Question No. 1945—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the 6,880 suspicious transactions related to the Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children referred by the Philippines to FINTRAC and shared with the RCMP during the 18 month period ending on December 2022: (a) how many RCMP investigations related to suspicious transactions have either been initiated or are ongoing; and (b) what were the results of the investigations in (a)?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre, NCECC, receives disclosures from the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, FINTRAC, related to online child sexual exploitation and abuse. The information contained in the disclosures may be used by the NCECC to help support investigations by law enforcement, including where the RCMP serves as police of jurisdiction.
The NCECC also receives reports pertaining to online child sexual exploitation from various Canadian and international sources, such as law enforcement agencies; cybertip.ca, Canada’s public reporting tip line; and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, in the United States. The NCECC also receives reports from various service providers, such as social media applications and online gaming platforms. The NCECC assesses and triages all reports received, prepares investigative packages for all actionable reports and distributes the packages to the police agency of jurisdiction for further investigation.
The RCMP undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The RCMP concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
Question No. 1950—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): what is the breakdown of the religions or denominations that CAF members identify as, in total, and broken down by branch of the CAF, including the number and percentage of CAF members for each?
Response
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, building a defence team where all members feel protected, supported, respected and empowered to serve is a top priority. As such, the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, makes certain to respect and protect, in a holistic manner, the spiritual dimension and needs of all its members.
The CAF does not track religious denomination or faith tradition information from members who are enrolling unless they volunteer the information. When this information is volunteered, it is protected by the Privacy Act.
Question No. 1953—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC): what specific interests and potential conflicts were identified in the ethical disclosures for each member of SDTC’s executive team, broken down by individual?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. The requested information is being withheld because it constitutes personal information.
Question No. 1954—
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines: (a) did Pfizer disclose that Process 1 vaccine formula was used during the original trial to obtain their safety and efficacy data while Process 2 was invoked following the Interim Order to massively upscale production of vaccine doses whereby DNA was cloned into a bacterial plasmid vector for amplification in Escherichia coli (E. coli) before linearization with the possibility of potential residual DNA; (b) was HC aware of the quantum of linearized DNA fragments present in each dose of the Pfizer vaccine prior to releasing the vaccine to Canadians, and, if so, what was the amount of acceptable residual DNA per vaccine dose and the method used to measure it; (c) if the response to (b) is negative, has HC since confirmed the quantum of linearized DNA per vaccine dose per mRNA manufacturer, and, if so, what method was used; (d) do the risks of residual DNA meet HC’s standards for transfected foreign DNA; (e) did Pfizer and BioNTech disclose to HC the presence of the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter-enhancer-ori used to amplify the production of Spike mRNA in the DNA plasmid used to produce the mRNA; (f) has HC confirmed the presence of SV40 sequences in the Pfizer vaccine, and, if so, is the amount of SV40 within safe limits and how was it tested; (g) if the response to (f) is negative, when and who will conduct the study to confirm the presence of SV40 and by what method; (h) how were contaminants and impurities addressed throughout the regulatory process for both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna products; (i) are further studies planned to investigate how these contaminants and impurities will impact human subjects given transfection for both products, and, if so, who will conduct the investigation and when will it be conducted; (j) is HC considering regulating these products as gene therapy products; and (k) how does HC plan to inform those Canadians who received the mRNA products about the adulteration of these products, specifically SV40 in Pfizer and heightened levels of DNA plasmids in both Pfizer and Moderna products, to ensure fully informed consent?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Pfizer’s submission provided information that process one was used for clinical trials and process two was used for commercial scale-ups. The residual DNA limit is the same for both processes and is in line with the recommendation from the World Health Organization. The comparability of the vaccine produced by these two processes was demonstrated based on their biological, chemical and physical characteristics.
With regard to part (b), Health Canada was aware of the presence of residual plasmid DNA because in the manufacture of any vaccine, residual elements are part of the standard manufacturing process and may remain. There are strict limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that there is no effect on the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.
The limit for residual DNA in biologic drugs required by Health Canada for approval is not more than 10 nanograms per human dose. This is in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendation concerning residual DNA in biological drugs and is consistent with the quality limits of other international regulators.
It is important to assess the results using the authorized validated assays performed by the vaccine manufacturers to ensure that the quality of commercial vaccine lots is comparable to that of lots shown to be safe and efficacious in clinical studies.
With regard to part (c), refer to part (b).
With regard to part (d), Health Canada initially authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in December 2020 and subsequently has authorized updated versions, including the most recent vaccine targeting the XBB omicron subvariant in September 2023. Each assessment included a determination that the vaccine met the department's stringent regulatory safety, efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada.
As a regulator, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. In the manufacture of any vaccine, residual elements that are part of the standard manufacturing process may remain. There are strict limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that there is no effect on the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.
The simian virus 40, SV40, promoter enhancer sequence was found to be a residual DNA fragment in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The fragment is inactive, has no functional role and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators.
With regard to parts (e) and (f), in the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the full DNA sequence of the Pfizer plasmid was provided at the time of initial filing. The SV40 promoter enhancer sequence was found to be a residual DNA fragment in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The fragment is inactive, has no functional role and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators. Monitoring of the residual DNA fragments is conducted by the manufacturers using methods that have been reviewed and validated by Health Canada as appropriate for its purposes. All Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID 19 vaccine commercial batches released in Canada complied with the requirements approved by Health Canada, including the residual DNA.
With regard to part (g), refer to part (f).
With regard to part (h), as a regulator of vaccines, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. In the manufacture of any vaccine, residual elements that are part of the standard manufacturing process may remain. There are strict limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that there is no effect on the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.
With regard to part (i), Health Canada continues to monitor the COVID-19 vaccines to ensure that they continue to meet the highest standards for safety, effectiveness and quality and that their benefits continue to outweigh any potential risks.
With regard to part (j), Health Canada is not considering regulating mRNA vaccines as gene therapy products, as these vaccines cannot modify genes. Gene therapy involves the use of genes as medicine to treat genetic disease where the faulty gene is fixed, replaced or supplemented with a healthy gene so that it can function normally. The new gene has to enter the cell nucleus. The mRNA from the vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all, so it does not constitute gene therapy. Furthermore, vaccines must meet the high standard of quality, safety and efficacy for medicinal products. Consistent with the international approach to regulating these products, Health Canada will continue to regulate mRNA vaccines as vaccines.
With regard to part (k), Health Canada initially authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in December 2020 and subsequently has authorized updated versions, including the most recent vaccine targeting the XBB omicron subvariant in September 2023.
As a regulator of vaccines, Health Canada sets quality standards and requirements for manufacturers to follow, including providing comprehensive and detailed information about the vaccine itself and about the manufacturing process. In the manufacture of any vaccine, it is expected that there may be variabilities or residual elements that are part of the standard manufacturing process. To manage this, Health Canada requires strict quality limits and controls for the presence of these residual fragments to ensure that the vaccine continues to be safe and that any residual fragments are inactive and have no functional role in the vaccine. All versions of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that have been marketed in Canada continue to meet the strict quality standards required by Health Canada. Health Canada takes immediate action should any marketed vaccine product be found to be non-compliant with regulatory standards in Canada.
Question No. 1955—
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the grocery rebate announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance at Rabba Fine Foods in early July 2023: (a) did any of the minister’s staff members remove, or request that the store remove, the price tags from the food in the background of the announcement, and, if so, why was this done; and (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, what is the minister’s explanation as to why there were no prices visible in the background of her announcement?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance does not have records pertaining to this specific matter of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance’s announcement on July 5, 2023.
Question No. 1957—
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to the October 26, 2023 announcement temporarily pausing the carbon tax on deliveries of heating oil: when the three year pause is completed in November 2026, does the government plan to tax home heating oil at the current carbon tax rate of $65 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), or will it be taxed at a higher rate, and, if so, what will that rate be?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2023, the government announced its intent to temporarily pause the fuel charge on deliveries of light fuel oil exclusively for use to provide heat to a home or building. This pause is proposed to apply to deliveries on or after November 9, 2023, and before April 1, 2027.
The fuel charge rate for light fuel oil in 2027 28 can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/fcrates/fuel-charge-rates.html.
Question No. 1958—
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Prime Minister: has the Prime Minister ever received any formal requests from any of the Liberal members of Parliament representing ridings in Manitoba asking that the carbon tax be paused or removed from natural gas or other sources of home heating, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) requester, (ii) date the request was made, (iii) summary, (iv) Prime Minister's response?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as global market forces and inflation continue to affect Canadians, too many families are feeling the pressure on their monthly energy bills. To put more money back in the pockets of Canadians, while ensuring there is less pollution in our air, the Government of Canada is helping more households make the switch to clean, affordable home heating options. To support this measure, the Government of Canada is doubling the pollution price rural top up and temporarily pausing the pollution price on heating oil.
Heating oil is highly polluting and particularly expensive, costing two to four times as much as natural gas to heat a home. This temporary pause is a targeted measure to address that reality while support rolls out to help Canadians switch to a clean, affordable electric heat pump.
The Department of Finance has no records on the specific matter of formal requests.
Question No. 1959—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the current Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages: (a) has the minister advocated or taken other action to convince the Prime Minister to remove or pause the carbon tax from natural gas or other sources of home heating; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including for each action, the (i) date, (ii) description of the action taken, (iii) response received; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why not?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in cabinet and cabinet committees, as well as in meetings, phone calls and other conversations with cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages works to ensure that the voices of Alberta businesses, stakeholders, industries, communities and residents are heard.
As Albertans and Canadians across the country continue to face the impacts of climate change, including the devastating impacts of fires, floods, heat waves, and atmospheric rivers that have threatened lives and our communities, the minister continues to support urgent climate action. As confirmed by leading economists, the most effective market-based mechanism for reducing carbon emissions is a price on pollution. In jurisdictions where the federal carbon pricing backstop applies, such as Alberta, Canadians receive climate action incentive, or CAI, payments from the federal government to help individuals and families offset the cost of the federal pollution pricing. It consists of a basic amount and a supplement for residents of small and rural communities. In Alberta, an average family of four will receive $1,544 this year.
The Government of Canada has changed the payment method for the CAI from a refundable credit claimed annually on personal income tax returns to quarterly tax-free payments made through the benefit system starting in July 2022.
On October 26, 2023, it was announced the government is moving ahead with doubling the CAI payment rural top-up rate in Alberta and elsewhere, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the baseline amount starting in April 2024. People who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city.
Furthermore, the Government of Canada continues to support the adoption of heat pumps as an alternative source of home heating across the country. Albertans qualify for a $5,000 grant to support the installation of a ground source heat pump that meets Canada’s efficiency regulations.
Question No. 1960—
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the Prime Minister: has the Prime Minister ever received any formal requests from the member for Edmonton Centre or the member for Calgary Skyview asking that the carbon tax be paused or removed from natural gas or other sources of home heating, and, if so, what are the details of the requests, including the (i) requester, (ii) date the request was made, (iii) summary, (iv) Prime Minister's response?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as global market forces and inflation continue to affect Canadians, too many families are feeling the pressure on their monthly energy bills. To put more money back in the pockets of Canadians, while ensuring there is less pollution in our air, the Government of Canada is helping more households make the switch to clean, affordable home heating options. To support this measure, the Government of Canada is doubling the pollution price rural top-up and temporarily pausing the pollution price on heating oil.
Heating oil is highly polluting and particularly expensive, costing two to four times as much as natural gas to heat a home. This temporary pause is a targeted measure to address that reality while support rolls out to help Canadians switch to a clean, affordable electric heat pump.
The Department of Finance has no records on the specific matter of formal requests.
Question No. 1971—
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the Canada–Philippines Enhanced Defence Agreement: (a) what progress has been made on the agreement, and has it been signed by both countries; (b) what assessment of the state of human rights in the Philippines was carried out before the agreement was negotiated; (c) does the agreement include conditions for human rights monitoring and, if so, what are these conditions, and are they sine qua non to maintain the agreement between the two countries; (d) what mechanisms allow for the human rights situation to be monitored; (e) will the mechanisms in (d) include the consideration of the agreement by a parliamentary committee with participation from civil society organizations; (f) when will the terms or the wording of the agreement be made public; and (g) how can citizens access information on the programs and funding associated with the agreement?
Response
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as outlined in Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, Canada has committed to expanding existing military capacity building initiatives that advance joint priorities and interoperability with regional partners, including the Philippines.
As part of this commitment, National Defence is in the process of negotiating a non-legally binding defence cooperation arrangement, or Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, with its counterpart in the Philippines. The MOU will provide a framework for cooperation between Canada and the Philippines in the field of defence and military matters. This may include cooperation in the areas of defence and security policy; humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and maritime security, among others.
Prior to entering into an MOU, National Defence ensures compliance with all applicable federal laws and government policies, directives, and guidelines, including those established by Global Affairs Canada. Canada supports efforts by the Philippines to advance inclusive and accountable governance, diversity, human rights, and the rule of law. The negotiation process, which is underway, involves various levels of consultations, including those among federal departments; as such, specific details have yet to be determined.
Question No. 1972—
Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to the government's response to evidence that Samidoun has ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and other entities that have been recognized by the government as terrorist entities: (a) when did Public Safety Canada (PS) first recognize Samidoun's ties to the PFLP, and what action, if any, has it taken in response to these ties; (b) what action, if any, was taken by PS to respond to events hosted by Samidoun that glorified terrorist and armed militants from the PFLP; (c) does the government recognize that Samidoun has raised money for the PFLP and entities tied to the PFLP, including the Union of Health Work Committees, and, if so, what action has the government taken to stop such financing; (d) has the government taken any action against Samidoun organizers, and, if so, what are the details, including dates of any such action; and (e) has PS examined whether Samidoun has ties to any organizations involved with or which have praised the October 7, 2023, terror attack committed by Hamas, and, if so, what were the findings?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada takes terrorist threats against Canada and its citizens seriously. Security and intelligence agencies are continuously monitoring entities that could pose such a threat and taking appropriate action.
One of the underlying objectives of the Criminal Code list of terrorist entities is to ensure that terrorist entities do not use Canada as a base from which to conduct terrorist activities, including fundraising, and to prohibit individuals from supporting terrorist entities. Assessing entities for possible listing under the Criminal Code is continuous. The process is rigorous, thorough and involves inter-departmental consultations. Pursuant to section 83.05(1) of the Criminal Code, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with, an entity involved in a terrorist activity; then the Minister of Public Safety may recommend to the Governor in Council, or GiC, that it be added to the list.
The government cannot comment specifically on the activities of groups or what groups are being assessed, or considered for listing.
Question No. 1974—
Mr. Larry Brock:
With regard to the fact-finding report prepared for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton (RCGT) dated September 26, 2023: (a) what are the government expenditures related to the report incurred to date, in total, and broken down by type of expenditure; (b) what are the details of the contract awarded to RCGT in relation to the report, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) start and end date, (v) initial contract value, (vi) current contract value, (vii) scope of the work; and (c) what are the details of any limitations (Cabinet confidence, unavailable records, etc.) faced by RCGT in the fact-finding exercise?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the total government expenditure related to the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, or RCGT, report to date is $300,500, or $339,565 with tax.
With respect to part (b)(i), the contract is dated March 17, 2023; part (ii), the initial contract value is $97,400, or $110,062 with tax; part (iii), the vendor is Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton; part (iv), the start date is March 17, 2023, and the end date is March 29, 2024; part (v), the initial contract value is $97,400, or $110,062 with tax; part (vi), the current contract value is $300,500, or $339,565 with tax. The fact-finding exercise identified certain facts that required additional procedures to further assess the relevant facts of the allegations. The additional procedures included a more in-depth analysis of sampled projects to assess conflict of interest, project eligibility and approval and monitoring requirements. With respect to part (b)(vii), the scope of the project included a review of relevant documentation, such as the allegations received by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, a sample of contribution agreements between Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, and funding recipients, and program governance documents, and interviews with informants and key individuals, such as current and former employees and board members. The project also took into account the terms and conditions that apply to Governor in Council appointees, the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, SDTC’s Values and Ethics Code and any other applicable standards of conduct.
Lastly, with respect to part (c), there were no limitations on the documents that were provided by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton to support this work. Most supporting documentation was provided directly by the corporation subject to this exercise.
Question No. 1976—
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to Health Canada (HC) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) what do HC and PHAC know about the origins of COVID-19; and (b) how and when was the knowledge in (a) obtained?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker,the precise origin of COVID-19 remains unknown. The first report of an unknown pneumonia outbreak in China, later called COVID-19, was detected by the Global Public Health Intelligence Network or GPHIN on December 30, 2019. The information was then distributed to Canadian public health practitioners on December 31, 2019, via the GPHIN Daily Report. The Public Health Agency of Canada orPHAC actively monitored the situation and initiated regular and ongoing communications with federal, provincial and territorial partners.
The Government of Canada is supportive of all efforts that will contribute to a clear understanding of the origins of the virus. Canada continues to work with international partners to better understand the origins of COVID-19.
Question No. 1983—
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC): what were the expenditures incurred by NSERC related to the reception on November 1, 2023, titled "Celebrating Excellence: Honouring Canada's Top Natural Sciences and Engineering Researchers", in total, and broken down by item?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC, incurred $4,796.85 in expenses for the November 1, 2023, reception titled “Celebrating Excellence: Honouring Canada’s Top Natural Sciences and Engineering Researchers”, including $4,231.85 for hospitality and $565 for the professional services of a photographer.
Question No. 1984—
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to the Climate Action Incentive Payment and the government's plan to increase the rural top-up rate from 10 to 20 percent of the baseline amount starting in April 2024: how will the rate increase be funded, including whether the increase will come from general revenue or from carbon tax revenue?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the price on pollution is revenue neutral for the Government of Canada. Climate action incentive payments, including the rural supplement for individuals residing in small and rural communities in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, are fully sourced from carbon pricing proceeds. This will continue to be the case in 2024 25, when the rural supplement rate is proposed to increase from 10 percent to 20 percent.
Question No. 1988—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the statement made by Mr. Derek Hermanutz, Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, for Environment and Climate Change Canada on November 9, 2023, at the Standing Committee of Environment and Sustainable Development that “I think we're probably in a world where we could say with some rough analysis that up to one-third, potentially, of the emission reductions that we're projecting to 2030 would come from carbon pricing,”: (a) what analysis did the government use to produce this projection; (b) has the government made this analysis and emission reduction projection public to Canadians, and, if so, where can Canadians locate it; (c) when was this analysis and projection initially made; (d) what are the titles of the individuals at the executive level or higher who conducted or oversaw the analysis in (c); and (e) does the government measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced from federal carbon pricing, and, if so, (i) how is it measured, (ii) what is the amount of emissions that have been reduced in Canada directly and specifically from federal carbon pricing, broken down by year?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), to produce this projection, the government used the provincial-territorial computable general equilibrium model, EC-Pro, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC.
EC-Pro simulates the response of the main economic sectors in each province and territory, and their interactions with each other, including interprovincial trade. It captures characteristics of each province and territory’s production and consumption patterns through a detailed input-output table, and links the provinces and territories via bilateral trade. Each province and territory is explicitly represented as a region and the rest of the world is represented as import and export flows to the provinces and territories, which are assumed to be price takers in international markets. To support analysis of energy and climate policies, the model incorporates information on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs, related to the combustion of fossil fuels. It also tracks non-energy related GHG emissions.
Ideally, estimating the incremental impact of carbon pricing alone would involve developing a bottom-up baseline that does not include carbon pricing. However, given that carbon pricing is now in the historical data and that a significant number of complementary GHG-related measures and regulations have also been introduced or planned, it is extremely challenging to develop a bottom-up baseline that does not include carbon pricing. Therefore, to develop a scenario that does not include carbon pricing, ECCC used a statistical technique that relies heavily on price elasticities, namely how consumers and industry respond to changing prices.
To quantify emissions in the absence of carbon pricing between now and 2030, the initial starting point for this analysis was the reference case with current measures, or Ref22, and with additional measures, or Ref22A, reported in the eighth National Communication Report and fifth Biennial report submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, on December 31, 2022.
The statistical technique to isolate the carbon pricing contribution is as follows: in the calibration of EC-Pro to Ref22 and Ref22A parameters, the carbon price prevailing in the relevant years is explicitly added. This includes the Output-Based Pricing System stringency and the fuel charge coverage, as well as provincial carbon pricing. By doing this, the model establishes a statistical relationship between the prevailing carbon price and fuel use and related emissions by sector by province by year and a baseline that explicitly includes carbon pricing as identified in Statistics Canada’s Supply and Use Tables.
The next step is to develop a relationship between the EC-Pro parameters, namely elasticities and cost curves, to match the CO2 and non-CO2 emissions by sector, by region, and by source to target the emission levels in Ref22. For carbon capture and storage, or CCS, and other technologies that are being driven by carbon pricing, we account for what would have happened if there were no carbon pricing. For example, to assess how carbon pricing and policies to promote reductions influence CCS activities, the level of CCS is held to the current historical level allowing the model to then endogenously project CCS activities in response to policies.
