine of which were demographic questions. The results of the online public engagement, including responses to the questionnaire, are being analyzed and will be summarized in a report and published online in 2023.

Question No. 1426—
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to national sport organizations (NSOs) with contribution agreements with Sport Canada (SC), and that have or had non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with athletes: (a) is SC monitoring which NSOs have NDAs with athletes; (b) for each NSO, what are the details of each NDA, broken down by the year or years in place; and (c) for each NSO in (a), has the agreement ever been used, and, if so, when, and for what purpose?
Response
Hon. Pascale St-Onge (Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Sport Canada, through the athlete assistance program, reviews agreements between athletes and national sport organizations to ensure they are inclusive of specific references as required by the athlete assistance program policies and procedures. Sport Canada is not monitoring which national sport organizations have non-disclosure agreements with athletes. However, in her May 11 announcement to foster a safe and sustainable culture change in sport, the Minister of Sport reiterated that non-disclosure agreements or non-disparaging clauses should never be used to prevent athletes and other sport participants from disclosing maltreatment they have experienced or witnessed. To this end, all national sport organizations shall use the text of the athlete agreement, developed by AthletesCAN with input from national sport organization leaders and legal experts, and recently revised, which states that under the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, UCCMS, athletes’ rights cannot be restricted. Consistent with national efforts to this end, Sport Canada, through its funding agreements with national sport organizations, will prohibit any national sport organization contract, policies, procedures or actions that restrict participants’ rights under the UCCMS.
With regard to part (b), since Sport Canada does not monitor non-disclosure agreements, it is not able to confirm which national sport organizations might have them and what the details might be.
With regard to part (c), as per the answer to part b) above, these details are not available.

Question No. 1427—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) and the funds provided for energy retrofits: (a) what is the amount provided, broken down by (i) number of units, (ii) province, (iii) type of recipient (Real Estate Income Trust, private corporation, non-profit, etc); (b) what measures are taken, and what assurances are required from recipients, to prevent renovictions as a result of these funds; (c) does the government track evictions triggered by renovations supported by these funds, and, if so, how many evictions have been recorded; and (d) for the evictions in (c), what measures are in place to ensure that tenants (i) have alternative accommodations with the same rent, (ii) are informed about the progress and completion of renovations, (iii) are able to return to their home with the same rent once the renovations are complete?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the CIB and the funds provided for energy retrofits, the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s building retrofits initiative, BRI, provides financing for energy retrofit projects. With buildings currently accounting for 18% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, modernizing these assets is critical to meeting Canada’s climate change goals. The BRI invests in the decarbonization of buildings to finance capital costs of retrofits, using savings from energy savings, efficiencies and operating cost savings for repayment. The private sector under the BRI includes privately owned commercial, industrial and multi-unit residential buildings. The CIB’s financing is eligible for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings through decarbonization retrofits, including energy efficiency; fuel switching, such as electrification, renewable natural gas or hydrogen; on-site renewable energy and storage; and electric vehicle, EV, chargers. The CIB’s financing is not available for building renovation projects that are not decarbonization retrofits. Ultimately, savings from energy savings, efficiencies and operating cost savings are passed on to building owners and tenants.
With regard to part (a), the CIB has made one investment towards building retrofits to multi-unit residential buildings to date. This investment with Avenue Living Asset Management, Avenue Living, an owner and operator of properties primarily in Alberta and Saskatchewan, will enable retrofits at approximately 95 properties in their portfolio consisting of 240 buildings to optimize energy performance in more than 6,400 residences. The CIB’s investment commitment is in the amount of $129,871,754.71. As of this date, no funds have been transferred to Avenue Living in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement.
The CIB does not track evictions triggered by building renovation projects and, therefore, does not have a response with respect to parts (b), (c) and (d).

Question No. 1430—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to security cameras and closed-circuit video equipment in use at bases and facilities operated by the Department of National Defence (DND) or the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) is any such equipment manufactured in China, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) description, (iii) manufacturer, make, and model; and (b) for the equipment in (a), has DND or CAF received any warnings, including from our Five Eyes partners, about the use of such equipment due to China's National Intelligence Law, and, if so, what are the details of the warnings and what was the response?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), for large-scale infrastructure projects that require security cameras or closed-circuit video equipment, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, or Defence Construction Canada, DCC, act as the contracting authority and enter into a service contract with a company on behalf of the Department of National Defence. In these instances, the company awarded the service contract is responsible for the procurement and installation of security equipment, including security cameras or closed-circuit video equipment, based on the technical standards set out in the contract.
