Question No. 1148—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what is the process for a case manager or Veterans Service Agent (VSA) to approve a veteran or a veteran's family member to receive services from a service provider; (b) how are case managers and VSAs made aware of service providers; and (c) what is the process for evaluating service providers, and (i) by whom, and (ii) how often, are service providers evaluated?
Response
The Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, a veterans service agent’s screening of unmet needs and a case manager’s assessment of a veteran’s overall well-being identify needs. Veterans may access treatment benefits based on their needs and corresponding coverage entitlement linked to a disability condition recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada.
Under the treatment benefits program, Veterans Affairs Canada covers the cost of mental health services for family members when the mental health professional who is treating the veteran indicates these services will have a positive impact on the veteran’s mental health. For participants in the rehabilitation program, Veterans Affairs Canada covers the cost for family members who need mental health services when the assessing or treating professional identifies that these services will help meet the participant’s rehabilitation goals and they are not available through other programs.
Veterans Affairs Canada also provides support for a range of mental health services available to family members through the Veterans Affairs Canada assistance service program. Veterans, former Royal Canadian Mounted Police members and their families and caregivers can access mental health services at no cost, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, by calling 1-800-268-7708.
With respect to part (b) of the question, case managers and veterans service agents access the Medavie Blue Cross portal to verify registered providers in the veteran’s area. They then discuss them with their clients, who can choose their providers of choice.
With respect to part (c) of the question, Veterans Affairs Canada’s claims processor, Medavie Blue Cross, manages a comprehensive network of service providers across Canada to provide services to veterans who are clients of Veterans Affairs Canada and are regionally dispersed, through the federal health claims processing services contract.
Service provider eligibility criteria for individual health care practitioners and firms are implemented on the provider registration system and maintained by Medavie Blue Cross provider relations to ensure consistency and efficiency, as well as to validate that service providers’ eligibility remains current. Service providers’ credentials are reviewed when they initially register and then again if they have a change to their address or want to obtain an additional provider identification. Medavie Blue Cross develops an annual plan to outline and support the development and execution of service provider relations’ activities for the period of the plan.
General objectives of service provider relations related to service provider evaluation include maintaining a rigorous re-credentialing and re-registration monitoring program; maintaining, supporting and renegotiating service provider agreements and memorandums of understanding; maintaining current approved service provider criteria and associations based on the requirements of partners, namely Veterans Affairs Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Armed Forces; and conducting annual service provider inactivation to ensure that the service provider registry remains current.
Since April 2022, Veterans Affairs Canada and Medavie Blue Cross have implemented a new service provider escalation process to address concerns related to service provider quality of service and billing issues. Joint biweekly meetings are held between Veterans Affairs Canada and Medavie Blue Cross to investigate and address concerns. Resolutions include service provider education, follow-up with the regulatory body and/or deactivation as a Veterans Affairs Canada service provider.
Question No. 1149—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister on November 30, 2022, that 93.5 percent of Canadians have access to reliable high-speed Internet services: what percentage of Canadians living in the Hamilton metropolitan census area have access to at least 50 Mbps download speed as of December 2022?
Response
Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada knows that access to high-speed Internet is essential for all Canadians, no matter where they live. That is why the government has made more than $7.6 billion available across government connectivity programs to support the building of rural and remote Internet infrastructure.
The Government of Canada’s most recent connectivity program, the universal broadband fund, or UBF, is the largest federal investment in broadband in Canada’s history. The UBF is providing $3.225 billion to help ensure that 98% of Canadians will have access to high-speed Internet by 2026 and all Canadians by 2030. The government is on track to meeting that goal. Today, 93.5% of Canadians have access to high-speed Internet or are targeted to receive access through program commitments, compared to 79% of Canadians in 2014.
With regard to the Hamilton metropolitan census area, 97.6% of dwellings currently have access to a service of 50/10 Mbps or higher.
On July 29, 2021, a federal-provincial co-funding agreement with Ontario was announced to bring high-speed Internet to nearly 280,000 rural Ontario households in hundreds of communities across the province. This agreement is being made possible by an equal federal-provincial investment totalling more than $1.2 billion. Projects under this agreement have already begun to be announced and can be viewed on the UBF’s selected projects page.