The final step is to run this scenario where the carbon price in the Output-Based Pricing System and the fuel charge are set to zero.
With regard to (b), a 2018 study conducted before the full implementation of carbon pricing across Canada was released in December 2020 and can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/estimated-impacts-federal-system.html.
With regard to (c), an updated analysis, referring to (a), was completed in October 2023 drawing from projections reported in the eighth National Communication Report and the fifth Biennial report submitted to the UNFCCC on December 31, 2022.
With regard to (d), the analysis was directed and overseen by the Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, and by the Director, Model Development and Quantitative Research, Economic Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada.
With regard to (e), the government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing. Retroactively attributing specific GHG reductions to a specific action, such as carbon pricing, a discrete regulation, or a specific incentive, is difficult given the multiple interacting factors that influence emissions, including carbon pricing, tax incentives, funding programs, investor preferences and consumer demand. The National Inventory Report, which reports annually on historical GHG emissions, does not include this information.
Question No. 1989—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to the Ministers' Regional Office (MRO) in Toronto, between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022: (a) what were the total expenditures related to hosting or attending videoconferences at the MRO in Toronto, broken down by year; (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures by videoconference, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) name and title of the minister or other individual hosting, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) total expenditures, (v) breakdown of expenditures by type (audio-visual costs, Zoom fees, catering, etc.), (vi) number and titles of attendees, broken down by those at the MRO in Toronto versus those participating from another location?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ministers’ regional offices, or MROs, provide secure accommodations, administrative and logistical support for on and off-site meetings and events for the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and senior government officials. The offices are equipped with information technology infrastructure to facilitate client participation in virtual meetings.
MROs currently do not systematically track expenditures related to hosting or attending videoconferences in the department’s financial system or a centralized database. Further, any expenditures incurred for catering services during events or meetings held in the facilities are the responsibility of the respective departments involved.
Question No. 1992—
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to section 3.32 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report “Hydrogen's Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions”: why did Natural Resources Canada not factor in the modelling how (i) the supply of hydrogen and associated costs that would be deployed to meet the projected demand, (ii) the existing grid and infrastructure could accommodate electrification ambitions, as well as hydrogen production from renewable generation?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources and Energy, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hydrogen strategy for Canada released in 2020 provided initial analysis of the potential opportunity and role that low-carbon hydrogen could play in Canada. As such, it modelled what the full potential of hydrogen could be in Canada’s energy system, including the economic, environmental and social benefits created by different scenarios and actions.
The modelling focused on the near term, and economically viable end-uses, such as heavy-duty transportation, natural gas blending, cement and steel manufacturing and low-carbon fuel production. These were identified through the engagement undertaken with other government departments, provinces and territories, academia and industry across Canada. The analysis included aspects of technology readiness levels, economic competitiveness, adoption potential and other factors, including supporting infrastructure. Projected demand was not within the scope of this initial modelling, thereby associated costs of supplying hydrogen that would be deployed to meet the projected demand were likewise out of scope.
The modelling undertaken for the hydrogen strategy for Canada was the first of its kind, as Canada had never previously undertaken nationally-based modelling specifically looking at the potential initial vision of using low-carbon hydrogen in various decarbonization applications such as those identified above. Since this was a nascent sector, the modelling had limited data on actual usage of low-carbon hydrogen. It relied on data and assumptions based on historical usage of hydrogen as an energy source. Future modelling will make use of data based on actual usage of low-carbon hydrogen as an energy source, based on pilot, demonstration and early deployment projects.
Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, continues to track progress on low-carbon hydrogen production, infrastructure and end-use projects to improve projections in Canada around the potential role of low-carbon hydrogen in the future, including its role in electrification. In the upcoming progress report update of the hydrogen strategy, expected to be published in early 2024, NRCan will provide updated low-carbon hydrogen modelling projections from six different modelling initiatives that considered hydrogen in the context of net-zero by 2050. Each of these were undertaken since the publication of the hydrogen strategy for Canada in 2020, and the progress report will present the full range of new results.
Question No. 1993—
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to exhibit 3.2 in the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report "Hydrogen's Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions": (a) in reference to the near-term phase, what are the total cost projections and current costs of the (i) development of new hydrogen supply and distribution infrastructure and mature market application, (ii) launching of pilot projects in regional hubs, including pre-commercial applications for heavy-duty trucks, transport equipment for seaport goods, power generation, heat for buildings, and industrial feedstock, (iii) development and implementation of additional policy and regulatory measures needed to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050; (b) in reference to the mid-term phase, what are the total cost projections and current costs of the (i) addition of new regional hubs, (ii) rapid expansion of adoption of fuel cell electric vehicles and transit buses, (iii) increase in new and largescale hydrogen production, to be commercialized in regional hubs, to enable hydrogen and natural gas blending for industry and as feedstock for chemical production; and (c) in reference to the long-term phase, what are the total cost projections and current costs of (i) an increase of new commercial applications supported by supply and distribution infrastructure, (ii) the commercial launch and rapid expansion of new ways to use hydrogen in transportation, (iii) building of more dedicated hydrogen pipelines, (iv) an increase in the supply of low-carbon intensity hydrogen throughout Canada, allowing heavy-emitting industries to adapt operations to decrease carbon emissions, (v) increased production of hydrogen, which could also position Canada as a large scale exporter of hydrogen?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Exhibit 3.2 of the Auditor General’s report “Hydrogen’s Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions” references pages 101 and 102 of the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada, in particular the section entitled “Roadmap to 2050”.
This section outlined potential actions that could take place in the near, medium and long term, if the low-carbon hydrogen market were to develop in a correlated manner to the incremental or transformative scenarios described in the Hydrogen Strategy. The section does not reference specific federal government policies, programs, initiatives, or commitments. As such, it did not include cost projections for those actions. Costs of individual projects, including production, infrastructure, or pilot projects, are borne by project proponents, are project specific, commercially confidential, and vary based on jurisdiction.
Question No. 1994—
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the targets outlined in the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Clean Air, Strong Economy, since January 1, 2022: (a) what are the projected (i) job losses in Canada, broken down by province, (ii) loss of investment within Canada from entities from other countries, (iii) costs for the treasury to convert to carbon neutral, as a result of the government's plan to achieve the targets; and (b) what are the realized (i) job losses in Canada, broken down by province, (ii) loss of investment within Canada from entities from other countries, (iii) costs for the treasury to convert to carbon neutral, to date, resulting from the government's plant to achieve the target?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, climate change is an urgent and existential threat that poses significant risks to the well-being of Canadians and ecosystems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that increases in global warming reaching 1.5°C would cause unavoidable increases in multiple hazards and present significant risks to ecosystems and humans. At current rates, global warming of 1.5°C will likely be reached between 2030 and 2052, and it is only with deep reductions in greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions that global warming can be limited to below 2°C.
The science is clear, accelerated efforts to reduce GHG emissions rapidly by 2030 and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 are necessary in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As a result, in 2021, Canada increased its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution, its NDC under the Paris Agreement to 40-45% reductions below 2005 levels by 2030, from 439 to403 megatonnes. This target represents a reduction of GHG emissions by 293 to 329 megatonnes from 2005 levels. In 2021, Canada enshrined into legislation its commitment to being net-zero by 2050 through the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Under the Act, the Government of Canada is required to set progressively more ambitious emissions targets for 2035, 2040, and 2045, supported by emissions reduction plans.
As you know, in March 2022, the Government released the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, the ERP, which shows a credible pathway to achieving Canada’s enhanced 2030 target. The Plan highlights the emissions reduction potential for all economic sectors to reduce emissions by 2030 and includes concrete action that the Government will take to reach our target. The 2030 ERP builds on the foundation set by Canada’s existing climate actions with a suite of new mitigation measures and strategies and $9.1 billion in additional investments.
More recently, in December 2023, Canada released its first progress report for the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. The 2023 Progress Report provides an update on progress toward the 2030 target, based on Canada’s most recent inventory of historical emissions and recently updated emissions projections. The 2023 Progress Report indicates that we are on a solid path toward our 2030 target. Canada is on pace to surpass our previous target of 30% below 2005 levels and is currently tracking to exceed our interim objective of 20% below 2005 levels by 2026. Between previously announced measures and the additional actions to be explored that are included in the Progress Report, Canada remains firmly on track to meet our ambitious but achievable 2030 target.
The Government of Canada does not currently conduct the level of analysis sought in your inquiry; however, it does know that Canada is already experiencing the impacts of the changing climate, and the costs will continue to climb the longer we postpone climate action. A 2020 report by the Canadian Climate Institute found that the average cost per natural disaster has jumped 1,250% since the 1970s. Over the last decade, the average yearly cost of weather-related disasters and catastrophic losses has risen to the equivalent of 5-6% of Canada’s annual Gross Domestic Product growth.
This past year is on track to being one of the costliest given the extent of climate-related disasters across Canada, including flooding and the worst wildfire year on record. The growing clean economy is building the net-zero industries of tomorrow. It will also create and maintain well-paying jobs for Canadians and businesses in Canada. Clean energy jobs are estimated to grow to 2.68 million by 2050, according to modelling by independent experts from Clean Energy Canada and Navius Research. Taking climate action now is a critical economic opportunity that will maintain and create Canadian jobs and make our economy more resilient and more competitive.
The Government of Canada recognizes that affordability and cost-of-living is top of mind for many Canadians right now. Making life more affordable for Canadians is a key objective of Canada’s climate action. The 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan helps to reduce energy costs for our homes and buildings; makes it easier for Canadians to make the switch to electric vehicles; and creates good, middle-class jobs in every province in the country.
Canada’s climate plans use an optimal mix of incentives and regulations to address climate change ensuring that our workers and business fully benefit from the economic opportunities as investors and consumers in Canada and around the world increasingly look for environmentally sustainable products and resources. Canada’s federal carbon pricing system is flexible and carefully designed to ensure it remains affordable. Under the federal system, the Government will continue to provide support to Canadians and businesses as the carbon price rises to ensure that carbon pricing remains affordable, and most households are better off. Any province or territory can choose the federal pricing system or can design its own pricing system tailored to local needs.
The Government of Canada is committed to supporting a whole-of-government and whole-of-society effort to reduce emissions, create clean jobs and address the climate-related challenges communities are already facing, and we are working closely with industry and provinces and territories for all sectoral contributions in a way that creates economic opportunities in every sector. We will also reach those ambitions through investment, which we are doing through investments in clean technology, in the auto sector, and greener buildings, as an example. However, given the economic interdependencies and interactions within and between sectors, the exact areas for emissions reduction potential may shift in the future as Canada further decarbonizes and flexibilities will exist. For example, creating a clean electricity grid will go a long way towards supporting our zero-emission vehicles goals. The Government of Canada is always exploring new and innovative approaches to drive ambition toward its climate objectives. That is why the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is an evergreen plan that will evolve as Canada moves toward its 2030 and 2050 targets.
More information on our climate plans, our progress and our investments is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange.html.
The Government of Canada will continue to work tirelessly for the health and wellbeing of Canadians, and for a cleaner, more resilient, and prosperous world for this and future generations.
Question No. 1995—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to meetings and tours attended by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change: (a) how many meetings or tours attended by the minister were located on farms, since October 26, 2021; and (b) what are the details of each meeting or tour in (a), including the (i) date, (ii) category and type of farm, (iii) province or territory in which the farm was located, (iv) event description or the purpose of the minister’s attendance?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are on the front lines of the fight against climate change and are also playing a key role as part of the climate solution. Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, has had extensive engagement with farmers and the agricultural sector while they work together in seeking solutions to combat climate change.
ECCC continues to engage with agriculture stakeholders on various aspects of the Government of Canada’s climate plan, the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, which is under development, and the broader environmental agenda. The government remains committed to helping farmers meet the world’s need for food, while safeguarding resources for future generations.
Many of my cabinet colleagues and I have met and will continue to meet with Canadians and industry representatives from across the country in the fight to clean up the environment, combat climate change, reduce greenhouse gases all while maintaining a strong economy. For additional information, the Registry of Lobbyists can be found at https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/guest.
Question No. 1998—
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to the meeting between the office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Mayor of Swan River, Manitoba, referred to in the government’s response to petition 441-01673: (a) what was the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) location, of the meeting; (b) what were the titles of all attendees representing the government who attended the meeting; (c) why was the meeting initiated; (d) what were the outcomes of the meeting; (e) were there any presentations or briefing materials provided during, or in advance of the meeting, by the government; and (f) did the representatives in (b) take any notes during the meeting?
Response
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Minister of Justice met with the Mayor of Swan River virtually on May 29, 2023, from 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., at the request of the Mayor. This meeting was attended by a Senior Policy Advisor from the Office of the Minister of Justice and by an Advisor, Parliamentary and Regional Affairs (West and North). The meeting was productive, and it was valuable to hear the perspective of the Mayor. The Mayor encouraged swift passage of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), which received Royal Assent in December 2023. Discussions were also had about work which could be done by the Province of Manitoba to address concerns around crime.
Question No. 1999—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to memorandums or directives provided to government officials related to the conducting of background checks on visa applicants, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such memorandums or directives, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipients, (iv) type of documents, (v) title, (vi) details of the directive provided, if applicable, including which categories of visa applicants are subject to the directive?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Centre for Immigration and National Security Screening of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, oversees the delivery of the Immigration National Security Screening Program, which includes the collection, analysis and review of information and intelligence on foreign nationals to assess their admissibility for temporary or permanent residence and refugee status.
For the purpose of responding to this question, the CBSA interpreted “memorandums or directives provided to government officials” as referring to any formal written direction provided to CBSA personnel by, or on behalf of, the Minister of Public Safety or the President of the CBSA. No memorandums or directives, as defined earlier, have been identified since January 1, 2019.
Question No. 2001—
Mr. Randy Hoback:
With regard to section 3.56 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report entitled "Hydrogen's Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions": of the models referred to in the section, what specific models were used and what were the conclusions of each model?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the 2022 Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the Parliament of Canada, specifically, Report 3—“Hydrogen’s Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, found that Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, and Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, had different approaches to assessing the role hydrogen should play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Environment and Climate Change Canada expected to achieve 15 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reductions in 2030 whereas the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada, published by NRCan, projected up to 45 megatonnes. It should be noted that the difference between NRCan and ECCC’s estimated reduction potential is due to the different scope and analytical approaches used by the departments.
To generate the 15 megatonnes reduction estimate, ECCC used the EC-Pro model. EC-Pro is a provincial-territorial multi-regional, multi-sector computable general equilibrium model. It covers up to 50 industries and three final demand categories across all 13 Canadian provinces and territories. It is calibrated to the most recent input-output data from Statistics Canada and energy, or emissions, data from the Energy, Emissions and Economy Model for Canada, or E3MC. ECCC focused on modelling the Hydrogen Strategy as one of the many policies and measures announced in Canada’s strengthened climate plan and used a proxy, a 7.3 percent hydrogen–natural gas blending mandate, to incorporate potential emissions reductions from hydrogen.
As noted by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, NRCan looked at a transformative scenario where hydrogen could fill the gap in energy demand not met by other decarbonization means, such as electrification, biofuel, and emissions offset for fossil fuels. The Transformative Scenario was meant to represent the potential size of Canada’s hydrogen opportunity if bold action is taken in the near term. NRCan commissioned a third-party consulting firm, ZEN and the Art of Clean Energy, or ZEN, to undertake modelling for the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada. Together with the Institute for Breakthrough Energy + Emission Technologies, the modelling explored the potential role that hydrogen could play in Canada’s energy future including exploring issues such as hydrogen demand, deployment and emissions reduction potential for hydrogen use across all sectors of the economy, in the context of Canada’s net-zero climate commitments. ZEN’s modelling, which took a regional approach, considered six broad end-uses covering all aspects of the economy, namely transportation, the built environment, several industrial processes, oil and gas, clean fuels, blending with natural gas. The ZEN modelling estimated that hydrogen could contribute up to 45 megatonnes of reductions by 2030.
In addition to the transformative scenario, NRCan also considered an Incremental scenario, which was based on a business-as-usual approach with lighter policy measures and a slower start to adoption of hydrogen. Under this scenario, the potential reductions from hydrogen were expected to reach 22 megatonnes.
Question No. 2004—
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to requests made by CBC/Radio-Canada to social media companies to take down, edit, ban, or change in any other way social media content, posts, or accounts, since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all such requests, including (i) who made the request, (ii) the date, (iii) the social media platform, (iv) the description of the original content including the name or the handle associated with the post, (v) the description of the change requested, (vi) whether the social media company abided by the request?
Response
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, from January 1, 2020, to November 21, 2023, CBC/Radio-Canada asked various social media companies to act on content posted on their platforms that violate copyright of their platform community standards. CBC/Radio-Canada records do not contain the complete information required to provide a comprehensive response to this question.
An extensive manual search would be required to gather the information requested and remove any personal information, and the results could only partially answer this request. This could not be accomplished in the time allotted for this request.
Question No. 2005—
Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2023-24: what is the breakdown of the $500 million that is being frozen across 68 organizations to achieve the reductions in 2023-24, by organization and by object code?
Response
Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Refocusing Government Spending to Deliver for Canadians website at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/topics/planned-government-spending/refocusing-government-spending.html provides the breakdown of amounts frozen by organization for 2023–24. The budgetary expenditures by standard object for Supplementary Estimates (B), 2023–24, which can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/supplementary-estimates/supplementary-estimates-b-2023-24/budgetary-expenditures-standard-object.html, are based on the authorities to date and do not include frozen amounts.
Question No. 2007—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the $669,650 contract awarded to KPMG to provide advice on how to save money on consultants: (a) what advice did KPMG provide to the government; and (b) does the government consider the advice to be worth $669,650?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources and Energy, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the total amount of the contract awarded to KPMG on July 13, 2022, is $630,000 (without tax). The contract was established to leverage the firm’s experience to support the modernization of internal services and departmental operations. The work began prior to the President of the Treasury Board’s Government of Canada spending initiative, which was detailed in budget 2023. In support of the spending initiative, Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, submitted its proposals to refocus spending to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat in October 2023.
With respect to part (a) of the question, KPMG conducted an independent financial review of internal service expenditures to identify cost-saving opportunities for the department, in line with the department’s ongoing efforts to manage public resources efficiently. The department worked with the firm to analyze cost-saving opportunities, specifically in information technology, or IT, and real property. The analysis was much broader than spending on professional services.
KPMG’s analysis revealed opportunities for efficiencies in operational IT areas such as IT service and software asset management, IT contractor usage, desktop computing, printer optimization, and application portfolio rationalization. Their analysis also pinpointed areas of potential efficiency improvements in real property, such as fleet management, space utilization, and the centralization of real property functions.
KPMG provided recommendations that covered areas of policy, procurement, governance, planning, organizational structure, and technology. These recommendations provided both short and long-term options and proposed operational efficiencies and risk mitigation for the department.
With respect to part (b) of the question, KPMG’s advice was derived from: analyzing diverse data types, that is, financial data, internal service volume and website analytics; conducting consultations; and performing benchmarking analysis against similar organizations. This facilitated the development of methodologies, tools and templates for assessing potential efficiencies and proposing actionable next steps.
The analysis revealed efficiency opportunities in IT areas benefiting from optimization or lower cost alternatives, and helped the department ensure the continuity of ongoing activities and strategic real property activities.
KPMG provided an external perspective to the department to identify efficiency opportunities using industry best practices’ benchmarking and data analysis methodologies.
Question No. 2008—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the surveillance infrastructure for tuberculosis (TB): (a) since 2015, broken down by province, what was the incidence of TB in Canada generally, and for First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada; (b) what date will the government publish the next Tuberculosis in Canada report; (c) how does Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada collaborate with the recommendations outlined in the TB in Canada report; (d) what are the demographic criteria included in Canada’s TB surveillance system to appropriately disaggregate data to identify gaps in care and is this disaggregated data shared with provincial health departments; (e) how much funding is dedicated to Canada's TB surveillance system and dissemination strategy, including the launch of the TB in Canada report; (f) what is the average response time between when a TB outbreak is declared by a public health authority, and when that data is reflected in the national TB surveillance system; and (g) what steps is the Public Health Agency of Canada taking to ensure that the recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy are implemented for tuberculosis data?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the incidence rate of tuberculosis, or TB, in Canada is broken down by province and by territory and by Indigenous group, namely First Nations, Inuit and Métis, for the 2008-2018 time period and can be found at https://opencanada.blob.core.windows.net/opengovprod/resources/1ff8f1b6-02a8-425a-bd0b-af9495d2e53c/tb-in-canada_2008-2018_eng_march24-2022.pdf?sr=b&sp=r&sig=D6d5ljkzoXi4CwVF9%2BMAAxZrPYJN2tG8/yQBAvKkhzA%3D&sv=2019-07-07&se=2024-01-30T02%3A27%3A38Z.