The security requirements of a project are assessed through the security requirements check list, SRCL. Any company that enters into a service contract for a large-scale infrastructure project must meet and adhere to the security requirements, such as the level of personnel security level that a company and its employees require as applicable. The installation of security systems in sensitive areas would require a higher security clearance, up to and including secret. The SRCL is validated by security authorities.
For small-scale purchases of security cameras or closed-circuit video equipment, including those used for Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, training purposes, National Defence may procure equipment directly from a vendor that meets the technical and security standards of the requirement.
National Defence does not centrally track the manufacturer origin of security cameras or closed-circuit video equipment in use at bases and facilities operated by the Department of National Defence, DND, or the CAF. A manual search of individual contracts, in concert with other implicated government partners, would be required and could not be completed within the allotted time.
With regard to part (b), National Defence works closely with Five Eyes partners on a range of defence and security issues; however, further details cannot be shared for operational security reasons.

Question No. 1432—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to environmental assessments of natural resource projects submitted under the Impact Assessment Act: (a) how many submissions have been received since June 21, 2019; (b) how many submissions has the minister approved since June 21, 2019; (c) how many submissions have been made but later withdrawn since June 21, 2019; (d) how many projects whose submissions were approved since June 21, 2019 have commenced construction; (e) how many projects whose submissions were approved since June 21, 2019 have completed construction; (f) what was the shortest processing time for a submission which was approved since June 21, 2019; and (g) what was the longest processing time for a submission which was approved since June 21, 2019?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, timelines for project decisions are predictable based on the requirements in the Impact Assessment Act. The act indicates that the impact statement phase conducted by proponents is up to three years. Government planning and decision-making is approximately one and a half years, which includes the planning phase, impact assessment phase and decision-making.
Project timelines are often contingent upon the timing, quality and sufficiency of the information and studies provided by proponents throughout an assessment process, including the project descriptions and the impact statement.
It is possible for the entire process to be closer to three years, and experience has shown that when proponents invest in the front end, in the pre-planning and the planning phase, it helps save time later.
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has searched its records since June 21, 2019.
With regard to part (a), the Impact Assessment Act, IAA, came into force on August 28, 2019, and since that date the Impact Assessment Agency has accepted initial project descriptions from proponents for 17 natural resource projects, mining or oil and gas.
With regard to part (b), one natural resource project has completed the impact assessment process under the Impact Assessment Act since coming into force. On March 15, the government announced that the project was determined to be in the public interest by the minister and is allowed to proceed.
With regard to part (c), one natural resource project was terminated by the proponent.
With regard to part (d), zero.
With regard to part (e), zero.
With regard to part (f), 1273 days, or 3.5 years.
With regard to part (g), 1273 days, or 3.5 years.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, your home, my home, our home, let us bring it home and reform medical cannabis licences. Licences for the production of medical cannabis are often abused, with production in excess of personal amounts diverted for commercial sale on the black market. The amount of cannabis individuals are authorized to possess for medical purposes is impossible for an individual to personally consume. Grow-ops in residential neighbourhoods across British Columbia have negative impacts on nearby residents' health and well-being, such as excessive smells, frequent traffic and reduced property values.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to reform the licensing and oversight of the production of cannabis for personal medical use and its production in residential homes.
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the toxic drug supply means that people in construction or in the mines are using once and dying. We have to move to a safer supply of drugs, as we have with alcohol, cannabis and the other ways people actually use substance to numb their pain. Former prime minister Stephen Harper's adviser said, particularly on using people using drugs as props, “I was really disgusted by it. I honestly was so disturbed to see Pierre—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
Order.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria, Taxation; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Cannabis.
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell a short story about the government's regulatory failure, which has cost constituents in my riding hundreds of well-paying jobs in the last month or so.
Until February 9 of this year, Canopy Growth, a licensed cannabis producer, was the largest private sector employer in my constituency. Based at the former Hershey chocolate factory in Smiths Falls, it has been transformed into a high-tech, legal, cannabis-producing facility. At the height of their operations, they employed about 1,800 people in Smiths Falls. However, last month Canopy announced the elimination of 350 jobs, 190 of which were to be cut immediately, and the rest to follow in the coming months. That was at the tail end of series of prior cuts.
Canopy will soon employ fewer than one-third the number of my constituents it once did. These job losses, to a large extent, can be laid at the foot of the government's failed policies. In 2018, the government, with great fanfare, legalized the sale and use of recreational cannabis. I voted for that.