The Government of Ontario announced selected projects and communities from its reverse auction, which will connect another 266,000 underserved households in the province. The Government of Canada has worked closely with the Government of Ontario to ensure recent funding decisions are coordinated with decisions on the reverse auction.
The Government of Canada looks forward to making more core UBF announcements under the Canada-Ontario broadband partnership in the coming months.
Question No. 1150—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to the Statistics Canada release entitled “Access to the Internet in Canada, 2020” which stated that only 76 percent of respondents living in a census metropolitan area, and only 48 percent of respondents not living in a census metropolitan area, had an advertised speed of 50 Mbps or more: what percentage of Canadians living (i) inside, (ii) outside, of a census metropolitan area have access to at least 50 Mbps download speed as of December 2022?
Response
The Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (i) and (ii), according to data from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, in 2021, 99.2% of those living in urban areas had access to 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload Internet speeds, compared to 62% of those living in rural areas. This represents an increase for rural areas compared to 2019, when 45.6% had access to Internet speeds of 50/10. Rural areas are defined as areas with a population of less than 1,000 or a density of 400 or fewer people per square kilometre.
Note that the estimates provided from the 2020 Canadian Internet use survey represent the percentage of Canadians who knew their advertised connection speed and subscribed to a speed tier of 50 Mbps or higher. If they chose not to subscribe to a speed tier of 50 Mbps or higher, they were not included in this estimate, even if the service was available to them. Comparable data for 2022 will be available from the 2022 Canadian Internet use survey currently being collected. It will be released in July 2023.
Question No. 1152—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to Canadian sourced income and the definition of "permanent establishment": (a) why is working from home in Canada while logging into US-based companies' internet servers interpreted or considered as Canadian-sourced income by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (b) is the CRA considering a commuter's home as a US company's permanent establishment or as the commuter's permanent establishment; (c) since the commuter's home is not US company property by any measurement, why does the CRA consider the commuter’s home as a US company’s permanent establishment or as the commuter’s permanent establishment of work and in turn how does neither case imply that the commuter and his home are therefore a small business entity generating Canadian-sourced income with deductible expenses; (d) if a commuter's home is considered a commuter's permanent establishment and the commuter is not employed by a Canadian company but provides services to a foreign company, why is the commuter not considered its own small business entity for Canadian tax purposes and not qualified for small business tax deductions; (e) if the commuter’s home is considered as a permanent establishment, why are commuter business expenses such as utilities, travel, rent, vehicle used and registration, etc. not allowed to be deducted as business expenses from their Canadian-sourced income; and (f) if a commuter’s home is considered a permanent establishment, why is going to another office from the commuter's home permanent establishment not considered as a business travel expense?
Response
The Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, and represents its general interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and of the Canada-U.S. tax treaty. This may not be determinative of the tax treatment of a specific taxpayer’s situation.
With respect to part (a), the CRA is interpreting the question to mean employment income of an individual resident in Canada, and such employment income is earned, or sourced, where the related duties are actually performed. This is consistent with the situation where a non-resident of Canada travels to Canada and works here, even on a temporary basis. In either case, the employment income could be considered sourced in Canada if the duties of employment are performed here.
The Canadian resident employee will be earning employment income in Canada, and therefore the U.S. company faces Canadian payroll withholding requirements even if it does not have a permanent establishment in Canada. The employee may be able to obtain a letter of authority from the CRA to authorize the U.S. employer to reduce the Canadian deductions at source to take into account the anticipated foreign tax credit. To get a letter of authority, the employee has to send form T1213, the request to reduce tax deductions at source, or a written request to the Sudbury tax centre.
With respect to part (b), a non-resident employer is subject to Canadian income tax and has to file a tax return if, at any time in the year, the non-resident employer carries on business in Canada. Generally, Canada's tax treaties provide that only business profits attributable to a Canadian permanent establishment will be subject to Canadian income tax.
A permanent establishment of a non-resident corporation is defined under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty to include “a fixed place of business through which the business of a resident of a Contracting State is wholly or partly carried on”. In this case, it is the U.S. In making a determination of whether or not the home of a commuter constitutes a permanent establishment of the U.S. corporate employer, the factors outlined in the commentary on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, or OECD commentary, and derived from jurisprudence are to be taken into account.