Surveillance data for the 2012-2021 reporting period will be published on the Government of Canada website in winter 2024 in a new report entitled “Tuberculosis in Canada: 2012-2021 Expanded report.” The report will include updated data broken down by province and by territory, as well as descriptive statistics on a wide range of variables related to TB. A summary of TB data for the 2012 to 2021 time period was recently published and can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/tuberculosis-surveillance-canada-summary-2012-2021.html. With regard to the incidence rate of TB in 2021, the data showed 135.1 cases per 100,000 among Inuit people, 16.1 cases per 100,000 among First Nations people and 2.1 per 100,000 among Métis people.
Additionally, an infographic with surveillance highlights entitled “Tuberculosis in Canada: Infographic (2021),” is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/tuberculosis-canada-2021-infographic.html. It is expected that an infographic presenting 2022 data will be released by March 2024.
With regard to (c), the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, Health Canada, and other federal departments such as Indigenous Services Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada meet regularly to discuss national TB surveillance trends and interventions to support TB elimination such as support for outbreaks, access to TB medications, capacity building, and other activities. These departments and other partners, such as the provinces, territories, Indigenous groups and TB experts, use national TB surveillance reports to measure Canada’s progress towards TB elimination targets and commitments which in turn help to inform TB policy and program decision making, research initiatives and innovation related to TB. TB surveillance reports are also used by provincial and territorial partners for benchmarking and to inform decision-making.
With regard to (d), demographic data collected through Canada’s TB surveillance system originate from the provinces and territories. The data includes province or territory of residence, population group, namely the country of birth, immigration status, the year of arrival in Canada and Indigenous groups, age and sex. A complete list of variables can be found on our case report form available at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/diseases/tuberculosis/active-tuberculosis-reporting-form-eng.pdf.
The national surveillance system consists of TB related data submitted from provincial and territorial public health departments but does not include specific information on health care.
With regard to (e), the TB surveillance program at PHAC has a total funding of $1,222,030 for fiscal year 2023-2024, which includes employee salaries, program operations and maintenance. Furthermore, the dissemination of the infographic and surveillance report have an estimated cost of $6,500.
With regard to (f), active TB cases are reported to the National Tuberculosis Surveillance system on an annual basis in the summer months following the calendar year in which they were diagnosed. A national report is then produced usually in the fall and published in the winter. The time period between when data are submitted to PHAC and published include requirements for cleaning data, verifying quality, analyzing, reporting, and publishing.
With regard to (g), guided by recommendations from an Expert Advisory Group, there was significant collaboration between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments towards a pan-Canadian health data strategy, focused on common priorities such as modernizing and aligning health data standards, policies and governance, and building public trust. This work set the stage for enhanced collaboration across the country, under the Government of Canada’s “Working Together to Improve Health Care for Canadians” Plan, announced in February 2023, and a Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Joint Action Plan on Health Data and Digital Health, which was endorsed by Ministers of Health on October 12, 2023. More information on the “Working Together to Improve Health Care for Canadians” Plan is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2023/02/working-together-to-improve-health-care-for-canadians.html.
The Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy, or PCHDS, led to the release of a final report in May 2022 led by an Expert Advisory Group which includes recommendations for health data partners from all jurisdictions, namely federal, provincial and territorial, which can be found at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/corporate/mandate/about-agency/external-advisory-bodies/list/pan-canadian-health-data-strategy-reports-summaries/expert-advisory-group-report-03-toward-world-class-health-data-system/expert-advisory-group-report-03-toward-world-class-health-data-system.pdf.
Some of these recommendations align with the work being undertaken by PHAC’s TB surveillance program. The program works collaboratively with federal, provincial and territorial surveillance stakeholders to collect common indicators for TB. In addition, to better understand data needs, gaps and expectations, bilateral discussions with provincial and territorial TB partners took place in the summer and fall 2023. This aligns with recommendation #5 from the PCHDS: Establish meaningful and ongoing engagement with the public and stakeholders to understand their health data needs and expectations.
Furthermore, the PHAC TB surveillance program is exploring the development of a new surveillance infrastructure to modernize the storage, management and analysis of data. This is expected to improve timeliness and data quality and aligns with recommendation #9: Establish common integrated health data standards and data architecture and drive and monitor their roll out.
Question No. 2011—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to government responses to document production orders adopted by the House of Commons and its committees: (a) does the government acknowledge the authority of the House and its committees to compel the production of documents through the power to send for papers and records; (b) does the "suggested key messages" briefed to the Office of the Deputy Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship by departmental officials, on May 2, 2022, that "Parliamentary committees may request documents from the government, but the government is of the view that they cannot compel their disclosure" represent the government's official position, and, if not, what is the government's official position; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, what remedial action has been taken to ensure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is correctly informed about the House's constitutional authority to compel the production of documents; (d) are the key messages prepared for an assistant deputy minister of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on April 28, 2022, for a briefing to be provided to the deputy minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, specifically that "even in the face of an order from the House of Commons, it remains open to protect personal information from disclosure if ministers wish to do so" reflective of the government's official position; (e) if the answer to (d) is negative, what remedial action has been taken to ensure that the department is correctly informed about ministers' authority to override orders of the House and its committees; and (f) is it the position of the government that ministers have any discretionary authorities to redact documents ordered by the House or its committees to be produced, and, if so, on what grounds and lawful authority may orders of the House and its committees be overridden "if ministers wish to do so"?
Response
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians perform a pivotal role in Canada’s Westminster system of government by studying and passing legislation, deliberating on matters of national concern, and generally holding the government to account. The Government of Canada consistently strives to be as forthcoming with parliamentarians as possible, while respecting its legal obligations to treat certain types of information as confidential. That being said, Speaker Beaudoin stated in 1957 that “No matter how ample its powers may be, there are certain documents to which the house is not entitled, and that is those a cabinet minister refuses to produce on his own responsibility.”
The Privacy Act, for example, provides that personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed except in accordance with the Act. When faced with requests by parliamentarians for personal information, government institutions consider all available authorities that may permit disclosure. Officials support ministers, notably with respect to the production of documents as well as in their relationship with the House of Commons, to which they are responsible for the policies and operations of the Government of Canada. All of this is in keeping with the constitutional principles that underly our system, including parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary privilege, responsible government, and the rule of law.
As former Conservative Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson stated in the House of Commons on March 31, 2010, “The central issue before you, Mr. Speaker, is whether parliamentary privilege gives the House an absolute and unqualified right to order the production of documents and to receive the documents and whether any expression of views that it might not constitute a contempt of the House. On this point, I would remind the House that our parliamentary privileges are not indefinite, nor unlimited, but defined by the Constitution in the Parliament of Canada Act as those possessed by the United Kingdom House of Commons in 1867.”
Question No. 2016—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the October 6, 2023 directive for CAF reconstitution from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the deputy minister: (a) how many and what percentage of CAF members are considered non-essential; (b) how many and what percentage of those considered non-essential have been ordered to "temporarily cease activities" to focus on the reconstitution order; (c) what is the breakdown of how many CAF members have been reassigned to focus on the reconstitution order by the unit or squadron they were with; and (d) what are the details of each analysis conducted, including timelines, findings, and number of personnel involved, related to the part of the directive stating that "Before reductions in staffing processes and/or the ceasing of activities and tasks that do not directly contribute to CAF reconstitution efforts, an analysis shall be conducted to determine the impacts on Public Service processes and activities, and solutions will be devised in collaboration with ADM(HR-Civ) to mitigate negative second and third order effects"?
Response
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff, or CDS,and Deputy Minister, or DM, directive for Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, reconstitution initiated a concerted, defence team-wide effort to rebuild the strength and numbers of its members and, at the same time, build on the structure and competencies that are necessary to defend and protect Canadians. The directive calls on the defence team to optimize its operational tempo, prioritize resource allocation to areas of increasing strategic relevance and create capacity for reconstitution efforts. Notably, there are no CAF personnel who are deemed non-essential through this process.
The directive was initially produced by the Strategic Joint Staff, with support from organizations across National Defence. There is no dedicated team or set of individuals that have been re-assigned to focus on the directive’s implementation. This is because the directive provides tasks and planning guidance for all members across the defence team to consider and incorporate into future planning.
Indeed, a number of tasks identified in the directive have been achieved due to close coordination and collaboration between individuals and teams across National Defence since October 2022. For example, the defence team has successfully executed an initial review of operations and contingency plans to initiate a short-term optimization of critical ranks and trades, streamlined the delivery of basic training and completed a review of all ceremonial tasks in order to prioritize reconstitution efforts.
As of December 18, 2023, these efforts have not necessitated analyses on public service processes and activities. Nonetheless, all elements and organizations within National Defence – military and civilian – continue to apply a reconstitution lens to all operations, plans and commitments, with due consideration given to priorities and capacity.
Reconstitution is an ongoing effort that will continue until the force is appropriately rebuilt. There will be continual reviews of the directive to ensure that the aims are still correct and being achieved and to ensure the tasks are appropriate and prioritized.
Question No. 2017—
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the orders in council adopted since November 4, 2015: (a) how many orders in council have not been published on the Privy Council Office website; and (b) with respect to each order in council not published, (i) what is the number assigned to it, (ii) what is the date on which it was adopted, (iii) who was the minister who gave the recommendation to adopt it, (iv) which departments, agencies or Crown corporations did it concern, (v) what is its subject-matter, (vi) did it enact regulations exempted from examination, publication or registration under the Statutory Instruments Act?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with few exceptions, orders in council are available to Canadians online on the Privy Council Office, or PCO, Orders in Council website and are published in the Canada Gazette.
Between November 5, 2015, and November 22, 2023, the Governor in Council approved 10,828 orders in council. Of those, 10,728 were posted on the PCO Orders in Council website. The remaining 100, representing less than 1% of the total number approved by the Governor in Council, are protected in accordance with Canadian legislation.
Some statutes, including, the Statutory Instruments Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Investment Canada Act, contain provisions that restrict the publication of orders in council, temporarily or permanently, when their content relates to national security, military operations, sensitive personal or commercial information, or information that could interfere with the conduct of international or interprovincial affairs.
Question No. 2018—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to Old Age Security (OAS), for the 2022 tax year: (a) how many OAS payment recipients were not residents of Canada for tax purposes; and (b) how much was paid out in OAS payments to the recipients in (a)?
Response
Mr. Terry Sheehan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, in 2022, an average of 155,477 Old Age Security or OAS program recipients residing outside Canada received benefits each month.
These recipients may or may not have non-resident status for tax purposes. Data limitations regarding the OAS and International Agreements administrative databases preclude the reliable identification of beneficiaries with non-resident status for tax purposes as granted by the Canada Revenue Agency.
With respect to part (b), in 2022, $620,967,040 was paid to OAS program recipients residing outside Canada.
Question No. 2020—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan 2023-2028: (a) what is the date each measure will (i) begin to be implemented, (ii) be fully implemented; and (b) for each measure in (a) where implementation dates are not available, why are dates not available?
Response
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker,the Department of Justice undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The Department of Justice concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the human rights of indigenous peoples as the minimum standard for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world.
Together, first nations, Inuit and Métis and the Government of Canada are already working to implement the UN Declaration on the ground, including through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, orUNDA, which created a lasting framework to advance federal implementation of the declaration in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples.
There are already many initiatives underway that contribute to achieving the objectives of the declaration. These include, but are not limited to: Indigenous Languages Act; First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Families and Youth Act and the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy.
The UNDA action plan is intended to be implemented over five years, from 2023 to 2028. As is therefore to be expected, different action plan measures are at different stages and will proceed at different rates. For some, measures are already well underway or nearing completion: for example, Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts; Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements); and Bill C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts); for others, initial work planned has been shared with indigenous peoples, that is, shared priorities, or SP, 30 indigenous data sovereignty) and some discussions with indigenous peoples are already underway, such as SP 28 development of an indigenous justice strategy and SP 52 indigenous cross-border mobility). For others, dedicated consultation has yet to begin. Information about specific measures will be collected, confirmed and reported on as part of the UNDA annual reporting process.
To ensure indigenous peoples’ continued participation in the action plan implementation process, the Department of Justice is providing funding to support indigenous participation in the various implementation, monitoring and oversight processes described in the action plan.
As with the other obligations set out in the UNDA and the commitments made in the action plan, the annual reports on progress must be developed in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples. Shared priorities measure 20 from the action plan commits to the development of metrics with indigenous peoples to ensure useful measurements are being reported on.
The next Annual Report to Parliament is scheduled to be completed in June 2024 and will be tabled shortly thereafter.
Question No. 2021—
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to legal services and the Department of Justice: (a) what are the total legal costs incurred by the government for the case of Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change); and (b) what is the breakdown of the costs?
Response
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to legal expenses incurred by the government related to the Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) litigation, to the extent that the information that has been 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, namely the actual and notional costs, associated with the Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) action amount to approximatively $1,307,200. The services targeted here are litigation services provided in this case by the Department of Justice, as well as litigation support services. 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 the Department of Justice and then cost-recovered from client departments or agencies. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of November 29, 2023.
Question No. 2027—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the effective tax rate paid by high-income individuals and businesses: (a) from 2015 to 2023, what was the effective tax rate paid by those making above (i) 1 million, (ii) 2 million, (ii) 5 million, CAD; (b) what was the average effective tax rate paid by the top (i) 1%, (ii) 0.1%, (iii) 0.01%, of income earners from 2015 to 2023; and (c) what was the effective capital gains tax rate of the top (i) 1%, (ii) 0.1%, (iii) 0.01%, of capital gains earners from 2015 to 2023?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the previous question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, for the time period of January 1, 2015, to November 27, 2023, that is, the date of the question.
The CRA is unable to provide a response to (a), (b) or (c).
Effective tax rates are not captured on tax forms or schedules, nor in the CRA’s systems and databases, for either individuals or corporations. Computations of effective tax rates are not undertaken by the CRA. Providing the information requested would require an extensive data modeling exercise to produce a tax calculation for which the CRA neither has the requisite expertise nor a tried and tested methodology.
Question No. 2028—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the Bank of Canada's (BOC) digital Canadian dollar consultation: (a) what are the details of all memorandums or briefing notes that have been sent from or received by the BOC in relation to the topic, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of document, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) title, (vi) file number; (b) what are the details of all studies the BOC has done since 2016 related to the topic, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the methodology, (iii) who conducted the study, (iv) the results; and (c) what (i) was the input received, (ii) were the overall findings, from the digital Canadian dollar consultation, which occurred from May 8 to June 19, 2023?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, (i) with regard to the Bank of Canada's digital Canadian dollar consultation, the bank found one relevant briefing note or memorandum dated October 3, 2023; (ii) the type of document is a briefing note; (iii) the sender is the communications department of the Bank of Canada; (iv) the recipient is the executive council of the Bank of Canada; and (v) the title is “Overview of engagement to date and material for publication by the Bank”. Item (vi) is not applicable, as there is no file number associated with this document.
With respect to part (b) of the question, details of the relevant study are in the response to part (c) of the question. There are no additional studies related to the Bank of Canada's digital Canadian dollar consultation.
Lastly, with respect to part (c), on May 8, 2023, the Bank of Canada launched an open public questionnaire on the digital Canadian dollar, which ran for six weeks. On November 29, 2023, the bank released the results of its overall engagement and public consultation work in a report entitled, “A Digital Canadian Dollar: What we heard 2020–23 and what comes next”. The report includes an appendix prepared for the bank by a third-party service provider, Forum Research, on public questionnaire results. This includes an explanation of the methodology used for the questionnaire, an analysis of the quantitative results and a summary of the qualitative feedback.
Question No. 2031—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the government and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+): what were the results of the GBA+ analysis and the subsequent actions taken for (i) Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, (ii) Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), (iii) Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, (iv) Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act?
Response
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice supports the Government of Canada’s commitments to Gender-Based Analysis Plus, or GBA Plus, to help ensure that federal initiatives are responsive and inclusive. The department’s Policy on Gender-Based Analysis Plus: Applying an Intersectional Approach to Foster Inclusion and Address Inequities defines the guiding principles and key steps for the integration of intersectional GBA Plus considerations in the development of legislation as well as other departmental initiatives. Members can consult annex C of the policy. The policy requires all Justice Canada officials to apply an intersectional GBA Plus approach in a systematic, evidence-based way to ensure that federal government legislation, policies, programs and other initiatives are responsive, inclusive and reflective of diverse experiences and realities in order to address existing inequities and barriers.
The GBA Plus assessment process is focused on understanding who is impacted by the issue being addressed, identifying how the initiative could be tailored to meet diverse needs of the people most impacted, and anticipating and mitigating any barriers to accessing or benefitting from the initiative. Applying an intersectional approach goes beyond gender and sex to include consideration of multiple identity factors, such as age, disability, economic status, education, sexual orientation, language, racialization, ethnicity, religion and spirituality. The analysis also includes creating meaningful GBA Plus indicators to monitor and report on the impacts of the initiative on diverse groups, as well as identifying existing and potential barriers and inequities experienced by specific groups and addressing them in a timely manner as needed.
Here is some information on the GBA Plus analysis and further actions taken in respect of the specific bills that were the subject of this inquiry.
Regarding the former Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the GBA Plus analysis was provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on May 10, 2019. The amendments were expected to have differential impacts on some identifiable groups, due to the demographic characteristics of individuals involved in the criminal justice system, the CJS. Since these amendments were not designed to address all social issues, without sufficient training for CJS actors, operational changes in the courts and administration of justice at the provincial and territorial level to support them, vulnerable populations were expected to continue to experience overrepresentation. Since the enactment of this legislation, Justice Canada has undertaken further work with the provinces and territories to implement the amendments and monitor any impacts of the legislation.
Justice Canada is currently developing a survey to examine CJS stakeholders’ perceptions of CJS efficiencies in general, and more specifically in light of recent legislative changes, including those enacted by former Bill C-75. This will include an assessment of the overall impacts of these changes on Indigenous and racialized accused/offenders and other vulnerable populations.
With respect to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), the GBA Plus analysis was provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on September 27, 2023. It is available at https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/LCJC/briefs/2023-10-13_LCJC_C-48_Follow-up_GBAplus_e.pdf. The Government of Canada recognizes that the lack of national bail statistics in Canada has resulted in knowledge and data gaps on the topic. Justice Canada is collaborating closely with Statistics Canada and with the provinces and territories to improve data collection and fill these gaps, which would help better understand the impacts of our bail system. Section 2 of Bill C-48 also requires a parliamentary review of the amendments to begin five years after Royal Assent to assess the impacts of the reforms. This review must begin by December 5, 2028, or as soon as reasonably feasible.
With respect to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, the GBA Plus analysis was provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on April 14, 2023. The reforms enacted by C-9 were carefully designed to improve the process for reviewing complaints against federally appointed judges, with a focus on its cost and efficiency, as well as its fairness, accountability and transparency, all without having a disproportionate impact on judges or complainants who are members of identifiable groups relevant to GBA Plus. The reforms are expected to have a positive impact on those who submit complaints related to discrimination, including based on race and gender. Whether the proposed reforms might have negative or unintended impacts for judges or complainants was considered, and none were identified. No further steps are considered necessary at this time.
With respect to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the GBA Plus analysis was provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on October 18, 2022. It is available at https://sencanada.ca/Content/Sen/Committee/441/LCJC/briefs/C-5_Followup_Lametti_Full_e.pdf. Section 21 of Bill C-5 included a mandatory parliamentary review of the amendments four years after coming into force to assess the operation of the reforms. This review must begin by November 17, 2026. Justice Canada will continue to collaborate with partners to monitor the impacts of the amendments.
The Department of Justice will continue to improve its practices and promote the early and meaningful integration of intersectional GBA Plus considerations in legislation, policies, programs and other initiatives to advance equity and inclusion.
Question No. 2036—
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to claims by the Prime Minister that senators appointed by him are independent: (a) what are the details of all messages sent by the Prime Minister, any minister, or any ministerial staff to Senator Marc Gold since January 1, 2023, including, for each, the (i) sender (ii) type of message (e-mail, text, letter), (iii) title, (iv) summary of the contents, (v) date; (b) what are the details of all government meetings where Senator Gold was invited, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) meeting title, (iii) names and titles of invitees, (iv) location; and (c) has Senator Gold ever been invited to any cabinet meetings, and, if so, how many?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions, and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in December 2015, the Prime Minister implemented an independent advisory board that makes merit-based recommendations for Senate appointments. Every new senator since that time has been appointed as an independent. The new independent Senate led to the creation of the Government Representative Office, led by the Government Representative, Senator Marc Gold. He does not sit in or lead a partisan caucus.
Senator Gold’s role is representing the Senate to the government, and vice versa. For the government, he is the first point of contact and holds the responsibility for steering the government’s legislation through the Senate, while also maintaining and encouraging the independence of senators. Senator Gold is a member of the Privy Council. He attends Cabinet when deemed appropriate for facilitating his role in managing the government’s legislative agenda in the Senate, and receives relevant correspondence as needed.
Question No. 2037—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the new passport's development, design, production, and distribution: (a) other than the $284 million contract with the Canadian Bank Note Company, were any other contracts awarded related to the passport, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) vendor, (ii) value, (iii) date, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (competitive bid, sole-sourced)?
Response
Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or IRCC is concerned: yes, a contract was awarded related to the passport. Specifically, the department leveraged an existing contract with TRM Technologies Inc. via a task authorization or TA to conduct a privacy assessment of the technical solution producing the new passport.