We are just five years on, and the government's delivery on its plan, its crushing federal taxes and its insanely high regulatory compliance costs have allowed the illegal market to continue to flourish, and it is directly causing hundreds of Canadians to lose their jobs in my constituency alone. A month ago, the day after the job cuts in my riding were announced, I raised this point and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry stood to say that his government continues “to engage with stakeholders” and that they have recently funded a “strategy table” to “support dialogue”.
That is nice, I guess, but the government would have been better advised to have acted sooner, years sooner, on the advice it was getting from industry and stakeholders. The next best thing would have been to say it would act immediately. Saying that we will have more talks when the House is not nearly on fire but just about burned down is too late.
A multi-party group of parliamentarians with three Liberals, of which I am a member, has written numerous times to the Minister of Health. We wrote, as an example, about attempts to rationalize various regulations dealing with cannabis infusion beverages. It has inexplicably taken years for movement to occur on that one small issue. There are other issues by far that are much more important and there has been no movement on them. This long struggle for incremental microscopic improvements illustrates the problem the government has. On a macro level, it has failed to deliver on its promise of listening and creating a business-friendly environment for the cannabis industry.
I have mentioned the parliamentary secretary's response to my question from last month, and I am sure that tonight he will repeat at length the same kind of response. He will say that he regrets the job losses. He will say some industries face challenges, and that they want to listen to industry and stakeholders. I am sure he will be saying it honestly, but I truly hope that the government's speaker this evening will acknowledge that their ministers have been receiving advice from industry and stakeholders for years now. They could have acted upon it with far greater speed. If they had done so these jobs would still be in existence.
While there is still some hope that some jobs can be saved, and we will not lose the entire industry, perhaps the government could agree to move quickly on the recommendations that have been made by the legal cannabis industry, which would allow it to prosper and ensure that our industry does not remain 50% in the illegal sector, as it now is.
View Andy Fillmore Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Andy Fillmore Profile
2023-03-06 19:07 [p.12008]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. He and I had occasion to work together on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament. I think we did good work there and I always appreciate his interventions.
In 2018, through the Cannabis Act, Canada made history and became the first major industrialized country to provide legal and regulated access to cannabis for non-medical purposes.
That act had three primary aims. The first was to prevent young people from accessing cannabis. The second was to protect public health and public safety by establishing product safety and product quality requirements and the third was to keep revenues from cannabis businesses out of the hands of criminals.
Since this bold and historic decision, the legal cannabis industry in Canada has grown rapidly and there is much to applaud. With over 900 licenced cultivators and processors of cannabis under the Cannabis Act and thousands of cannabis retail stores, the regulated cannabis industry is present coast to coast and has welcomed a tremendous number of new businesses.
In fact, the sector generates over $4.5 billion in sales and employs thousands of people.
The legal sector is successfully advancing the objectives of the Cannabis Act. The regulated market, based on the Statistics Canada household expenditure survey, is estimated to now represent approximately 70% of the total Canadian cannabis market. While views on that number may differ, it is clear that the illicit market share is diminishing.
Canadians are not only benefiting from having access to safe cannabis products but also benefiting from new business opportunities across the value chain, from cultivation to processing to research and testing and retail. Small and medium-sized enterprises continue to represent a greater and greater share of licence-holders and the market has continued to grow.
However, as we know well, this expansion is not without challenges. The sector is facing instability and uncertainty as it continues to mature. Our government recognizes how important the competitive and sustainable legal cannabis industry is to fully realizing the objectives of the Cannabis Act.
This is why, in budget 2022, our government announced a new cannabis strategy table, which the member has identified, that will support ongoing dialogue with businesses and stakeholders in the cannabis sector. It is an opportunity to identify ways to work together and to grow the legal cannabis sector in Canada. This commitment recognizes the economic and business realities that the sector is facing.
This initiative is led by the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, which is actively engaging the cannabis industry and working with federal partners to ensure that the government is aware of and understands the issues at hand.
Further, in September 2022, the hon. Minister of Health and the hon. Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health announced the launch of the legislative review of the Cannabis Act.
Early assessment of the act was always envisioned. This review will ensure that the flexible legislative framework set out in the act adapts and responds to ongoing and emerging needs and to make certain that the act best protects the health and safety of Canadians and provides for the establishment of a diverse and competitive legal industry.
Our government's commitment to Canadians and to achieving the objectives of the act, as set out in the act, are clear.
Results: 1 - 15 of 52 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data