If the home office is not at the disposal of the non-resident employer and if the employee is not required by the employer to work at the home office, the use of such home office to carry out employment duties, in and of itself, would generally not constitute a permanent establishment of the U.S. corporate employer in Canada. As indicated in the OECD commentary, the use of a home office does not typically mean that it is at the disposal of the non-resident employer.
In the interest of completeness, it should be pointed out that a corporation resident in the U.S. may also have a permanent establishment in Canada as a result of certain activities carried out by its employees, irrespective of whether these activities are carried out at a home office or elsewhere in Canada.
With respect to part (c), the following responses were prepared on the assumption that the Canadian resident is an employee of the U.S. company. The answer to part (b) includes general comments on permanent establishment determinations for the non-resident employer.
If the Canadian resident is self-employed, the business income arising from the activity would still be sourced and taxed in the country where the services are actually performed. The existence of a permanent establishment of the commuter in Canada would only be relevant to the extent that the commuter does not reside in Canada and carries on its own business rather than being an employee of the U.S. company.
To determine whether a person is an employee or a self-employed individual, the key question to ask is whether the person is engaged to carry out services as a person in business on their own account or as an employee. The element of control by the employer and the facts of the working relationship as a whole decide the employment status. If the commuter is self-employed, expenses incurred to generate the income would generally be deductible, subject to the general limitations provided by the Income Tax Act.
With respect to part (d), the small business deduction applies only to Canadian-controlled private corporations that carry on business primarily in Canada.
With respect to part (e), please see the response to parts (b) and (c) for the discussion on whether the commuter’s home is considered a permanent establishment of the U.S. corporation or not.
Assuming that the Canadian resident is only working as an employee of the U.S. company, limited home office expenses are deductible by the employee if the employee is required by the employer to incur such expenses. If there is an office available for the employee in the U.S. but the employee chooses to avoid commuting time, the employer may not be able to certify that the home office is a work requirement. If the Canadian resident provides services to the U.S. company as a self-employed individual and the Canadian resident’s principal office is at his or her home, the expenses likely would be deductible, subject to the general limitations provided by the Income Tax Act.
With respect to part (f), whether the commuter’s home is considered a permanent establishment of the U.S. corporation is defined in the answers to parts (b) and (c). Assuming that it is an employment relationship, travel from the employee’s home to the office is generally considered personal in nature.
Question No. 1169—
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to reports that in 2020 or 2021, officials at Employment and Social Development Canada (EDSC) were instructed to answer in the affirmative whenever individuals enquired about whether or not they were eligible to receive Employment Insurance benefits: (a) on what date were directives or instructions on eligibility given; (b) what is the summary of each directive or instruction given; (c) who gave the directive or instruction; and (d) how many individuals who contacted ESDC were falsely told by the government that they were eligible for El benefits as a result of such directives?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 2020 and 2021, employment insurance, or EI, call centre employees had no guidance instructing them to reply in the affirmative whenever individuals inquired about eligibility for EI benefits. Although there were temporary simplification measures in place for benefits, there were eligibility criteria that needed to be met. Employees were expected to inform callers of the criteria and encourage them to apply for all benefits that they might be entitled to in order for them to get a decision. Note also that eligibility decisions are not made at the call centre level, but are instead based on EI applications that have been formally submitted.
Question No. 1170—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to the Government of Canada's appeal of the Federal Court decision, dated January 6, 2023, allowing for late claimants in the case of Sherry Heyder, Amy Graham, and Nadin Schultz-Nielsen v. The Attorney General of Canada: (a) did the Minister of National Defence instruct the Department of Justice to commence this appeal; (b) what are the total legal costs incurred to date in this case; and (c) what are the legal costs incurred solely as a result of the appeal of the Federal Court's decision on January 6, 2023?
Response
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Government of Canada's appeal of the Federal Court decision, dated January 6, 2023, allowing for late claimants in the case of Sherry Heyder, Amy Graham, and Nadin Schultz-Nielsen v. The Attorney General of Canada, the Department of Justice cannot provide a response to part (a) of the question, as it is information protected by legal privileges, including solicitor-client and litigation privileges.