The contract was awarded to TRM Technologies Inc. The TA value was $33,052.50. The TA was awarded on October 17, 2022. The purpose of the TA was to analyze the new technical production solution for privacy issues, to identify associated risks and mitigation strategies and to draft an addendum to the existing ePassport Privacy Impact Assessment. This contract was awarded via a competitive bid.
Question No. 2038—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the comments by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on November 8, 2023, that "tens of thousands of people across the Prairies are getting the chance to replace their home heating oil": what is the breakdown of the number of homes on the Prairies that currently use home heating oil, broken down by each of the Prairie provinces?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, produces the Comprehensive Energy Use Database, or CEUD. CEUD provides an overview of sectoral energy markets in Canada and in each region of the country and provides data on the stock of residential heating systems in each province and in the territories. CEUD data for the residential sector is derived from multiple sources, including Statistics Canada’s Report on Energy Supply and Demand, Survey on Household Energy Use, or SHEU. The latest CEUD data is for 2020. CEUD 2021 data is expected in early 2024. The CEUD can be found online at https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/menus/trends/comprehensive_tables/list.cfm.
According to CEUD data, in 2020, it is estimated that there were 12,000 residential heating systems that use heating oil in Alberta, 12,800 in Saskatchewan, and 8,200 in Manitoba, totaling 33,000 across the Prairie provinces.
Question No. 2040—
Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to the grant of approximately $133,800 that the government provided to the Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC) and Laith Marouf: (a) how much of the $120,000 paid out through the grant contract has been recovered to date and when was the money recovered; (b) if the money hasn't been recovered, what is the government's plan to recover the money, and by what date will the money be recovered; (c) has the government examined any "anti-racism" training provided or developed by Marouf or the CMAC in relation to the grant for anti-Semitic elements, and, if so, what were the results; (d) what specific actions, if any, has the government taken to correct any harm caused by any antiSemitism which was promoted through this grant by the CMAC or Marouf; and (e) what curriculum or training materials were developed in relation to the grant?
Response
Mr. Sameer Zuberi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of December 4, the Department of Canadian Heritage has not been successful in its efforts to recover any of the $122,661 in funds that had been issued to the Community Media Advocacy Centre, or CMAC.
With regard to (b), the contract with CMAC was terminated on September 23, 2022, and the Department of Canadian Heritage retained a third-party collection agency to recoup the $122,661 paid to CMAC, as well as the services of an investigative agency. Additionally, the department asked the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, to apply their set-off program that allows amounts owed by an organization to be re-directed to set off debts. Following these efforts, a statement of claim was filed on November 17, 2023, by the Attorney General of Canada to take legal action against CMAC for breach of contract. The timing of the recovery of funds will be determined by the results of these efforts.
With regard to (c), the Anti-Racism Action Program, or ARAP, suspended the project on August 19, 2022, when it became aware of Mr. Marouf's hateful tweets. The department has not relied on any of the material that was developed by either Mr. Marouf or CMAC.
With regard to (d), following the discovery of hateful comments made by Mr. Marouf, the minister paused the programs that fall under Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy while the department conducted a comprehensive review of the grants and contributions under the programs, improved program integrity protocols and processes, and provided training to program employees.
The department made changes to the application guidelines of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program, the declaration and attestation section of the application form and the contribution agreement template. The attestation requires that funding recipients attest that they will not undermine Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, that they will respect the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that they will disclose any information about the applicant that could bring disrepute to the Government of Canada. These changes were posted on the departmental website and the online application portal on December 14, 2022.
Additional program integrity review is also undertaken: enhanced assessment by program staff is conducted via web searches of a recipient’s board members, people directly involved in project delivery and the organization’s social media. Should potential risks be identified, such as allegations of racism, discrimination or harassment by board members or other individuals directly involved in the proposed project and named in the proponent’s application, then an escalation protocol is triggered to further review the file and make a recommendation.
New training has been provided to all program advisors on the importance of each step in the evaluation process, as well as on the new enhanced assessment/re-assessment criteria for applicants and recipients that include parameters on in-depth environmental scans. This training also included application assessment, risk management tools and monitoring. The department has also provided anti-racism and antisemitism training to all program employees across the country, which included the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism.
Additional training on antisemitism, developed by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, was also offered to program staff, as well as staff in communications and human resources.
Lastly, with regard to (e), see response for part (c).
Question No. 2041—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to the comments from Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee that the Navy is in a critical state: (a) what specific elements of the RCN does the government admit are in a critical state; and (b) for each element in (a), (i) how long has it been in a critical state, (ii) what specific action, if any, has the government taken over the past five years to improve the state of the element, (iii) by what date will the situation improve so that that element is no longer in a critical state?
Response
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Navy, or RCN, continues to meet needs at home and to support Canada's international commitments abroad. For example, the RCN is able to meet high-readiness requirements for deploying frigates annually, two per coast, while maintaining a minimum level of personnel on other ships and shore establishments to support force generation objectives.
However, as with any platform, as equipment ages, more maintenance is required to keep vessels operational and, with age, costs of maintenance and spare parts also increase. These increased costs, to sustain operational capacity, are putting significant pressure on existing maintenance budgets. Further, capability challenges are compounded by recruitment challenges across the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, including the RCN. In addition, and aside from challenges in the international security environment, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on the CAF and the RCN, both from an equipment perspective, due to fragile supply challenges resulting in contract delays, and from a people perspective, in terms of the RCN’s own personnel management and, more broadly, at shipyards for skilled labour.
As outlined in Canada’s Defence Policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, National Defence is making significant investments to renew and modernize the Royal Canadian Navy by investing in six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, fifteen Canadian surface combatants, and two joint support ships. Together, these ships will play a critical role in protecting Canada’s maritime domain, including in Canada’s Arctic waters, and in contributing to international missions with allies and partners.
National Defence has received four of six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, with the fifth planned for delivery in December 2024 and the sixth in December 2025. These vessels will significantly enhance the RCN’s capabilities and presence in the Arctic, allowing the RCN to better uphold Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.
The Canadian surface combatant, or CSC, project will replace the Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates with a single class of vessels; delivery is expected to begin in the early 2030s, with full delivery by 2050.
As the RCN awaits the delivery of the CSC capability, the Halifax-class frigates are continuing to be deployed on operations, including under Operation NEON to conduct surveillance operations and identify maritime sanctions evasion activities in the Indo-Pacific. However, the frigate fleet is beyond the originally expected design life and given the age of the vessels, between 27 and 35 years, there has been a significant increase in the length of necessary maintenance periods and higher associated costs.
The Halifax-class is a major component of the national shipbuilding strategy’s third pillar, which is Repair, Refit and Maintenance. Under this pillar, the Government of Canada has contracts in place with the three large shipyards to execute the extensive docking work periods required to sustain the class. Additionally, Defence is working with marine industry partners to implement a risk-based program for the Halifax-class to ensure that they continue to operate safely into the future.
Further, the procurement of two joint support ships, or JSSs, in 2025 and 2027 will contribute to the defence of Canada and international security by providing crucial at-sea replenishment capabilities. In the interim, and to address the retirement of the Protecteur-class auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels, the RCN has contracted the interim auxiliary oiler replenishment ship to provide support until the JSSs are delivered.
At the same time, the CAF is experiencing a shortfall in personnel. That is why National Defence and the CAF are undertaking a period of reconstitution; that is, to prioritize efforts to recruit and train personnel and to make the organization stronger and more effective.
To address personnel shortages, the RCN continues to work with the chief of military personnel to develop policies and programs that improve recruitment and retention. One example is the Naval Experience Program, or NEP, which aims to increase the intake of recruits and attract a new generation of Canadians to serve in the RCN.
More specifically, the program offers Canadians the opportunity to experience life as a sailor for a one-year contract and provides them with exposure to a variety of naval trades before deciding if a career in the RCN is right for them. The program will also help the RCN to identify and address inefficiencies in its current human resources process.
To date, 98 candidates are enrolled with 400 prospects in the recruiting process, helping to address the RCN’s requirement of 1,200 new enrollees each year. The NEP has other benefits: it has engaged the naval reserve divisions in recruiting for the regular force, it has tripled the number of potential applicants at recruiting centres who ask about the navy, and through the program, the navy is enrolling three times as many visible minorities and indigenous Canadians through the NEP than previously. It has forced the RCN to better manage all its personnel on the basic training list, which is beginning to deliver an improved experience for all trainees.
Question No. 2046—
Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) approach to carousel schemes and other GST/HST fraud, broken down by year since 2018: (a) what is the CRA's estimate on the amount of unwarranted payments it has paid out through GST/HST fraud; (b) of the amount in (a), how much does it estimate involved carousel schemes; (c) how much of the money paid out in (a) and (b) has been recovered to date; (d) how much of the money paid out in (a) and (b) does the CRA expect to recover; (e) what is the breakdown of where the fraudulent companies were located; and (f) what is the breakdown of the countries where the bank account into which the unwarranted payments were transferred to or cashed from?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, for the time period of January 1, 2018, to December 1, 2023, namely the date of the question.
General information relating to the CRA’s approach to carousel schemes is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/campaigns/tax-schemes/combatting-carousel-schemes.html.
The CRA’s programs play an important role in preventing the payment of unwarranted refunds, identifying suspicious behaviour, and referring high-risk returns for further review and examination. The CRA has dedicated programs that identify, deregister and safeguard goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax, or GST/HST, accounts that are registered as a result of identity theft, as well as programs that verify commercial activity before the initial GST/HST return is filed. This allows the CRA to close suspicious accounts before a return is filed and an unwarranted refund is paid. These programs are based on enhanced risk assessment tools designed to identify and prevent suspicious entities from infiltrating the filing population.
With regard to (a), the CRA is only able to identify an unwarranted payment through compliance actions. Therefore, there is no systematic way to estimate the amount of all unwarranted payments. As such, the CRA is unable to provide the information in the manner requested.
With regard to (b), for the reason outlined in (a), the CRA is unable to estimate the total amount of unwarranted payments that involves carousel schemes.
With regard to (c) and (d), while the CRA’s collections program tracks payments in many ways, namely by date of payment, account number, revenue line, and program, it is not able to trace payments back to the source of the assessment or reassessment. Additionally, an amount owing can be comprised of debts from various years, various revenue lines and various assessment types. Due to this system limitation, the CRA is unable to provide an amount that has been recovered or provide an estimate of future recoveries in the manner requested.
With regard to (e) and (f), as the CRA does not systematically capture the location of fraudulent companies or bank accounts to which payments are issued, it is unable to provide a breakdown of where companies are located or to where payments have been transferred.
Question No. 2054—
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the High Frequency Rail project and the final report expected in late 2023 to inform government decisions on opportunities to enhance rail service in Southwestern Ontario: (a) is the final report complete, and, if so, what is the website address where the report can be found; and (b) if the final report is not yet complete, when will it be, and what is the reason it was not ready in late 2023?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in November 2022, following a competitive procurement process, the government contracted the services of external advisors, namely CPCS and WSP, to explore options to improve intercity passenger rail frequencies, on-time performance, and shorten travel times in Southwestern Ontario. The external advisors have been making steady progress and are nearing completion of their analysis. They are on track to deliver a final report with options to the federal government in early 2024.
The delivery of the final report is a few months later than originally anticipated due to unforeseen delays in obtaining all the requisite information from external partners to complete the analysis.
The government has committed to releasing a summary of the report once it has been reviewed by Transport Canada. The summary will be written in a manner that is accessible to the public and that protects any proprietary information that has been provided by external parties.
Question No. 2057—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance's involvement in the World Economic Forum (WEF): (a) is the minister still a member of the WEF's board of trustees, and, if not, why is she no longer a board member and on what date did the minister cease to be a board member; and (b) if the minister resigned from the board, what was the reason for the resignation?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Department of Finance to (a) and (b) is as follows:
Per the Conflict of Interest Act, activities of designated public office holders are disclosed on the Public Registry. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance’s declaration Summary Profile can be viewed at https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/PublicRegistries/Pages/Client.aspx#k=8c283ee4-555c-e311-8703-002655368060.
Question No. 2058—
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to Crown-Indigenous relations: (a) what (i) criteria, (ii) framework, (iii) legal test, was used by the government to determine that each of the communities represented by the Métis Nation of Ontario holds rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982; and (b) what specific evidence or information did the government use to arrive at the conclusion that each and all of the communities represented by the Métis Nation of Ontario are Section 35 rights-holders?
Response
Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, through the February 2023 Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement, or the 2023 agreement, Canada has recognized that the Métis Nation of Ontario, or MNO, is a Métis government and is authorized to act on behalf of its Métis collectivity.
The Métis collectivity is comprised of Métis individuals who are citizens, namely those who have chosen to register, have been found to meet the Powley criteria, and registered in the register for the MNO; and the Métis communities it represents. Further, through the 2023 agreement, Canada recognizes that this Métis collectivity has mandated the MNO as the indigenous government responsible for representing and advancing its section 35 rights. Canada has not recognized specific communities.
In the 2003 R. v. Powley decision, the Supreme Court of Canada, or SCC, confirmed the existence of Métis rights under section 35, and in paragraph 38 it confirmed that the Métis have “full status as distinctive rights-bearing peoples.” The SCC also recognized, in paragraph 53, that “[m]embers of the Métis community in and around Sault Ste. Marie [in Ontario] have an Aboriginal right to hunt for food under s. 35(1).” The Métis community in and around Sault Ste. Marie is one of the historic Métis communities represented by the MNO.
In 2013, the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples released a report on the Recognition of Métis Identity in Canada, “The People Who Own Themselves,” in which the Committee acknowledged that “the identity of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples is a matter for peoples themselves to determine.” The report notes the need for practical solutions to legal and policy challenges respecting Métis identity and “self-identification.”
This recommendation is consistent with the 2016 report, “A Matter of National and Constitutional Import: Report of the Minister’s Special Representative on Reconciliation with Métis: Section 35 Métis Rights and the Manitoba Métis Federation Decision”:
“[I]t is in the public interest to have Métis governments and institutions having objectively verifiable mechanisms and processes to determine Métis in accordance with Canadian law for the purposes of Section 35. … While determining who is Métis for the purposes of Section 35 is not as straightforward as making an inquiry to the Indian Registrar, the SCC has set out the test for determining who is Métis for the purposes of Section 35.”
Following these SCC decisions and related reports, Canada established a Recognition of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination, or “RIRSD”, table with the MNO in 2016 and began engaging in exploratory discussions toward self-government.
First, section 35 Métis rights were recognized by the courts: the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Powley recognized a Métis community near Sault Ste. Marie; Ontario courts upheld the ON-MNO Métis Harvesting Agreement in the 2007 Laurin decision.
The Powley decision continues to be the Supreme Court’s only consideration of Métis rights protected by section 35, and sets out what is required, namely the legal test, to prove the existence of a Métis community with rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
According to the judicial notice of organization, the MNO was granted intervener status in a number of section 35 rights-based cases.
Based on the analysis of historic communities, to help guide its response to the Powley decision, the Department of Justice launched 15 research projects on the development of historic mixed-ancestry communities in several parts of the country, including Ontario.
According to the provincial recognition of section 35 rights, while Ontario has recognized seven historic Métis regional communities to inform provincial policy approaches, Canada has not recognized specific communities.
Question No. 2059—
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the required compliance audit to be included in the government's Indigenous Business Directory: (a) when was the last time that (i) Coradix Technology Consulting, (ii) DALIAN Enterprises Inc., were the subject of a compliance audit, broken down by the client department or agency which provided contracts to either of the companies since January 1, 2016; and (b) for each audit in (a), what were the results?
Response
Ms. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Indigenous Business Directory, or IBD, assists indigenous businesses in pursuing business opportunities, including federal government contracts. A profile in the IBD confirms the indigenous business’ eligibility to be considered for award of federal government contracts that are limited to competition under the procurement Sstrategy for Iindigenous business, or PSIB.
In order to ensure the integrity of the IBD, Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, conducts audits to ensure that indigenous businesses meet the PSIB criteria and that set-aside requirements are effectively reserved for the PSIB-registered businesses. Pre-award and random audits are performed to verify that the indigenous business meets the ownership and control requirements and is mandatory for PSIB set-aside requirements valued at, or greater than, $2 million. A post-award audit is optional at the request of a contracting authority to ensure that the contractor meets the PSIB criteria during the contract, including the business’ ability to meet the indigenous content requirement.
As Coradix Technology Consulting is a non-indigenous company, and is not listed in the IBD, it would not be subject to a compliance audit under the IBD or PSIB. Since 2016, ISC holds records of Dalian Enterprises Inc. and Coradix Technology in joint venture undergoing two compliance audits to confirm 51% indigenous ownership and control.
First, a mandatory pre-award audit was concluded November 25, 2016, for contract T8080-150428 awarded by Transport Canada, with a result of “pass”.
Then, a mandatory pre-award audit was conducted August 9, 2022, for contract A0416-183262/001/ZM awarded by Public Services and Procurement Canada, with a result of “pass”.
To date, no post-award audits have been conducted. In December 2023, at the request of Public Services and Procurement Canada, ISC has initiated post-award audits on active contracts with Coradix Technology Consulting and Dalian Enterprises Inc.
Question No. 2060—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) how many CAF members have been forced to take a lower pension amount due to being sent to a lower paying transition unit, due to age, injury, or other factors, prior to retirement; (b) are the CAF members in (a) able to have a pension based on their highest earning years, including allowances, and, if not, why not; (c) what measures are in place to ensure that the CAF does not try to intentionally lower pension payments by placing higher earning CAF members into lower earning transition units prior to the CAF member's release; (d) how many CAF veterans are currently receiving a pension based on a rate based on a transition unit rather than based on their highest earning unit; (e) what is the CAF doing with the extra money resulting from lower pension payments; (f) how many Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR) members have participated in missions or operations but still been denied full danger pay and risk allowances; (g) what is the rationale for providing regiments operating at the same time and place with full danger pay and risk allowances while denying it to special forces; (h) does the rational take into consideration that special forces tasking is often more dangerous, and living conditions are equally poor, and, if not, why not; (i) what mechanisms are in place for CSOR members who have been denied danger pay or risk allowances to appeal the denial; (j) how much money is the government saving by denying danger pay and risk allowances to CSOR members; (k) what is the government doing with the money it is saving by denying danger pay and risk allowances to CSOR members; and (l) how does the government justify denying full danger pay and risk allowances to CSOR members who participate in assignments abroad when their conditions are worse than other CAF regiments in the same place at the same time?
Response
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) to (e) of the question, Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, members are not forced to take a lower pension due to assignment to a transition unit. A member’s pay in a transition unit is at the rate and increment they are entitled to and is not lower than the rate they had been receiving immediately prior to being sent to a transition unit. If a member is not changing occupations, their pay will not decrease as a result of being posted to another unit, including a transition unit.
A member’s entitlement to a pension is prescribed in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, or CFSA, and subsection 15(1) of the Act sets out how pensions are calculated. All CAF members who are eligible for benefits, including those sent to a transition unit prior to retirement, have their pension calculated based on the average annual pay received during their five highest-earning years. Notably, allowances are not pensionable. In the case of a member who has to their credit less than five years of pensionable service, the average annual pay received during the total period of pensionable service to their credit is used instead. Where a member has more than 35 years of pensionable service, if any of those years after 35 years are part of that member’s highest paid five consecutive years, then that period of higher pay counts towards the calculation of their pension, as per subsection 15(5). There are no CAF veterans that are currently receiving a pension that is not based on their five highest-earning years.
Neither the government nor the CAF use members’ assignments and their pensions as a cost-saving measure. The CAF administers and calculates pensions in accordance with the CFSA and its regulations. As such, there are no lower pension payments, nor any surplus funds.
With respect to parts (f) to (l), CAF personnel often face dangers and discomfort while deployed on operations around the globe. Their extraordinary dedication does not go unrecognized.
As per the Military Foreign Service Instructions, CAF personnel are entitled to a hardship allowance, or HA, and risk allowance, or RA. The intent of the HA is to compensate for the living conditions existing at a specific post. The allowance is based on an assessment of the living conditions in theatre versus the member’s home base routine in Canada. The type of inconvenience, discomfort, or stress is considered and rated on a scale. Meanwhile, the RA is intended to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post and is based on the probability of a hazard occurring, as well as the severity of its impact.
Allowance levels are determined by a department hardship and risk committee, or DHRC, led by the strategic joint staff, and the rates for each level are determined by Treasury Board. The DHRC conducts a review of each operation and determines the appropriate level of HA and RA to be accorded to deployed members. A wide range of factors, including conditions faced by members while deployed, are considered during this review, along with supporting information provided by deployed task force commanders, as well as subject matter experts, operations, intelligence, and medical staff.
The government does not deny HA and RA to Canadian Special Operations Forces, or CANSOF, units operating alongside conventional forces who also receive these allowances. The criteria used to determine the level of the allowance is the same across all operations, regardless of the unit generating the force for that operation. There may be instances in which HA and RA levels are determined after a member has deployed, pending submission of operational details on the ground from the mission location or where the nuances of a CANSOF-specific mission may require a more detailed examination by the DHRC. Once the levels of HA and RA are determined, these allowances are paid to members retroactively. Notably, CANSOF operations have never been denied HA or RA.
Neither the government nor the CAF use members’ allowances as a cost-saving measure. No members are denied an allowance that they are entitled to. As such, there are no denied allowances, nor any surplus funds resulting from these allowances. A human resource administrator is available to CAF members who may have questions or concerns regarding allowances. The administrator can also directly rectify issues.
Question No. 2062—
Mrs. Anna Roberts:
With regard to the First Home Savings Account (FHSA): (a) how many accounts are currently active; (b) what is the total cumulative amount held in all accounts; (c) what is the average and median account balance; (d) how many accounts have over (i) $1,000, (ii) $5,000, (iii) $10,000, (iv) $20,000, in them; and (e) what is the breakdown of the number of FHSA accounts by the owner’s income bracket?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, as of December 6, 2023, that is, the date of the question.
With regard to (a) to (d), the CRA will be unable to provide the requested information until all First Home Savings Account, or FHSA, annual information returns have been processed. Financial institutions will only start filing these returns after December 31, 2023. The returns are due by the end of February 2024.
General information on the filing of T4FHSA annual information returns can be found on the CRA website at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/registered-plans-administrators/first-home-savings-account/t4fhsa-annual-information-return.html.
Question No. 2066—
Mr. Scott Aitchison:
With regard to the Prime Minister: which senators did the Prime Minister personally call to discuss Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in December 2015 the Prime Minister implemented an independent advisory board that makes merit-based recommendations for Senate appointments. Every new Senator since that time has been appointed as an independent and operates that way, aside from the Conservative caucus, which as of today is the only partisan caucus in the Senate. An independent Senate where senators are appointed on merit following recommendations from the independent advisory board on Senate appointments ensures better diversity and has ensured, since 2015, a high standard of integrity, collaboration and non-partisanship in the Senate.
The Prime Minister and members of the government regularly discuss a range of issues with parliamentarians. This communication and collaboration are a crucial part of our democratic system. Senators bring various points of view and experiences. Their perspectives on matters affecting Canadians are always welcome.
Question No. 2067—
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the AgriRecovery announcement for 2023 to support farmers and ranchers in Western Canada: (a) on what date did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food receive funding requests from each of the Western provinces under the AgriRecovery framework; (b) on what date did the minister come to an initial agreement with each of the Western provinces, and what were the agreed upon amounts; (c) what was the final amount offered to each province; (d) if the amount offered is lower than the amount agreed upon, what is the rationale for why the amount is lower; and (e) were any ministers, other than that of Agriculture and Agri-Food involved in the decision about what funding level to provide, and, if so, which ones?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, I received the requests for AgriRecovery assessments from Alberta on July 5, British Columbia on July 14, and Saskatchewan on July 17, 2023.
With respect to part (b) of the question, I had secured all of the federal authorities required, including funding, by October 18, 2023.
The amounts of federal funding for each province for the 2023 drought/wildfires are up to $42,624,161 to British Columbia, up to $99,211,409 to Alberta and up to $77,164,430 to Saskatchewan, for a total of up to $219 million in federal funding.
As regards part (c) of the question, the amounts of federal funding for each province for the 2023 drought/wildfires are up to $42,624,161 to British Columbia, up to $99,211,409 to Alberta and up to $77,164,430 to Saskatchewan, for a total of up to $219 million in federal funding.
In response to part (e) of the question, for all funding requests, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Central Agencies collaborate to secure the required authorities, including funding, through the government decision-making process that includes some or all ministers who are members of cabinet and Treasury Board, and the Governor General.
Question No. 2073—
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the federal government’s healthcare funding plan announced in December 2011 for the years 2014 to 2024: which (i) healthcare sectors, (ii) provinces and territories, received less federal funding as a direct result of this decision, broken down by dollar amount and by year?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in December 2011, the Government of Canada announced that the Canada health transfer, or CHT, would continue to grow at 6% annually from 2014-15 to 2016-17, and beginning in 2017-18, the CHT would grow in line with a three-year moving average of nominal gross domestic product, or GDP, growth with funding guaranteed to increase by at least 3% per year.
The December 2011 announcement effectively extended the 6% CHT escalator for three additional years beyond the legislated time frame set out in the September 2004 10-year plan to strengthen health care, which was to end in 2013-14. This resulted in the CHT continuing to grow at 6% annually for 2014-15 to 2016-17, thereby providing provinces and territories with additional CHT growth in those years. Since then, the CHT has grown at an average annual rate of 4.9% under the current GDP-based escalator, which provided provinces and territories with ongoing and predictable funding for health care. In addition, budget 2017 included a targeted investment of $11 billion in federal funding over 10 years to improve home and community care and mental health and addiction services.
Looking forward, the government's working together to improve health care for Canadians plan, first announced in February 2023, includes $25 billion through new tailored bilateral agreements and billions more through top-ups to the CHT and other funding. In total, the Government of Canada is investing over $200 billion over the next 10 years to support provinces and territories to strengthen Canada’s universal public health care system.
Historical data for the Canada health transfer and other major federal transfers to provinces and territories can be found at the following link: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/4eee1558-45b7-4484-9336-e692897d393f
Question No. 2079—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the condition of structures, facilities, and housing units on Canadian Armed Forces bases throughout Canada as of December 1, 2023, for each base: (a) how many buildings had warnings regarding health and safety hazards, including, but not limited to, asbestos or chipping lead paint, posted on the premises, in total and broken down by type of hazard; (b) how many buildings included broken features such as doors, windows, lighting, HVAC, or plumbing on the premises; (c) of the health and safety hazards in (a), how many existed for (i) a month, (ii) six months, (iii) a year, (iv) over a year; (d) of the broken features in (b), how many existed for (i) a month, (ii) six months, (iii) a year, (iv) over a year; (e) of the health and safety hazards in (a), what is the estimated cost of remediating all outstanding hazards; and (f) of the broken features in (b), what is the estimated cost of repairing or replacing all outstanding broken features?
Response
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence, or DND, administers the largest real property portfolio in the Government of Canada. The portfolio stretches from coast to coast to coast, occupying approximately 10 million square metres of floor space; 21,000 buildings, including nearly 6,200 buildings that provide over 11,600 residential housing units; 2.2 million hectares of land; and 13,500 works, including roads, water, storm and sewer pipes, airfields, jetties, ranges and training areas. The defence real property portfolio has an approximate annual operational budget of $2 billion.
The number of buildings in National Defence’s real property portfolio with warnings regarding health and safety hazards is not centrally tracked. Determining the number of buildings and the details of the hazards would require a manual search, which cannot be completed in the allotted time. Although National Defence does not centrally track specific broken features across bases, the department does centrally track open work orders across the DND real property portfolio.
As of December 1, 2023, there are 60,819 open work orders related to DND’s real property portfolio, which includes 3,764 for residential housing units. The work orders span Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, facilities across Canada, with locations ranging from Albert Head, British Columbia, to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Of this total, 33,517 work orders pertain to corrective activities and work, which support the maintenance and preservation of the service potential of the defence real property assets, e.g., repair or replacement plumbing.
Of the open work orders as of December 1, 2023, the majority date from 2023. The oldest work orders date back to 2018.
The estimated costs associated with open work orders are tracked at the detachment and section level. A further manual search would be required, which cannot be completed in the allotted time.
In addition, National Defence maintains a public-facing inventory of all structures containing asbestos, which can be found at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/national-asbestos-inventory.html#anc2.
There are a number of occupational health and safety hazards that could be encountered in a National Defence workplace. These include, but are not limited to, chemical hazards; electrical hazards; mechanical hazards; physical hazards, e.g., noise, lighting, slips and falls; and psychosocial or psychological hazards, e.g., stress, burnout. Within National Defence, there are numerous regulations, orders, directives, guidelines and warnings that deal with the day-to-day occupational health and safety aspects to be followed in the performance of one’s job.
National Defence’s general safety program consists of occupational safety policies and guidelines aimed at preventing accidents in operations, training, and support activities. It is National Defence policy to have a formal, structured, and recorded hazard prevention component within the general safety program, which includes audits, inspections, surveys, and hazard analysis. Bases, wings, stations, units, and detachments all have their own general safety programs that are compliant with the National Defence general safety program.
Regarding residential housing units, or RHUs, the Canadian Forces housing agency, CFHA, takes the health and safety of CAF members and their families seriously and has a robust series of programs in place to identify, monitor and manage hazards in RHUs in accordance with federal, provincial and local codes, standards and regulations.
When a hazard is identified in an RHU, local housing service centres respond to ensure the health and safety of occupants and engage qualified contractors to further investigate and remediate as required. CFHA coordinates with authorities having jurisdiction, which are organizations responsible for enforcing a code requirement or procedure such as utility providers, fire hall and police services, and maintains regular communication with the RHU occupants. Occupants also receive information about their role in maintaining a safe and healthy living environment, including proper use of systems, reporting of maintenance issues, and adherence to safety guidelines.
CFHA is continually improving the condition of its housing portfolio by conducting regular and planned maintenance and renovating or recapitalizing RHUs. In addition, new RHUs are being constructed to replace RHUs that have been demolished due to condition or to meet CAF requirements. Most housing components are completely replaced when they undergo extensive renovation. Components are also replaced during routine life-cycle replacement, repairs and regular maintenance. These activities are completed by qualified contractors following strict health and safety requirements, and materials are disposed of in accordance with provincial and local requirements.
Question No. 2080—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the application of the federal price on carbon to fuels used for military purposes between December 1, 2022 and December 1, 2023: (a) what classes of fuel used by military vehicles were exempt from the price on carbon; (b) what classes of fuel used by military vehicles were subject to the price on carbon; (c) of the classes of fuel in (b), what percentage of the cost of fuel consumed by Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) aircraft was attributable to the price on carbon; (d) of the classes of fuel in (b), what was the dollar value of the application of the price on carbon to fuel consumed by CAF aircraft; (e) of the classes of fuel in (b), what percentage of the cost of fuel consumed by CAF watercraft was attributable to the price on carbon; (f) of the classes of fuel in (b), what was the dollar value of the application of the price on carbon to fuel consumed by CAF watercraft; (g) of the classes of fuel in (b), what percentage of the cost of fuel consumed by CAF ground vehicles was attributable to the price on carbon; (h) of the classes of fuel in (b), what was the dollar value of the application of the price on carbon to fuel consumed by CAF ground vehicles; (i) what percentage of the cost of fuel consumed to heat military facilities was attributable to the price on carbon; (j) what was the dollar value of the application of the price on carbon on fuel consumed to heat military facilities; (k) what was the total dollar value of fuel purchased by the CAF which was exempt from the price on carbon; (l) what was the dollar value of fuel purchased by the CAF which was subject to the price on carbon; (m) what was the dollar value of revenue collected by the government further to the price on carbon applicable to fuels in (k); and (n) what was the dollar value of revenue which the government would have collected had the price on carbon been applicable to the fuels in (l)?
Response
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with a mandate to protect and defend Canadians and Canadian interests at home and abroad, the defence team must have a focused approach to sustainability, while ensuring continued operational readiness.
National Defence spent $390,836,130.63 on fuel purchases between December 1, 2022, and December 1, 2023. This includes the following categories of fuel: light fuel oil, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, heavy fuel oil, lubricating fuel, and other mineral fuels, oils, and products. There are currently no exemptions for the fuel purchased by National Defence under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or GGPPA, or other provincial carbon pricing.
National Defence does not centrally track the share of fuel costs attributable to carbon pricing, and a manual search could not be completed in the time allotted.
The defence climate and sustainability strategy, or DCSS, available at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/corporate/reports-publications/dcss/dcss-e-signed.pdf, outlines National Defence’s plan to achieve a sustainable vision for our assets and operations, in Canada and around the world. The DCSS charts a course to reduce military fleet emissions and support the Government of Canada, GC, commitment of net-zero emissions by 2050. Reaching net-zero national safety and security, or NSS, emissions by 2050 means reducing greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions from our NSS fleet to as low as possible through cleaner fuels and operational efficiencies. The balance of emissions would be addressed through carbon removal. To achieve a GC goal of 20% low-carbon fuel, or LCF, by 2030, we will also be introducing LCF into some of our fleets in the coming years. Any solutions for military application must consider availability, affordability, operational feasibility and compatibility to maintain military force readiness and interoperability with our allies, inform future force design and ensure best value for Canadians.
Question No. 2090—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the administration of the Veteran and Family Well-Being Fund: (a) how does Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) ensure that the goals of a program are met, including through the (i) inclusion of Veterans’ consideration in the allocation of funds, (ii) use of exit surveys for Veterans benefiting from projects; (b) how does VAC capture lessons learned, both good and bad, from projects after their completion; (c) how does VAC ensure that funds are not disproportionately allocated, including to (i) particular racial or ethnic groups, (ii) a particular gender, (iii) a particular age cohort, (iv) particular provinces or territories, (v) urban rather than rural areas; (d) how does VAC coordinate between this fund and other funding streams to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap; (e) how does VAC decide whether to renew funding for a given project; (f) how are organizations notified when they are not chosen to receive funding; (g) is there a maximum number of times that funding recipients can be awarded funding by VAC through this program; and (h) how does VAC ensure that Veterans are safe to participate in the programs offered by funding recipients?
Response
Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada, or VAC, is committed to ensuring that its program decisions are informed by input from veterans and stakeholder organizations across Canada. VAC’s primary interest is to ensure that projects funded through the veteran and family well-being fund, or VFWF, are directly benefiting veterans and their families.
Prior to funding, VAC provides recipients with project support tools to ensure organizations have the resources necessary to achieve their program goals. VFWF grant recipients are expected to measure the success of their project by providing a progress activity report 30 days after the end of each quarter and a final report 60 days following the project completion date. Contribution recipients are required to provide a progress activity report and financial claim 30 days after the end of each quarter and a final report and final financial claim 60 days following the project completion date.
If a report lacks sufficient detail or clarity, VAC interventions include the following: discussing options to bring activities into alignment with the program’s goals, requesting additional information about past and ongoing activities, providing coaching on eligible and approved activities, discussing expectations regarding reporting, and holding formal discussions with recipient concerning expectations at multiple milestones.
Exit interviews are not conducted as the VFWF is run in accordance with the Privacy Act. As such, the VFWF does not have the authority to collect participants’ personal information, which could inadvertently be provided through exit interviews.
VAC captures all lessons learned through final reports, which are due within 60 days of the project end date. In these final reports, recipients are required to describe the results achieved and lessons learned, and explain any discrepancies between the results and the planned or expected results. Recipients may also be called upon to deliver a final report presentation to demonstrate best practices to VAC policy decision-makers, other government departments and other relevant external partners.
Before funding decisions are made, applications are reviewed by VAC officials to ensure the distribution of funding is equitable based on language, geography and indigenous representation, with special consideration to vulnerable populations. VAC has made a commitment to support equity-deserving subpopulations, which is taken into consideration when selecting applicants for funding. The VFWF supports diverse groups such as women; two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and additional people, or 2SLGBTQI+; indigenous veterans; and veterans who experience homelessness.
A project can receive assistance from all levels of government: federal, provincial, territorial and municipal. However, total assistance from government cannot exceed 100% of eligible expenditures. Recipients are required to disclose all other sources of funding before beginning their project to ensure stacking limits are respected.
The terms and conditions of the VFWF do not allow for the renewing of funding for a given project. Recipients are permitted, however, to submit applications for new projects in subsequent calls for applications.
VAC sends email notifications to unsuccessful applicants. Additional feedback on applications is available upon request.
The VFWF terms and conditions do not limit the number of times an organization can be awarded VFWF funding. During each call for applications, proposals are evaluated against the funding criteria and ranked by criteria scores to prioritize a selection of projects for funding.
Recipients must demonstrate that they can meet regulatory standards and are working within accepted standards of practice, which includes the proper screening of volunteers and staff who are working directly with veteran participants. Since 2021-22, funding agreements have required recipients to ensure all staff and volunteers involved in delivering the program are adequately vetted and trained in order to ensure a safe and trauma-informed environment for veterans and their families.
Question No. 2091—
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to the deployment of Canada’s military personnel and the Department of National Defence in 2023: (a) how many Canadian active military personnel have been, or are currently, on exchange with the Israeli military, or deployed with the US military in the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf, broken down by (i) location, (ii) occupation; (b) how many groups of Canadian troops, including the group size, unit, location, and duration, have been deployed on or since October 7, 2023, to Israel or other countries in the Middle East and North Africa; (c) for each country of deployment in (b), what are the current rules of engagement and have they changed on or since October 7, 2023; (d) what is the planned cost of increases in the number of personnel deployed to Israel and the surrounding region since October 7, 2023; (e) what Canadian naval vessels are within operational range of Israel and Palestine; (f) are there any Canadian naval vessels included in the USS Gerald Ford carrier group or with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Group; and (g) what technical or logistical support is provided to the government of Israel or the Israeli Defence Forces by the Department of National Defence or Canadian Armed Forces personnel, broken down by year and by dollar amount?
Response
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), no Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, personnel were on exchange with the Israeli military during the period in question.
There are nine personnel deployed to Qatar under Operation Foundation, an operation through which the CAF works with the U.S. and other partners to counter terrorism. These personnel provide HQ support in the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center, as well as in other U.S. Air Forces Central aerospace control units. There are also six personnel deployed to Bahrain under Operation Artemis, Canada’s mission to help stop terrorism and to make Middle Eastern waters more secure. These personnel provide support to the U.S.-led Combined Maritime Forces, CMF, a naval partnership of 34 nations. This information is current as of December 14, 2023.
With regard to part (b), in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, there have been multiple CAF deployments to the region under two key operations. Under Operation Ion, the CAF’s operation to support the transportation of Canadian entitled persons and foreign nationals from Israel, approximately 236 personnel were deployed to the region to support assisted departure flights. These personnel were part of an air task force, including air and ground crews, as well as aeromedical staff, based out of Athens, Greece. Between October 12 and 23, 2023, these CAF personnel conducted 19 assisted departure flights, evacuating over 1,650 people to safety.
Under Operation Lumen, the CAF’s operation in preparation for a potential non-combatant evacuation operation in Lebanon, approximately 415 personnel were deployed to Cyprus, Greece, Lebanon and Egypt between October 2023 and December 2023. This deployment included personnel from 1 Canadian Air Division.
This does not include the number of Canadian Special Operations Forces deployed to the region to assist the Canadian embassy in Israel with contingency planning due to operational security reasons. Maintaining operational security is paramount to the safety of our deployed CAF members. As such, National Defence assesses every mission individually and on a case-by-case basis to determine how much or how little can be said in order to protect our CAF members and the operation. Operational security refers to the principle of safeguarding the integrity of a military operation or activity and/or the safety of CAF members and other personnel involved in a military operation or activity.
In addition to deployments under operations Lumen and Ion, National Defence also has standing operations in the region, including Operation Impact, Operation Calumet and Operation Proteus. Of these operations, Operation Impact was the only operation that underwent a regularly planned rotation of personnel during the period in question.
With regard to part (c), the rules of engagement for the above-named operations cannot be publicly released due to operational security reasons. See part (b).
With regard to part (d), the incremental cost for National Defence’s response to the crisis in the Middle East since October 7, 2023, is approximately $29 million. This includes both personnel and non-personnel costs.
With regard to part (e), no Canadian naval vessels have been within operational range of Israel, the West Bank or Gaza since October 7, 2023. This response is current as of December 15, 2023.
With regard to part (f), no Canadian naval vessels are part of any of the U.S. carrier groups. This response is current as of December 15, 2023.
With regard to part (g), National Defence and the Israel Defence Forces, IDF, maintain a co-operative defence relationship, which includes a range of activities, some of which cannot be disclosed for operational security reasons. See part (b). As part of the Canada-Israel strategic partnership memorandum of understanding, MOU, the two countries are committed to strengthening defence and security co-operation and advancing regional security. Efforts to advance bilateral defence co-operation under the MOU include conducting regular senior-level strategic defence policy dialogues, holding a military-to-military working group and maintaining military attaché offices in each respective country. National Defence has not provided direct funds to the IDF through this MOU.
Most recently, in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, the CAF enabled the movement of Israeli nationals on Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, aircraft from Greece to Israel, following a request for support from the Government of Israel. More specifically, during the assisted departure of Canadian entitled persons from Israel to Greece in October 2023, the CAF utilized surplus capacity on return flights and flew 28 Israeli nationals from Athens to Tel Aviv.
Question No. 2092—
Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie:
With regard to the initiatives of the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence (NAP GBV) and the bilateral agreements subsequently signed with the provinces and territories: (a) what is the breakdown of the amounts to be allocated under the NAP GBV and through the bilateral agreements; (b) of the amounts in (a), how much is for francophone or Acadian women’s organizations, including those serving official language minority communities; and (c) what investments, or what proportion of investments, are earmarked for francophone or Acadian women, including investments for official language minority communities?