With respect to legal expenses incurred by the government related to Sherry Heyder, Amy Graham, and Nadin Schultz-Nielsen v. The Attorney General of Canada, to the extent that the information requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total legal costs, that is, the actual and notional costs, associated with Sherry Heyder, Amy Graham, and Nadin Schultz-Nielsen v. The Attorney General of Canada amount to approximately $36,020,000, which includes $30,475,000 for the payment of legal fees to plaintiffs’ or class counsel, or $26,500,000 plus taxes, as approved by the Federal Court in its order dated November 25, 2019. The Government of Canada paid this amount to plaintiffs’ or class counsel in early 2020 as required by the final settlement agreement. Legal costs also include notional and actual cost amounts representing the litigation and litigation support services provided by the Department of Justice Canada, which amount to approximately $5,545,000.
Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants, and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs represent file-related legal disbursements paid by Justice Canada and then cost-recovered from client departments or agencies. The notional amounts for Justice Canada’s legal fees mentioned in this response are based on information contained in Department of Justice systems as of February 15, 2023.
Question No. 1171—
Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to the statement in the government's technical backgrounder on the Canada Growth Fund (CGF) that the CGF will be established in 2022 as a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV): (a) on what date in 2022 was the CGF established as a subsidiary of the CDEV; (b) how many funding applications were received by the CGF in 2022; (c) how much funding was provided by the CGF in 2022; and (d) what are the details of all funding in (c), including the (i) amount, (ii) date funding was provided, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding part (a), the Canada growth fund, or CGF, was incorporated by the Canada Development Investment Corporation, or CDEV, on December 13, 2022. This action was taken following orders in council made on December 2, 2022, directing CDEV to incorporate CGF. They can be found here: https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=42895&lang=en and https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=42894&lang=en
Regarding parts (b), (c) and (d), no funding has been provided by the Canada growth fund. Implementation of the first phase of the CGF is currently under way. The CGF will make investments that catalyze substantial private sector investment in Canadian businesses and projects to help transform and grow Canada’s economy at speed and scale on the path to net zero. The CGF will determine which businesses and organizations will be the recipients of this financing, and it will apply rigorous criteria to each investment it makes.
Question No. 1179—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Atomic Workers Recognition Program: (a) how much money has been allocated for the program; (b) of the amount allocated, how much is for (i) payments to beneficiaries, (ii) the administration of the program; (c) how much has been (i) spent to date, (ii) budgeted, for advertising related to the program, broken down by type of media; (d) how many beneficiaries have received payments to date under the program and what is the total value of those payments; and (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by type of beneficiary (worker, surviving spouse)?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, through the atomic workers recognition program, or AWRP, the Government is honouring the exceptional service of former Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, or AECL, employees who responded bravely in a time of crisis. Today, Canada continues to place the highest priority on health, safety and environmental protection in all aspects of the nuclear industry.
With regard to part (a), budget 2021 allocated $22,273,536 over two years to fund the atomic workers recognition program, beginning in 2021-22.
With regard to part (b), of this total cost amount, $18,810,000 is provisioned for the ex gratia payments to eligible applicants, and $3,463,536 is for the administration of the program.
With regard to part (c), the program has a budget of $50,000 for advertising related to the program, including local print newspaper ads, Spotify radio ads and search engine marketing. From March 31, 2022, until January 31, 2023, the program has spent $16,910.39 from this budget. The spending has been split between the following: print newspaper ads in The Eganville Leader, the Pembroke Daily Observer, the Arnprior Chronicle, the Renfrew Mercury, the Ottawa Citizen, Le Droit and L’Orléanais; Spotify radio ads in the geo-targeted locations of Eganville, Chalk River, Deep River, Pembroke, Arnprior, Renfrew, Ottawa, Pontiac, Manitoba and New Brunswick; and search engine marketing on Google and Bing.
With regard to part (d), as of January 31, 2023, 388 individual beneficiaries have received payments since the launch of the program on March 31, 2022, for a total value of $6,088,550 in payments.