Response
Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the national action plan to end gender-based violence, or NAP to end GBV, is supported by a budget 2022 investment of $525 million over four years to support provinces and territories in their implementation of the NAP to end GBV, through bilateral funding agreements. The breakdown for each province and territory can be found on the webpage titled “Bilateral agreements to end gender-based violence”: https://femmes-egalite-genres.canada.ca/en/gender-based-violence/intergovernmental-collaboration/bilateral-agreements.html. For more information on Quebec, see below.
In response to (b) and (c), these bilateral agreements with provinces and territories were designed to allow jurisdictions the flexibility to implement opportunities for action within the framework of the five pillars and foundation of the NAP to end GBV in accordance with their regional realities and priorities, except Quebec. For more information on Quebec, see below. Each province or territory is responsible for directing investments according to its areas of need and priorities, including investments for official-language minority communities.
Gender-based violence is a priority for the Government of Quebec, which has invested significant funds to end violence against women. However, although it supports the overall objectives of the national action plan to end gender-based violence, the Government of Quebec cannot adhere to it because it intends to retain its full responsibility in this area on its territory. Through an agreement that respects its autonomy, the Government of Quebec receives federal funding to support the programs, initiatives, and services to end gender-based violence that it puts in place based on the needs of its territory.
Question No. 2094—
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines: did any of the manufacturers provide biodistribution studies to Canada’s regulatory agencies, departments, or other government entities, and, if so, (i) when were the studies provided, (ii) based on the biodistribution studies, where in the body was DNA or modified RNA, lipid nanoparticles and spike protein found, (iii) what percentage of the dose remained at the injection site at acute timepoints, (iv) for what period of time did this material remain in the organs or tissues of the body, including blood and bone marrow, (v) what was the period of time that biodistribution studies tracked this material in animal subjects, and was this time sufficient to confirm elimination of DNA, modified RNA, lipid nanoparticles and spike proteins, (vi) how many doses were evaluated in the biodistribution studies and did the researchers report any ill effects on the animals at any of the doses that were studied, (vii) were samples collected to evaluate the potential for shedding from the body, including in breast milk, (viii) if the answer to (vii) is affirmative, was shedding found in the breast milk, (ix) if the answer to (vii) is negative, why was it not required, (x) when did HC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or the National Advisory Committee inform the Canadian public and the medical community where and for how long these products remain in the body?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (i), non-clinical biodistribution studies in animals were submitted to Health Canada for regulatory evaluation in the original COVID-19 vaccine submissions, with the following exceptions: Covishield vaccine, for which information was cross-referenced to AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine given that they are both based on the same viral vector technology; and Covifenz, which uses an adjuvant already approved for influenza vaccines and cross-referenced biodistribution studies that were conducted with the influenza vaccine.
Details of these studies are included in the Summary Basis of Decisions, SBDs. The SBDs can be accessed through this link: COVID-19 vaccines and treatments portal (canada.ca)
With regard to part (ii), non-clinical pharmacokinetic studies that were provided evaluated the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticle, LNP, formulated with a model mRNA. These studies also evaluated the metabolism and excretion of the novel lipid excipients.
The biodistribution data identified no cause for concern as the spike protein is expressed transiently. For Comirnaty, for example, it peaks at six hours post-injection with signals at the injection site and the liver, then declines over time. Less than 1% of signal was detected in other tissues and it becomes undetectable within 24 hours.
The results of the non-clinical studies as well as the potential risks to humans have been included in the specific product monographs: Spikevax PM, Comirnaty PM and Vaxzevria PM. In addition, specific non-clinical information regarding biodistribution data can be found in the Summary Basis of Decision of Spikevax SBD, Comirnaty SBD and Vaxzevria SBD.
With regard to parts (iii) and (iv), please see the response to part (ii).
With regard to part (v), please see the response to part (ii). All toxicity and biodistribution studies were conducted in line with international standards of WHO Guideline: Non-clinical evaluation of vaccines.
With regard to part (vi), repeat-dose toxicity studies were conducted in accordance with international guidelines of WHO Guideline: Non-clinical evaluation of vaccines.
With regard to part (vii), metabolism studies demonstrated that components of the LNP are slowly metabolized and excreted via the fecal route, and evidence of urinary excretion for some of the lipids. Studies have shown that intravenous and intramuscular injection of mRNA-encoded spike protein is only expressed transiently and at the injection site and the liver, then declines over time. Vaccine produced spike protein is rapidly broken down and does not persist in the body. Many studies have demonstrated that the mRNA remains in the cytoplasm of cells and does not come in contact with human DNA, which resides in the nucleus.
The potential toxic effects of vaccine present in milk are evaluated in reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. No vaccine-related maternal toxicity or overt adverse effects on pre- and post-natal development were observed.
Evidence about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy has been growing from real-world use. The data show that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe for people who are pregnant or breastfeeding. No safety concerns were identified in a study of more than 35,000 pregnant people who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days of conception. More information about COVID-19 Vaccination and pregnancy is available here: https://bit.ly/3E5bytJ.
With regard to parts (viii) and (ix), please see the response to part (vii).
With regard to part (x), Health Canada is responsible for the regulatory authorization of vaccines, which encompasses the review and assessment of various studies, including biodistribution studies, to ensure the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, primarily focuses on analyzing data from human clinical trials to provide vaccine safety recommendations. NACI's role is not directly involved in the regulatory authorization process or in the initial review of biodistribution studies. The question regarding the timing and manner of informing the Canadian public and medical community about the biodistribution of COVID-19 vaccine components is outside the scope of NACI's mandate, as NACI focuses on analyzing clinical trial data for vaccine safety recommendations rather than regulatory communications.
Question No. 2097—
Mr. Sameer Zuberi:
With regard to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the report entitled, "Evaluation of the Detector Dog Service Program": (a) how many items seized through the postal mode are (i) nonrestricted firearms, (ii) restricted firearms, (iii) prohibited firearms, (iv) replica firearms, (v) antique firearms, (vi) the frame of a firearm, (vii) the receiver of a firearm, (viii) the barrel of a firearm, (ix) the upper or slide of a firearm, (x) a cartridge magazine, (xi) ammunition for a firearm, (xii) other firearms parts not classified in the preceding items; (b) for parts (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), how many of the firearms are handguns; (c) for each part in (a)(i), (a)(ii), and (a)(iii), how many of the firearms are rifles; (d) for each part in (a)(i), (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), how many of the firearms are shotguns; (e) how many other items were captured in the report as firearms or parts but not included in (a)(i) through (xi); and (f) what are the descriptions, including quantities, of each item, in (d)?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the information below is from April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022.
With regard to part (a), the items seized through the postal mode are as follows: non-¬restricted firearms, 27; restricted firearms, 272; prohibited firearms, 189; replica firearms, 3,572; antique firearms, 10; the frame of a firearm, zero; the receiver of a firearm, zero; the barrel of a firearm, 11; the upper or slide of a firearm, zero; a cartridge magazine, 79; and ammunition for a firearm, six. Other firearms parts not classified in the preceding items are as follows: 3,060 prohibited devices, including 98 described as parts and accessories and 2,962 as silencers; seven parts exclusively for fully automatic firearms; and 51 firearm parts, accessories and ammunition, not prohibited.
With regard to part (b) as to how many of the firearms are handguns, 147 are restricted firearms and 124 are prohibited firearms.
With regard to part (c) as to how many of the firearms are rifles, eight are non-restricted firearms, three are restricted firearms and 11 are prohibited firearms.
With regard to part (d) as to how many of the firearms are shotguns, zero are non-restricted firearms, zero are restricted firearms and one is a prohibited firearm.
With regard to part (e), an additional 6,309 items were identified in the data pull as firearms or parts but not included in the response provided above, that is, seized outside of postal mode.
With regard to part (f), the descriptions, including quantities, of each item in part (e) are as follows: non-¬restricted firearms, 695; restricted firearms, 1,308; prohibited firearms, 1,946; replica firearms, 141; antique firearms, 41; the frame of a firearm is not applicable; the receiver of a firearm is not applicable; the barrel of a firearm, 15; the upper or slide of a firearm is not applicable; a cartridge magazine, 1,546; and ammunition for a firearm, 139. Other firearms parts not classified in the preceding items are as follows: 174 prohibited devices, including 96 described as parts and accessories and 78 as silencers; 17 parts exclusively for fully automatic firearms; and 328 parts, accessories and ammunition, not prohibited, with no further description available.
As a note, the number of quantities may be reflected in various categories. As to part (e), the items were seized outside of postal mode. Also, some data is not available for various reasons, that is, none seized or reported under that category.
Question No. 2098—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the amounts listed on page 143 of the Public Accounts of Canada 2023, Volume 3, related to fraudulent claims under Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion: (a) of the 100 cases listed as a fraudulent claims for the Canada Student Loan, how many were, and what dollar amount represented, fraudulent cases involving payments made to (i) non-Canadians or payments being sent outside of Canada, (ii) deceased individuals; and (b) of the 44,902 cases listed as fraudulent claims for Employment Insurance Benefit, how many were, and what dollar amount, represented fraudulent cases involving payments made to (i) non-Canadians or payments being sent outside of Canada, (ii) deceased individuals?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the fraudulent claims for Canada student loans were a result of fraudsters using stolen identities of Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada to apply for funding. The fraudsters have not yet been identified so the Canada student financial assistance program cannot confirm if the payments were received by non-Canadians. However, the program can confirm that no payments were sent outside Canada. All funds were disbursed to Canadian financial institutions. No payments were made to deceased individuals.
With regard to part (b), the dataset pertaining to our compliance reviews is not detailed enough to extract the information requested.
Question No. 2105—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Phoenix pay system, broken down by fiscal year since its implementation: (a) what is the total number of severe impact claims made, broken down by (i) compensation for individuals on maternity, parental or disability leave, (ii) discriminatory practice, (iii) lost occupational capacity, (iv) lost security clearance, (v) bankruptcy, (vi) significant credit rating impact, (vii) resignation from the public service, (viii) mental anguish, and (ix) other personal and financial hardship; (b) for each category in (a) what is the total number of claims that were accepted; (c) for each category in (a), what is the total number of claims that were rejected; and (d) of the claims in (b) that received compensation, what is the average value of compensation awarded?
Response
Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a note, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS, claims office runs its monthly statistical report on the first working day of the month. The most recent report was run on December 1, 2023.
The TBS claims office uses a specially designed client relationship management, CRM, system that is internal to TBS and has as its primary function the capability to manage and track the submission and processing of claims. As the CRM system has limited capability to gather and produce detailed statistical reports on a historical basis, the information provided is cumulative from the date of inception to the date of the report.
With regard to part (a), as of December 1, 2023, the TBS claims office received a total number of claims broken down by the following categories: compensation for individuals on maternity, parental or disability leave, 68; discriminatory practice, 36; lost occupational capacity, 28; lost security clearance, five; bankruptcy, 18, 17 of which were not accepted and one of which is in progress and not closed; significant credit rating impact, 47; resignation from the public service, 21; mental anguish, 375; and other personal and financial hardship, 495. As a note, many claimants file under this general heading of damages. However, upon further examination by the TBS claims office in consultation with the claimant, the claims are resubmitted under the corresponding specific category of damages where they are best assessed. The CRM system does not have the capability to track the number of “Other personal and financial hardship” claims that have been reassigned and assessed under the more appropriate specific category of damages. In addition, claims erroneously submitted under this category are closed in CRM as “not accepted” claims.
With regard to part (b), for each category in part (a), the total number of claims that were accepted is as follows: compensation for individuals on maternity, parental or disability leave, seven; discriminatory practice, zero; lost occupational capacity, zero; lost security clearance, zero; bankruptcy, zero, with one in progress and not closed; significant credit rating impact, three; resignation from the public service, zero; mental anguish, 129; and other personal and financial hardship, two.
With regard to part (c), for each category in part (a), the total number of claims that were rejected is as follows: compensation for individuals on maternity, parental or disability leave, 61; discriminatory practice, 36; lost occupational capacity, 28; lost security clearance, five; bankruptcy, 17, with one in progress and not closed; significant credit rating impact, 44; resignation from the public service, 21; mental anguish, 246; and other personal and financial hardship, 493.
With regard to part (d), the CRM system assigns a unique claim number to an individual claimant. A claimant is eligible to submit multiple requests for damages based on their individual circumstances. As the CRM system was designed to track individual claimants, an average value of compensation awarded for categories listed in part (b) above cannot be provided.
The total cumulative amount recommended for payment for all severe impacts claims as of December 1, 2023, is $1,077,010.92 and 6,536.73 hours of leave credits.
Question No. 2106—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to stolen motor vehicles being illegally exported from Canada via the Port of Montreal: (a) how many stolen motor vehicles has the CBSA retrieved at the Port of Montreal before being illegally exported from Canada for the calendar years of (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, (iii) 2023; (b) how many vehicles does the CBSA estimate have been illegally exported from Canada via the Port of Montreal in the calendar years of (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, (iii) 2023; and (c) what percentage of outgoing containers from the Port of Montreal have been scanned for goods being illegally exported from Canada for the calendar years of (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, (iii) 2023?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the number of stolen vehicles retrieved by the CBSA at the Port of Montreal before being illegally exported from Canada was 1,020 vehicles in 2021, 1,050 vehicles in 2022, and 1,075 vehicles up to December 6, 2023.
In response to part (b) of the question, the CBSA does not have an estimate of how many vehicles have been illegally exported from Canada via the Port of Montreal. The CBSA acts on all referrals received from police of local jurisdiction.
With respect to part (c) of the question, the CBSA assesses the risk of all marine containers, in both the import and export stream, to identify potentially high-risk shipments and determine, on a case-by-case basis, if further examination is required. Risk assessment includes but is not limited to security intelligence, referrals from law enforcement indicator research, and detection tools. The agency also acts on all cases referred to the CBSA by police authorities. To maintain the integrity of its programs and ensure the safety and security of Canada, the agency does not disclose specific data related to examination rates or techniques.
Question No. 2112—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government awarding a contract to GC Strategies to develop the ArriveCan application: what was the name and title of the person who decided to award the contract to GC Strategies?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, contract 47419-212524/001/EL awarded to GC Strategies for COVID-19 pandemic IT PRO services was signed by Angela Durigan, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, Procurement. As per the contract, the contracting authority is Alain Huot, PSPC supply officer. The technical authorities for the contract are Antonio Utano, CBSA executive director, and Cameron MacDonald, CBSA director general, in Antonio Utano’s absence. The contract referenced above was provided to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 24, 2023.
Question No. 2115—
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to visas for international students in Canada: how many international students are (i) currently studying in Canada, (ii) studying at institutions accredited by Universities Canada, (iii) in post-graduate studies, (iv) studying at institutions accredited by the National Association of Career Colleges?
Response
Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, does not possess information about the number of international students holding study permits who are currently residing in Canada. This is primarily because individuals can leave the country at any point in time after arrival. However, as a proxy, IRCC holds information on the total number of study permit holders. On November 30, 2023, 981,192 study permit holders held a valid permit, 336,636 of these study permit holders were studying at institutions recognized by Universities Canada and 129,792 of these study permit holders were in postgraduate studies. Data in part (iv) is not tracked by IRCC.
Data is based on preliminary estimates and subject to change. Study Permits are valid as of November 30, 2023. Clients’ most recent study permit is considered. Clients’ designated learning institutions, DLI, were based on their recent permit and cross-referenced with those listed on the website for Universities Canada: https://www.univcan.ca/universities/member-universities/. Also note that Universities Canada is a membership organization and not an official accrediting organization. Study level of client is based on this recent permit. Postgraduate studies is defined as the identified level of study being for either a master or a doctorate.
Question No. 2118—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC): (a) what were the total expenditures by the CHRC related to the study and publication of the discussion paper on religious intolerance, published in October 2023; and (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures in (a)?
Response
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the only expenditure engaged by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in relation to the study and publication of the discussion paper on religious intolerance, published in October 2023, was for the translation of the document from English to French. The total cost for the translation of “Discussion Paper on Religious Intolerance” was $73.08.
Question No. 2119—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Canada and the current probe into the actions of Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC): (a) how many current and former employees of (i) ISED, (ii) SDTC are under non-disclosure agreements that prohibit them from discussing wrongdoing that they witnessed involving SDTC, or ISED, including the minister's office; (b) will the minister release any officials who witnessed or have knowledge of wrongdoing from their nondisclosure agreements; and (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, what is the reasoning behind this decision?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the current allegations against Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, there are no current or former employees of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, under a non-disclosure agreement, including the minister’s office. Public servants are governed by Treasury Board’s policy on people management and the directive on conflict of interest.
Given SDTC’s status as a shared-governance corporation at arm’s length from the department, the number of non-disclosure agreements with former and current employees is not known.
The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act gives federal public sector employees a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoing in the workplace, as well as protection from acts of reprisal.
The minister is not a party to any non-disclosure agreements between SDTC and its current or former employees.
ISED requested that the Department of Justice appoint a law firm to undertake a fact-finding exercise into recent allegations of labour and employment contraventions, including harassment or abuse, and report the findings to the minister. McCarthy Tétrault was appointed as the legal agent.
To ensure that these issues receive proper focus and that any other current or former employee may come forward without fear of reprisal, SDTC has agreed to allow current and former employees to freely speak to the law firm without violating any applicable settlement agreements or non-disclosure agreements.
Question No. 2122—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the Minister for Innovation, Science and Industry’s commitment to stabilize food prices: (a) has the Minister held any meetings with CEOs or executives of companies serving Northern, rural, and remote communities where there is little or no competition in the grocery sector; (b) does the Minister’s commitment to stabilize grocery prices include efforts to stabilize prices in Northern, rural and remote communities where food insecurity is the highest; (c) does the Minister’s efforts to create a grocery task force include a mandate to monitor the practices of grocers in Northern, rural and remote communities; and (d) what efforts is the Minister making to improve the availability and accessibility of data on food prices in Northern, rural and remote communities?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has met with the leaders of Canada’s five largest grocery chains, which make up over three-quarters of the grocery market share in Canada.
Affordability is an issue that affects all Canadians. The minister has engaged with his provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss efforts to stabilize food prices across the country.
The grocery task force’s mandate and responsibilities include engaging governments and consumer advocacy stakeholders to help ensure coordination of activities; engaging external partners, experts, and industry representatives in undertaking analysis; working with consumer groups undertaking research and advocacy work to report back findings to Canadians; and promoting grocery-related information to Canadian consumers so they are aware of their rights and are empowered to make informed marketplace choices.
In November 2023, Statistics Canada launched the Food Price Data Hub, which provides Canadians with information on food prices and helps consumers make informed decisions about their food purchases.
Question No. 2129—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s expedited assessment process for arms exports: why is Ukraine not considered eligible for the same expedited assessment processes for arms exports that is used for other allies?
Response
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is unwavering in its support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, its people and their democratically elected government. Canada continues to arm Ukraine and provide it with the support it needs to defend itself. Together with our allies and partners, Canada is delivering military materials without delay and will continue to provide support to the Ukrainian people to defend their country. The export or transfer process related to military donations made to the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine is under the responsibility of the Department of National Defence and falls outside of Canada’s export controls administered under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act.
Under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act and as per Canada’s commitment to support Ukraine’s self-defence, the Government of Canada is making every effort to expedite the export permit process for controlled items destined to appropriate consignees and end-users in Ukraine. Canada continues to ensure that the exports of controlled goods and technology are conducted lawfully, and all permit applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis under Canada’s risk assessment framework, including against the Arms Trade Treaty criteria, which are enshrined in Canada’s Export and Import Permits Act. During the review process, particular attention is given to the nature of the item, the region of destination, the purpose and intended use of the item, the record and behaviour of the stated consignees and/or end-users of the item, and the possibility of unauthorized diversion.
From the date a complete permit application is received, every effort is made to process an application within a reasonable time frame or sooner, as per the department’s service standards. These are within 10 business days when consultations outside the trade and export controls bureau are not required, and within forty 40 business days when consultations outside the trade and export controls bureau are required.
Canada remains resolute in supporting Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. Together with the international community, and working with the Government of Ukraine, Canada will continue to call on Russia to end its war, withdraw its troops and equipment from Ukraine and turn to good-faith diplomacy.
Question No. 2130—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government’s efforts to support food price stabilization, since October 2023: (a) what indicators does the government use ensure that its efforts are making a meaningful difference to stabilize grocery prices; and (b) what accountability measures exist to ensure that grocery retailers are keeping their commitment to stabilize food prices based on the indicators in (a)?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Government of Canada is closely monitoring the change in the “food purchased from stores” category in the monthly consumer price index published by Statistics Canada.
With regard to part (b), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada maintains close and frequent communication with major grocery retailers in order to monitor commitments.
Question No. 2133—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to the prison needle exchange program at facilities operated by Correctional Service Canada, since 2018 and broken down by year and by correctional institution: (a) how many instances occurred where an inmate used a needle to assault (i) guards or other CSC employees, (ii) fellow inmates; (b) how many instances occurred where needles distributed, or meant for distribution, under the program have gone missing; and (c) how many instances occurred where needles were discovered as contraband items?
Response
Ms. Jennifer O’Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, With regard to part (a), there have been no reported assaults related to the prison needle exchange program, PNEP, in any Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, institution.
With regard to part (b), appropriate safeguards are established in every institution to ensure that PNEP kits are safely stored and accounted for on a daily basis. While we are unable to provide specific numbers in this time frame, so as to avoid providing inaccurate information, we can say that it is very rare. However, if a needle were to go missing, CSC would take immediate action to ensure that the safety and security of staff, the public and inmates are maintained.
With regard to part (c), CSC undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. CSC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted, and this could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
Question No. 2136—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the government’s immigration levels plan for 2024-2026: (a) what analyses has the government undertaken to estimate the (i) infrastructure, (ii) housing, (iii) health, and (iv) social service capacity requirements to accommodate the immigration levels; (b) for each analysis in (a), what are the results; (c) has the government identified a risk of a lack of appropriate infrastructure, housing, or supports in meeting the needs of new immigrants; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what is that risk level and how is it being mitigated; (e) what external consultations has the government undertaken to assess the capacity requirements for the immigration levels plan; (f) what risks or concerns have stakeholders or experts raised; and (g) what are the government’s plans to ensure the (i) infrastructure, (ii) housing, (iii) health, and (iv) social service needs of new immigrants are met?
Response
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is concerned, the 2024-26 immigration levels plan, tabled November 1, 2023, was developed in close consultation with a wide variety of partners and stakeholders and took into account a range of factors. The 2024-26 levels plan aims to balance Canada’s need for population and economic growth with its capacity to welcome and integrate newcomers, while maintaining confidence in Canada’s immigration system.
In developing the 2024-26 levels plan, IRCC extended the scope and breadth of its consultations. This approach built upon extensive efforts undertaken through the strategic immigration review, which outlined a road map to ensure that our immigration levels planning takes into account the need to address labour shortages in key industries, as well as social and infrastructure capacity.
As such, IRCC broadened its engagement at the federal level to begin instituting a broader, phased approach to levels planning. This includes whole-of-government efforts to align various mandates, plan and work together to manage the potential impacts of population growth, in order to ensure strong outcomes for newcomers and Canadians alike.
In 2024-26, this included, among others, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Infrastructure Canada on housing and capacity; Employment and Social Development Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada on labour market trends; a multitude of departments on labour market needs, for example, Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Transport Canada; and Statistics Canada on underlying data to support policy decision-making.
As well, in the spirit of reconciliation, IRCC built on previous efforts to engage with indigenous communities to increase its understanding of indigenous perspectives on immigration and its impacts on indigenous peoples. IRCC also increased the number of indigenous organizations engaged through its survey.
In addition, every year IRCC conducts bilateral and multilateral engagement on levels planning with a number of partners and stakeholders, including federal delivery partners who perform security and immigration enforcement activities that are integral to the processing and execution of the multi-year levels plan, contributing to maintaining the integrity of the immigration system; and provinces and territories, or PTs, including with Quebec pursuant to the Canada-Québec Accord, to understand and respond to their needs and concerns, such as labour shortages as well as the capacity to welcome newcomers.
IRCC also takes into consideration public views gained through public opinion research and conducts an online survey of key partners and stakeholders, including employers, educational institutions, faith-based organizations, indigenous partners, industry councils, municipalities and service-providing organizations, among others, to inform the development of the plan.
Through its extensive consultations in the development of the 2024-26 levels plan, IRCC heard about the need for talented and skilled newcomers to help address labour market shortages and contribute to economic growth, while also ensuring sustainable population growth to balance pressures on housing, health care and other infrastructure and services. As such, the 2024-26 levels plan aims to stabilize immigration levels in 2026.
Another factor that is taken into consideration in immigration levels planning is that key sectors such as health, transportation, agriculture, residential housing construction, teaching and early childhood education, and natural and applied sciences-related occupations are facing labour market shortages. While population growth through immigration increases demand for housing, infrastructure and services, it also contributes to the supply of labour in, for example, health care occupations and the construction sector to build new homes.
In addition to the input received through extensive engagement and consultations, the levels plan is also informed by humanitarian commitments as well as the overall downstream domestic capacity, such as housing, health care and settlement services. Other considerations include the need to manage existing inventories and to continue to improve processing time in a context of fiscal responsibiliy.
As such, the 2024-26 levels plan aims to balance traditional immigration objectives such as economic and demographic growth, family reunification and Canada’s humanitarian commitments with the need to mitigate impacts on domestic capacity.
Immigration drives Canada’s economy and fuels its future growth. As Canada continues to face an aging population and critical labour shortages in key sectors, newcomers are critical to help spur innovation, grow the economy and support local businesses and communities.
Moving forward, continued closer collaboration at the federal level will enable better alignment across departments in support of government economic and social priorities. IRCC, alongside other government departments, is committed to further engagement ahead of the next levels plan. Collaboration with PTs, partners, stakeholders, and indigenous peoples will be critical to help Canada adapt to the realities of immigration-driven population growth.
Question No. 2139—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to the tariff quota for the import of supply-managed goods for 2023-24 and the expiry of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland eligibility to import under the reserve for non-European Union World Trade Organization Members within Canada’s World Trade Organization tariff rate quota on December 31, 2023, without a replacement agreement: (a) how much access quantity and available quantity of cream is allocated to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2023-24; (b) is the number specified for in (b) less, greater, or equal to the access quantity and available quantity of cream allocated to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the 2022-23 period; (c) are there any programs known to Global Affairs Canada to help Canadian small businesses compensate for any financial loss resulting from the expiry of this agreement if no replacement deal is agreed upon by December 31, 2023; and (d) are there any plans known to Global Affairs Canada to subsidize the financial loss incurred by Canadian small businesses resulting from the expiry of this agreement if no replacement deal is agreed upon by December 31, 2023?
Response
Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
The World Trade Organization, or WTO, specialty creams tariff rate quota, or TRQ, allocated annually on a dairy year basis, from August 1 to July 31, is not being impacted by the expiry of the cheese side letters. Therefore, the response below will primarily focus on the WTO “Cheeses of All Types” TRQ, or WTO cheese TRQ, and the cheese side letters addressed in the question.
The WTO cheese TRQ is allocated annually on a calendar year basis, from January 1 to December 31, and split into two reserves: one for European Union origin cheeses and one for non-EU origin cheeses.
The 2020 cheese side letters to the Canada-United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (U.K.) Trade Continuity Agreement, or TCA, are the product of a negotiated outcome between Canada and the U.K.
As part of a balance of concessions, Canada agreed to grant the U.K., via the cheese side letters, continued access to the EU cheese reserve under the WTO cheese TRQ until December 31, 2023, in order to facilitate planning horizons and an orderly transition for Canadian allocation holders under the WTO cheese TRQ.
The terms of this transitional arrangement have been well known to stakeholders since the TCA was concluded in late 2020.
After December 31, 2023, cheese imports originating from the U.K. can be imported under the non EU reserve of the WTO cheese TRQ.
Regarding the WTO “Cheeses of All Types” TRQ, for the calendar years 2022, 2023 and 2024, the import access quantity for the WTO cheese TRQ is 20,411,866 kilograms. Of this, 69.9%, or 14,267,894.3 kilograms, is allocated to cheese imports from the EU, and 30.1%, or 6,143,971.67 kilograms, is allocated to cheese imports from non-EU sources. There is no specific quantity of TRQs allocated to individual countries and/or markets under each respective reserve.
For the calendar years 2022 and 2023, cheese from the U.K. could be imported under the EU reserve’s overall access quantity of 14,267,894.3 kilograms. For the calendar year 2024 and going forward in subsequent calendar years, cheese from the U.K. will be imported under the non-EU reserve’s overall access quantity of 6,143,971.67 kilograms.
Regarding WTO specialty creams TRQ, for the dairy years 2022-23 and 2023-24, the import access quantity for the WTO specialty creams TRQ is 394,000 kilograms. There is also no specific quantity of TRQs allocated to individual countries and/or markets under the WTO specialty creams TRQ.
TRQ allocation holders’ individual business decisions are made in line with their own commercial considerations. However, Canada’s inclusive approach to trade seeks to ensure that the benefits of trade are more widely shared, including with traditionally under-represented groups in trade such as small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs.
The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that SMEs have access to the right resources, information and tools required to participate in trade, access global opportunities and supply chains, benefit from international trade and investment opportunities, and succeed in global markets.
This is achieved through mainstreaming inclusive trade provisions across Canada’s free trade agreements, or FTAs, and seeking dedicated inclusive trade chapters, including on trade and SMEs, with FTA partners.
The Government of Canada has a range of programs to provide financial support to SMEs in trade, including the CanExport SMEs, Canada small business financing program, the women entrepreneurship strategy, the Black entrepreneurship program, the 2SLGBTQI+ entrepreneurship program, and the indigenous growth fund.
Question No. 2141—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to federal support for Canada’s grocery sector, between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015: (a) how much federal funding was provided to Canada’s major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; (b) how many federal subsidies were provided to those major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; and (c) what programs were responsible for managing federal funding and subsidies to Canada’s grocery sector, by federal department or agency?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to federal support for Canada’s grocery sector, between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015, no federal funding or subsidies were provided to Canada’s major grocery companies, namely Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys and Costco, to support business development.
Question No. 2142—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to federal support to Canada’s grocery sector, between November 1, 2015, to January 1, 2024: (a) how much federal funding was provided to Canada’s major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; (b) how much federal subsidies were provided to those major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to support business development, by (i) year, (ii) dollar amount, (iii) company; and (c) what programs were responsible for managing federal funding and subsidies to Canada’s grocery sector, by federal department or agency?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to federal support to Canada’s grocery sector, between November 1, 2015, and January 1, 2024, no federal funding or subsidies were provided to Canada’s major grocery companies, which are Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys and Costco, to support business development.
Question No. 2143—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to lobbying conducted by Canada’s grocery sector, between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015: (a) how many meetings did the federal government have with Canada’s major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to request federal funding, by (i) year, (ii) company; and (b) how many meetings did the federal government have with those major grocery companies (Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys, and Costco) to request federal subsidies, by (i) year, (ii) company?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 2015, no meetings were held with Canada’s major grocery companies, Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys and Costco, to request federal funding.
Question No. 2144—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard intellectual property created by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, since April 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions, broken down by fiscal year, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) organization (if applicable), (iii) date, (iv) description and title of project funded, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount provided, (vii) intellectual property created by the funding; and (b) for each intellectual property created, who has the property rights?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, SSHRC, does not systematically track intellectual property resulting from the grants it awards and does not maintain records on intellectual property ownership resulting from funded research. With regard to part (b), SSHRC claims no rights of ownership to intellectual property associated with an award, and any intellectual property agreements are between the researcher or institution and their partners. SSHRC's intellectual property policy can be found at https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/policies-politiques/g_copyright-s_droits_auteur-eng.aspx.
All grants awarded by SSHRC are publicly disclosed and published in the Open Government portal at https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/.
Question No. 2145—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to intellectual property created by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, since April 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions, broken down by fiscal year, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) organization (if applicable), (iii) date, (iv) description and title of the project funded, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount provided, (vii) intellectual property created by the funding; and (b) for each intellectual property created, who has the property rights?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC, does not systematically track intellectual property resulting from the grants it awards and does not maintain records on intellectual property ownership resulting from funded research. With regard to part (b), NSERC claims no rights of ownership to intellectual property associated with an award and any intellectual property agreements are between the researcher and/or institution and their partners. NSERC's intellectual property policy can be found at https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/nserc-crsng/policies-politiques/ip-pi_eng.asp.
All grants awarded by NSERC are publicly disclosed and published in the Open Government portal at https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/.
Question No. 2146—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to intellectual property created by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, since April 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all grants and contributions, broken down by fiscal year, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) organization (if applicable), (iii) date, (iv) description and title of the project funded, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount provided, (vii) intellectual property created by the funding; and (b) for each intellectual property created, who has the property rights?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, does not systematically track intellectual property created by grants awarded by CIHR. As such, producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would not be possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
With regard to part (b), as per the Tri-agency Guide on Financial Administration, CIHR does not pass judgment on the eventual commercial success of research, nor does it retain or claim any ownership of, or exploitation or proprietary rights to intellectual property, copyright or inventions developed/resulting from research supported with agency grant funds. Administering institutions are required to disclose to grant recipients their policy on intellectual property rights and ownership arising from supported research. Grant recipients that decide to pursue commercialization of any results of the research are required to adhere to applicable institutional policies governing the assignment of intellectual property.
As per the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Application Administration Guide, the onus is on the nominated principal investigator, or the institution or both, depending on the institution's policy on ownership of intellectual property, to seek patent protection, in collaboration with the partner where applicable, for inventions or developments arising from CIHR-supported research. Grant recipients that pursue commercialization of any results of the research are required to adhere to institutional and agency policies governing the assignment of intellectual property.
Question No. 2149—
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to the Government’s commitment to create a Grocery Task force to monitor actions taken by food retailers and producers: (a) by what date with will the Grocery Task force be established; (b) what is the mandate for the Grocery Task force; (c) what entities, taskforces, or groups exist currently to monitor the prices of groceries and other goods; and (d) what government entities, taskforces, or groups exist currently to monitor and investigate the actions of grocery retailers?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the grocery task force is currently operational.
The grocery task force’s mandate and responsibilities include engaging governments and consumer advocacy stakeholders to help ensure coordination of activities; engaging external partners, experts and industry representatives in undertaking analysis; working with consumer groups undertaking research and advocacy work to report back findings to Canadians; and promoting grocery-related information to Canadian consumers so they are aware of their rights and are empowered to make informed marketplace choices.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development, along with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Statistics Canada, have partnered to make timely data on food prices available to consumers in one central and easy-to-access location. The new Food Price Data Hub provides Canadians with more detailed information on food prices and helps consumers make informed decisions about their food purchases.
The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. The bureau administers and enforces the Competition Act and three labeling statutes that govern business conduct in all sectors of the economy, including the grocery sector. The Competition Act contains civil and criminal provisions addressing various forms of potentially anti-competitive conduct, such as competitor collaborations and cartels, abuse of a dominant position and merger review, as well as deceptive marketing. The bureau brings civil cases before the specialist Competition Tribunal or courts to seek remedial orders, while criminal matters are prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Question No. 2150—
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to the Minister for Innovation Science and Industry’s commitment on October 5, 2023, to take additional action to restore the food price stability that Canadians expect: (a) what actions was the minister or department told that grocers would take so that Canadians would see aggressive discounts across a basket of food products that represent the most important purchases for most households; (b) since October 5, what measures have been put in place to ensure grocers are delivering results for Canadians; (c) by what date does the minister expect to see results; (d) by what date will the minister take additional action if grocers don’t implement the changes that they were asked to implement; and (e) what actions will the minister take if grocers don’t deliver results?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s top five major grocery chains committed to support efforts aimed at stabilizing food prices through actions such as aggressive discounts, price freezes and price-matching campaigns.
The Government of Canada continues to explore all measures and tools to address affordability. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri Food engaged with provincial and territorial consumer counterparts to discuss efforts to stabilize food prices across the country.
The government reiterated its commitment to stabilizing food prices within its 2023 fall economic statement, in which it was emphasized that the government has and will continue to advance initiatives to achieve this objective.
Price stabilization requires the full engagement of the entire supply chain, and the Government of Canada is working with a range of stakeholders, including grocers, manufacturers, provinces and territories, to find solutions that are in the best interest of Canadians.
The Government of Canada is considering all measures and tools to address affordability issues.
Question No. 2153—
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the Ad-hoc COVID-19 Clinical Pharmacology Task Group and Health Canada (HC) research or communication about lvermectin: (a) did they find any harm to Canadians from taking oral lvermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19; (b) did HC, PHAC, or a committee review the lvermectin meta-analysis conducted by Andrew Bryant, lvermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines, American Journal of Therapeutics, 28, e434-e460, July 2021, (i) did their analysis show any benefit from using lvermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19; (c) did HC or PHAC perform a risk-harm analysis for the use of lvermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, (i) if the answer to (c) is negative, why not, (ii) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, was this information provided to Dr. Theresa Tam, Dr. Supryia Sharma, or the Minister of Health, (iii) what dates was the information from (ii) communicated, (iv) if the answer to (ii) is negative, why not?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Ivermectin for use in humans is an oral drug approved in Canada for the treatment of certain parasitic worm infections, such as strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis. This is based on evidence from clinical studies that were included by the manufacturer as part of its submission for review by Health Canada: https://dhpp.hpfb-dgpsa.ca/review-documents/resource/RDS00498. However, Ivermectin is not approved for the prevention or treatment of coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19.
Health Canada was made aware of reports in media related to issues with the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19. Subsequently, the department communicated on this issue in a public advisory in August 2021 and October 2021: https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/ivermectin-not-authorized-prevent-or-treat-covid-19-may-cause-serious-health-problems.
With regard to part (b), emerging information from sources such as literature publications and poison control centres was screened for signal detection purposes as part of our surveillance activities for products authorized to prevent or treat COVID-19. This specific publication was not reviewed by Health Canada as part of these activities given that it did not provide new risk or safety information with the use of Ivermectin as authorized and reflected in the product monograph for the drug.
With regard to part (c), Health Canada did not perform a risk-harm analysis for the use of Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID 19. Health Canada only performs this type of analysis if a marketing application for a drug has been submitted by a manufacturer. Health Canada has not received an application seeking the authorization of Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Therefore, the department has not received nor reviewed any scientific evidence for the purpose of determining a benefits, harms and uncertainties profile on such use.
Question No. 2154—
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to Health Canada monitoring Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine: (a) did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) or Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) receive the report entitled Pregnancy and Lactation, Cumulative Review from Pharmacovigilance Database, dated April 20, 2021, or an equivalent document; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including the (i) date HC, PHAC, NACI or CIHI received a report outlining clinical data any period from the time of drug product development to the end of the first six months of the roll out, (ii) report name, (iii) percentage of pregnant women who reported adverse events, (iv) percentage of lactating women who reported adverse events in themselves and their newborns; (c) what is HC's analysis of the document in (a) relative to, (i) premature deliveries, (ii) miscarriages, (iii) spontaneous abortions, (iv) stillbirths, (v) maternal deaths, (vi) the percentage of pregnant women who reported adverse events, (vii) the percentage of lactating women who reported adverse events in themselves or their newborns; (d) if the answer to (a) is negative does HC, PHAC, NACI or CIHI plan to request this report or equivalent report from Pfizer; (e) with respect to passive surveillance, what is the established threshold for conditions listed in (c) (i) to (v) for withdrawing approval for this population; (f) for institutions who met the continuous review of global vaccine safety surveillance rule which showed no evidence of any adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccination, what are the (i) institution names, (ii) links, (iii) supporting document names?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Health Canada did not receive the above-mentioned report. With regard to part (b), the answer is nil, as per (a). With regard to part (c), the answer is nil, as per (a).
With regard to part (d), Health Canada has a robust vaccine safety surveillance system in place that engages health care professionals, vaccine manufacturers, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, and the provincial and territorial health authorities. Through these measures, manufacturers are required to submit safety data from real-world use and results related to safety and effectiveness from ongoing and planned studies as they become available.
In addition, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have been actively monitoring and reviewing reports of adverse events following immunization, AEFI, reported to the Canada vigilance program, at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medeffect-canada/canada-vigilance-program.html, and the Canadian adverse events following immunization surveillance system, at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/canadian-adverse-events-following-immunization-surveillance-system-caefiss.html. This information is published on the Government of Canada’s website at https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/. As noted on this website, there were 95 reports of spontaneous abortion up to and including September 15, 2023. It is important to note that these reports do not necessarily imply that a relationship between the adverse event and the vaccine has been established. However, they are an important source of information supporting ongoing safety monitoring. Health Canada also monitors and considers information from the scientific literature and international regulators.
Health Canada will not request the above-mentioned report separately since the report is now outdated. However, on October 22, 2022, Health Canada published a summary of the review on the use of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax during pregnancy and breastfeeding, which included adverse events reported to Health Canada. Information about the summary of the review is available by clinking on this website: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/drugs-health-products/medeffect-canada/health-product-infowatch/october-2022/health-product-infowatch-october-2022.pdf.
Health Canada continues to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada to help ensure that the benefits continue to outweigh the risks for all groups of individuals, including pregnant and lactating women. Should there be new safety issues identified, Health Canada will take action, as appropriate.
From the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, the summary of evidence and rationale for NACI’s pregnancy and breastfeeding recommendations was updated to reference developmental and reproductive toxicity, DART, animal studies for COVID-19 vaccines as those became available throughout 2020 and 2021. The relevant evidence was summarized in each update to NACI COVID 19 recommendations. In September 2022, as more evidence accumulated, NACI revised public health advice to strongly recommend that COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to those who are pregnant or breastfeeding, based on a review of global vaccine safety surveillance, vaccine effectiveness, vaccine safety studies and Canadian epidemiology. This included information from the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network study, which started in December 2020, and the COVID-19 vaccine registry for pregnant and lactating individuals, which was launched in July 2021.