With regard to part (e), the individuals who received payments under the program between March 31, 2022, and January 31, 2023, include 43 atomic workers, 314 primary beneficiaries, 17 executors of the atomic workers’ estates and 14 primary caregivers.
Question No. 1184—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the renovations to Centre Block and the grounds of Parliament Hill: (a) what is the current projected total cost of the project; (b) what is the current timeline for the project, including the current projected completion date and the year Centre Block will reopen; (c) what is the projected timeline for when the work in front of Centre Block will be completed and the lawn will reopen; and (d) how much has the projected cost of the project increased since construction began, in total, and broken down by each type of expense which has increased?
Response
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the current total projected cost of the Centre Block rehabilitation project is $4.5 billion to $5 billion, which remains the same as the baseline established in June 2021. Given the complexity and scale of work involved, the cost range was independently evaluated by Turner & Townsend, a third party cost, time and risk advisory consultant.
The established schedule forecasts an estimated completion of construction in 2030-31. Parliament will then conduct extensive commissioning and testing with the aim of opening Centre Block the following year. The construction site, including work taking place on the lawn in front of Centre Block, is anticipated to remain until the completion of construction.
Following the public baselining of the cost and schedule, PSPC launched public quarterly status reporting on the progress of the project. The Turner & Townsend due diligence report and PSPC’s quarterly reports can be found at the following links. For the “Centre Block project due diligence report: Cost report”, go to https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/citeparlementaire-parliamentaryprecinct/rehabilitation/edificeducentre-centreblock/rapport-de-cout-cost-report-eng.html. For the quarterly progress reports on the Centre Block project, go to https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/citeparlementaire-parliamentaryprecinct/rehabilitation/edificeducentre-centreblock/raptrimapec-quarprogrcbp-eng.html.
Question No. 1188—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to access to drinking water in First Nations reserves, broken down by reserve: (a) what is the total number of households on each reserve; and (b) what is the total number of households whose primary water access is through (i) in-home piped water service, (ii) truck delivery, (iii) water wells, (iv) other water source, (v) no water access?
Response
Mr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, is concerned, the response is as follows.
Through historic investments since 2016, the Government of Canada has made over $5.6 billion in commitments to first nations to upgrade water and waste-water infrastructure on reserve, to better support the operation and maintenance of systems, to improve the monitoring and testing of community drinking water and to support ongoing efforts to eliminate and prevent drinking water advisories.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), disclosing the data broken down by first nation reserve would require the consent of all implicated parties, per the Access to Information Act and ownership, control, access and possession, or OCAP, principles. Disclosure would require third party consultation with 600-plus first nations, which is not feasible within the given time frame.
Of a total of 118,848 homes on reserve, 71% are connected to a piped community water system, 15% are served through a truck-to-cistern system and 13% have individual systems such as a well or lake intake. The remainder are served via other sources or have no water access.
Residents of homes with no water service may have access to clean drinking water through bottle-filling stations, watering points and the provision of bottled water. ISC does not collect data on whether these homes are occupied year round or only seasonally.
Question No. 1189—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to wastewater treatment in First Nations reserves, broken down by reserve: (a) what is the total number of households on each reserve; and (b) what is the total number of households that use (i) in-home piped wastewater, (ii) truck haul, (iii) individual wastewater system, (iv) other wastewater system, (v) no wastewater system?
Response
Mr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, is concerned, the response is as follows.
Through historic investments since 2016, the Government of Canada has made over $5.6 billion in commitments to first nations to upgrade water and waste-water infrastructure on reserve, to better support the operation and maintenance of systems, to improve the monitoring and testing of community drinking water and to support ongoing efforts to eliminate and prevent drinking water advisories.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), disclosing the data broken down by first nation reserve would require the consent of all implicated parties, per the Access to Information Act and ownership, control, access and possession, or OCAP, principles. Disclosure would require third party consultation with 600-plus first nations, which is not feasible within the given time frame.
Of a total of 118,848 homes on reserve, 53% are connected to a piped community waste-water system, 16% are served through a holding tank-to-truck system and 29% have individual systems such as septic systems. The remaining 2% have no waste-water service. ISC does not collect data on whether homes with no service are occupied year round or only seasonally.