With regard to part (e), none of the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers sought indications for use in pregnant or lactating women or submitted randomized clinical trial data in pregnant or lactating women for regulatory evaluation. The product monographs included statements about the uncertainties related to pregnancy and lactation. A change to the approved conditions of use for a drug, including vaccines, or removal of a drug from the market is based upon the available evidence regarding the risks and benefits of the drug. There is no specific threshold but rather a scientific evaluation of the balance of risks and benefits. If the available evidence, including data obtained through passive surveillance, indicates that the risks outweigh the benefits, Health Canada will take appropriate action. This action may include changes to the conditions of use of a drug, such as contraindicating use for some groups, or complete removal of the drug from the market. Should such action be taken, Health Canada would also communicate the risk to Canadians and health care providers.
With regard to part (f), while Health Canada has no information on institutions that met continuous review of the global vaccine safety surveillance rule, we understand that vaccine safety is monitored worldwide by health authorities. This information can be found on the official websites of international health authorities.
Question No. 2158—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the conditions of licence for marine finfish aquaculture in British Columbia and the licence issued to Cermaq for its aquaculture farm at Bawden Point: (a) what were the dates of all licenses issued to Cermaq to operate its farm at Bawden Point since January 2015; (b) was Cermaq ever found in violation of the licenses it was issued and, if so, what are the reasons for breach of license; (c) were the licenses issued to Cermaq in (a) amended to allow for higher sea lice thresholds; (d) what are the details of all amendments in (c); and (e) was Cermaq fined or otherwise reprimanded for violations of the licenses it was issued?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the conditions of licence for marine finfish aquaculture in British Columbia and the licence issued to Cermaq for its aquaculture farm at Bawden Point, the dates of all licences since January 2015 are September 12, 2023; March 9, 2023; August 16, 2022; July 1, 2022; March 1, 2020; November 17, 2016; November 10, 2016; July 1, 2016; December 19, 2015; and September 8, 2015.
The following violations are documented at the Bawden Point facility: 17 late reports from 2016-23; and one instance of failing to conduct sea lice abundance assessments in 2018.
Licences issued to Cermaq were not amended. There is no record of Cermaq being fined or otherwise reprimanded for the documented violations.
Question No. 2162—
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to Health Canada’s use of preclinical manufacturer’s data for authorizing COVID-19 vaccines: (a) did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) follow The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) standards; (b) were Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) guidelines required to be met for the determination of safety for either the Pfizer or the Moderna products for pregnant and lactating mothers; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, (i) did the animal studies assess any effects within a complete reproductive cycle from conception to the reproductive capacity of the next generation, (ii) did the animal studies evaluate long term outcomes in offspring, (iii) were any fetal or offspring abnormalities detected, (iv) what fetal or offspring abnormalities were detected, (v) what is the significance of the fetal or offspring abnormalities in defining safety, (vi) were any adverse events observed in the mothers, (vii) what is the significance of adverse events observed in the mothers for human safety, (viii) was decreased fertility detected in the first or second generation, (ix) were biodistribution studies conducted in the pregnant animals and their fetuses, (x) were alternate routes of exposure studied in the animals including through mating with a vaccinated male or transmammary routes; (d) if the answer to (b) is negative, what requirements needed to be met with respect to DART prior to the interim order approval and after the interim approval?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), yes, the non-clinical studies submitted to Health Canada to support the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines were conducted in accordance with the ICH standards. In particular, the ICH safety guideline S5(R3), detection of reproductive and developmental toxicity for human pharmaceuticals, has specific requirements for the design and conduct of developmental and reproductive toxicity studies for vaccines. This guideline provides information on animal species selection as well as dose selection and study design for vaccines against infectious diseases.
Health Canada is responsible for the regulatory authorization of vaccines, which encompasses the review and assessment of various studies to ensure the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, primarily focuses on analyzing data from human clinical trials to provide vaccine safety recommendations. NACI's role is not directly involved in the regulatory authorization process or in the initial review of safety and efficacy studies.
With regard to part (b), yes, DART studies were required as part of the regulatory evaluation of COVID-19 vaccines. These studies were conducted in accordance with ICH guidelines in S5(R3). These studies were submitted for regulatory review and supported the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines. The outcomes of these studies were included in the relevant documents prepared and published by Health Canada to inform the public, health care professionals and researchers. This information can be found under each specific product. For Comirnaty, from Pfizer-BioNTech, the product monograph is at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf and the summary basis of decision is at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/SBD00510-comirnaty-en.html. For Spikevax, from Moderna, the product monograph is at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf and the summary basis of decision is at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/SBD00511-spikevax-en.html.
It should be noted that the vaccine manufacturers did not seek an indication for use in pregnant and lactating women and that the product monographs included statements about the uncertainty regarding safety and efficacy in pregnancy and lactation. At the time of approval, there was limited experience with the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy, embryo or fetal development, parturition or postnatal development, and human randomized clinical trials were not submitted for regulatory evaluation.
With regard to part (c), as indicated above, DART studies were required as part of the regulatory evaluation of COVID-19 vaccines. DART studies are required to detect any effects of the vaccine within a complete reproductive cycle as relevant to humans, from initial conception to reproductive capacity. No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development or postnatal development were reported in the studies for the vaccines. Excerpts from the product monographs are included below.
As to Comirnaty’s reproductive and developmental toxicology, in a reproductive and developmental toxicity study, 30 micrograms per animal, or 0.06 millilitres of a vaccine formulation containing the same quantity of nucleoside-modified messenger ribonucleic acid, mRNA, and other ingredients included in a single human dose, of Comirnaty was administered to female rats by the intramuscular route on four occasions: 21 and 14 days prior to mating and on gestation days nine and 20. No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development or postnatal development were reported in the study.
As to Spikevax’s reproductive and developmental toxicology, in a pre- and postnatal developmental toxicity study, 0.2 millilitres of a vaccine formulation containing the same quantity of mRNA, 100 micrograms, and other ingredients included in a single human dose of Spikevax was administered to female rats by the intramuscular route on four occasions: 28 and 14 days prior to mating and on gestation days one and 13. No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development or postnatal development were reported in the study.
Part (d) is not applicable. Please see response to part (b).
Question No. 2163—
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to Health Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring and assessment for pregnant and lactating (P&L) women: (a) are observational trials and surveillance systems adequate to establish safety or must this be accomplished through randomized trials; (b) were randomized control trials (RCTs) used to obtain approval and support safety claims in P&L women, and, if so, what are the details, including, the (i) name of the trial, (ii) date of the trial; (c) did the trials in (b) (i) include all trimesters, (ii) include high risk pregnancies, (iii) include clinical and sub-clinical testing, (iv) include a trial group measured against a placebo control group, (v) include a control group which remained intact for multiple years to establish long term safety data, (vi) be sufficiently powered to detect common and rare side-effects; (d) if the answer to (b) is negative, what trials were used to evaluate the safety in the P&L population prior to approval in this cohort, including the (i) trial name, (ii) trial date, (iii) analysis of the trial; (e) did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization or Canadian Institute for Health Information inform pregnant and lactating women of the Pfizer monograph “No data are available yet regarding the use of COMIRNATY Omicron XBB.1.5 during pregnancy” or “No data are available yet regarding the use of COMIRNATY Omicron XBB.1.5 during breast-feeding. It is unknown whether COMIRNATY Omicron XBB.1.5 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded"; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, how were pregnant and lactating women advised of the Pfizer safety data; (g) what is HC’s scientific basis for claiming safety of the XBB.1.5 mRNA product in P&L women; (h) what rigorous prospective studies, with active patient reporting and monitoring, is HC relying upon to support their safety claims in the P&L population for the use of Omicron XBB.1.5 product?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Health Canada’s regulatory evaluation of vaccines includes the review of randomized control studies if there are indications for pregnant and lactating women. Observational studies may be required as part of the risk management plan that is reviewed by Health Canada prior to authorization. In addition, after authorization, Canada has a robust and well-established vaccine safety surveillance system involving Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, provinces and territories, and vaccine manufacturers. Health Canada monitors the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through monitoring and risk minimization measures, including requiring manufacturers to regularly submit safety reports and reports of adverse events following immunization, AEFIs, and regularly assessing whether there is any new safety information that may affect the benefit-risk profile of the product. Health Canada has been actively monitoring and reviewing safety data submitted by the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccines. Health Canada also monitors and considers information from the scientific literature and international regulators.
With regard to part (b), none of the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers sought indications for use in pregnant or lactating women or submitted RCTs in pregnant/lactating women for regulatory evaluation. The product monographs included statements about the uncertainties related to pregnancy and lactation. The product monographs can be accessed using the following link: COVID-19 vaccines and treatments portal (canada.ca).
With regard to part (c), as indicated above, there were no RCTs in pregnant/lactating women submitted for regulatory evaluation as the vaccine sponsors did not seek an indication for use in pregnant and lactating women.
With regard to parts (d) and (g), the regulatory basis for the decision taken by Health Canada is publicly available at https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/ for each specific vaccine. Please see Regulatory Decision Summary and Summary Basis of Decision documents.
As indicated in the specific product monographs, it is noted that the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in pregnant women have not yet been established. No indication for use in pregnant or lactating women was sought by the vaccine sponsors or authorized by Health Canada.
It is important to note that evidence about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy has been growing from real-world use. No safety concerns were identified in a study of more than 35,000 pregnant persons who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy or in the immediate period prior to conception. More information about COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy is available here https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization-vaccines/vaccination-pregnancy-covid-19.html
Health Canada has been actively monitoring and reviewing safety data submitted by the manufacturers as well as adverse events following immunization, AEFI, reported to the Canada vigilance program, CVP, of Health Canada while also considering information from Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System, CAEFISS, of the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, and foreign data from international partners. Should there be new safety issues identified, Health Canada takes actions, as appropriate.
With regard part (e), Health Canada publishes the product monographs on its website https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/ in order to inform the public, health care professionals and the research community. As noted in the product monograph, the safety and efficacy of Comirnaty in pregnant women have not yet been established. In addition, Health Canada also publishes the summary basis of decision that provides information about the authorization of the Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5. Please see https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/SBD1700495075939-comirnaty-omicron-xbb-1-5-en.html
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, is an external advisory body that provides independent, expert advice to PHAC on the optimal use of authorized vaccines in Canada. When making recommendations, NACI considers the benefits and potential risks of a vaccine and any unknowns at the time. NACI has made recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccine in pregnant and lactating women based on the totality of evidence available across all authorized COVID-19 vaccines. Considerations specific for pregnant and/or lactating women are included in the Canadian Immunization Guide COVID-19 chapter, which is based on the NACI recommendations. Links to the product monographs for authorized XBB.1.5 vaccines are included in the latest advice from NACI.
With regard to part (f), Health Canada publishes the product monographs on its website https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/ in order to inform the public, health care professionals and the research community.
With regard to part (h), Health Canada has not approved any safety claims with regard to pregnant and lactating women.
Question No. 2167—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Disability Tax Credit, from 2020 to present, broken down by province and territory: (a) what is the average income for persons who receive the Disability Tax Credit (i) before tax, (ii) after tax; (b) what is the median income for persons who receive the Disability Tax Credit (i) before tax, (ii) after tax?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, for the period of January 1, 2020, to December 13, 2023, the date of the question.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), while the question requests data based on those in receipt of the disability tax credit, DTC, namely certificate holders, the CRA’s DTC income data is structured based on claimants.
The one-to-one relationship between claimants and certificate holders is difficult to ascertain, with the possibility of more than one individual being a claimant on the same certificate. For this reason, CRA is unable to provide the income breakdowns of certificate holders, the beneficiaries, and is not in a position to respond in the manner requested.
The CRA has publicly released detailed statistics on the DTC featuring data on the number of people claiming the DTC, amounts claimed and applications accepted and rejected. This information is available at the following website: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/income-statistics-gst-hst-statistics/disability-tax-credit-statistics.html.
This includes data on the number of DTC claimants benefiting through a tax reduction, broken down by net income range. For the most recent such data, please see https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/prog-policy/stats/dtc-stats/dtc-tbl14-2021-e.pdf
Question No. 2168—
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19 (the Interim Order) on September 16, 2020: (a) does the Minister of Health require an application by the manufacturer to approve a drug that is already approved for another indication; (b) what is the total number of inquiries received by Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada about Ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID- 19; (c) how many inquiries have been made to Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada about Ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, broken down by (i) the general public (ii) healthcare clinicians, (iii) researchers, (iv) provincial and territorial health authorities, (v) hospitals, (vi) long-term care facilities, (vii) healthcare practitioners' regulatory governing bodies, (viii) Members of provincial, territorial and federal Parliament (ix) organizations; and (d) what is the number of signatures on any petitions related to Ivermectin?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, yes, the Minister of Health requires a manufacturer to submit an application for approval of a new indication for a drug that is already approved for a different indication. However, health care practitioners may choose to prescribe a drug outside of its approved indication, also called off-label use. Off-label use falls under the “practice of medicine” and is regulated at the provincial and territorial level.
Regarding parts (b) and (c), Health Canada’s bureau of gastroenterology, infection and viral diseases, which is part of the pharmaceutical drugs directorate, received 17 inquiries in its inquiries mailbox related to the use of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. All inquiries received were from the general public.
In general, inquiries made to Health Canada, or HC, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, about ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 are not systematically tracked in a centralized database. HC and PHAC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
However, ministerial correspondence is tracked centrally. Based on the question, 123 pieces of ministerial correspondence were identified and are broken down as follows: 115 pieces from the general public; four from health care professionals; one from a member of provincial, territorial or federal Parliament; and three from organizations.
Regarding part (d), Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada do not track this information.
Question No. 2170—
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay:
With regard to the government’s supply and confidence agreement with the NDP and the associated universal, single payer pharmacare program: what are the government's projected costs to implement this program for 2024 and each of the following five years, broken down by year?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2022, the Government of Canada committed to continue its ongoing work towards a universal national pharmacare program. This will include tabling a Canada pharmacare bill, and then tasking the Canadian drug agency to develop a national formulary of essential medicines and bulk purchasing plan.
The nature of the bill is still under discussion, and we are not able to confirm either any specific approach to national pharmacare or any potential future investments at this time.
That said, the Government of Canada has made important investments to date to support the implementation of national pharmacare. The government announced its intention to move forward, in partnership with provinces, territories, and other partners and stakeholders, on foundational elements of national pharmacare, including the following.
First is the creation of the Canadian drug agency, or CDA, supported by $89.5 million over five years, in addition to the existing federal funding of $34.2 million annually to support the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. The CDA will provide the dedicated leadership and coordination needed to make Canada's drug system more sustainable and better prepared for the future, helping Canadians achieve better health outcomes.
Second is the launch of the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, supported by investments of up to $1.5 billion over three years. This first phase aims to increase access to and affordability of effective drugs for rare diseases, which will contribute to improving the health of patients across Canada.
Third are enhancements to Prince Edward Island’s public drug programs, supported by $35 million to provide its residents with more affordable access to prescription drugs and to inform next steps on national universal pharmacare.
Question No. 2172—
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office concerning policies affecting small and medium-sized businesses, since January 1, 2023: what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (v) the value of the contract related to the poll?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2023, the Privy Council Office has obtained no polling data concerning policies affecting small and medium-sized businesses.
Question No. 2174—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to diabetes and analysis done by Health Canada or relevant government departments: (a) does the government have an estimate of the total out-of-pocket costs that people in Canada have to pay on an annual basis if they do not have coverage for (i) prescription diabetes medication, (ii) insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors and other diabetes control supplies, through public or private insurance?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, diabetes is a complex disease with many different treatments, including insulin, metformin and dozens of other medications, which are sometimes used together, to manage blood sugar levels. In addition, diabetics use a range of medical devices, such as syringes and insulin pumps, as well as test strips, continuous glucose monitors and other related supplies to manage their condition.
In general, there are limitations for estimating out-of-pocket costs for people with no public or private insurance. It can be difficult to make generalizations about individual costs as there are considerable variances in dose, frequency, type of medication or supplies and prices, such as in the case of generic or brand name drugs. Some diabetes medications may be used to treat other conditions, and data on the condition for which medication was prescribed is generally not available. Determining the costs for diabetes supplies is especially challenging, as this data is not routinely collected.
While publicly available data on the cost of prescription medications and supplies is limited, Health Canada has licensed access to some data on drug spending in Canada through IQVIA Solutions Canada Inc., which collects data on dispensed prescriptions at retail pharmacies. In 2022, IQVIA data suggests that the combined public, private and out-of-pocket spending on prescription diabetes medications was approximately $4.1 billion. As a disclaimer, the statements, findings, conclusions, views and opinions expressed in this report are based in part on data obtained under licence from IQVIA Solutions Canada Inc. concerning the information services of Compuscript, from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. All rights are reserved. The statements, findings, conclusions, views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of IQVIA Solutions Canada Inc. or any of its affiliated or subsidiary entities.
Diabetes Canada has done work to determine the potential annual out-of-pocket costs for people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes under different scenarios. Its report suggests that out-of-pocket costs for Canadians living with type 1 diabetes can vary from a low of $78 to a high of $18,306 across the provinces. For type 2 diabetes, out-of-pockets costs can vary from a low of $76 to a high of $10,014. These cost estimates are not broken down with respect to which proportion is for prescription diabetes medication versus diabetes control supplies.
Question No. 2178—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council office concerning anti-scab legislation or replacement workers, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (vi) the value of the contract related to the poll?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2023, the Privy Council Office has obtained no polling data concerning anti-scab legislation or replacement workers.
Question No. 2179—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office concerning electoral reform, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (vi) the value of the contract related to the poll?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2023, the Privy Council Office has obtained no polling data concerning electoral reform.
Question No. 2183—
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the Wahpeton New School Project proposal, since January 2023: (a) what meetings and consultations have the Minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister for Indigenous Services had regarding the need for a new community school; (b) what services has the department offered to help Wahpeton with funding, planning, and completion of a new community school; (c) what interim measures has the government provided to Wahpeton Dakota Nation to ensure students can continue in-class learning; (d) does the government intend to fund and complete a new community school in Wahpeton; (e) for what reasons has the government not proceeded with this project; and (f) by what date does the government expect construction to begin on a new community school?
Response
Ms. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs has nothing to report on this issue.
With regard to part (a), Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, officials have been directly involved with Wahpeton Dakota Nation’s project management team to support and assist the community in the preplanning, design and construction of a new school facility.
With regard to part (b), a new school for Wahpeton Dakota Nation is in the design stages. ISC is working with the community to ensure that the new school will meet the most current, recently updated standards in space allocation, building construction, education delivery, cultural and outdoor learning and proper learning environments to accommodate all students, including those with high needs.
With regard to part (c), portable classrooms were provided in an effort to remove students from the conditions that existed in the original building. Subsequent replacement of two of the original portable classrooms that were beyond repair is currently ongoing.
With regard to part (d), ISC is committed to successfully moving this project to tender and construction.
With regard to part (e), budgetary constraints, volatility in the construction market and a redesign due to changes in the school space accommodation standards have contributed to the delay in construction. Most recently, changes in the school space accommodation standards resulted in beneficial eligibility for the community to increase space allocations beyond the original design. The positive impact of the redesign provides long-term improvements to the educational spaces.
With regard to part (f), the new school may proceed to tendering and construction upon completion of planning and preconstruction project phases. The project management team estimates the redesign, with refined enrollment projections and additional space allocation through the updated school space accommodation standards, will be complete and ready for tender in November 2024.
Question No. 2184—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the government’s agreement with Stellantis-LG Energy Solutions (LGES) related to electric vehicle battery production: (a) were any consultants or external advisors used by the government related to the deal or the negotiations, and, if so, what are the details of each, including (i) who, (ii) the amount of the contract, if applicable, (iii) the description of goods or services provided, (iv) the reason that the consultant or advisor was chosen; and (b) were any bonuses or performance awards awarded to any individuals for their work on the agreement, and, if so, (i) how many people received such bonuses or performance awards, (ii) what was the total amount paid out in such bonuses or performance awards?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, the government did not use any consultants or external advisors to assist with negotiations or the drafting of the contribution agreements with the Stellantis-LG Energy Solutions joint venture, NextStar.
With respect to part (b) of the question, no bonuses or performance awards were provided to any individuals exclusively for their work on the contribution agreements with NextStar. All executives at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, including those who would have worked on the NextStar project, are evaluated annually for performance pay in accordance with the Treasury Board’s “Directive on Terms and Conditions of Employment for Executives”. The amount of performance pay, including at-risk and bonus pay, depends on the extent to which results were achieved, further to the Treasury Board’s “Directive on Performance and Talent Management for Executives”, as well as how the key leadership competencies and values and ethics were demonstrated.
Question No. 2192—
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to audits done by the Canada Revenue Agency, since 2015 and broken down by year, number of audits and size of audit: how many audits were either paused or cancelled following contact from an individual representing a company worth over $1 million annually?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, for the time period of January 1, 2015, to December 13, 2023, the date of the question.
The CRA takes its responsibility seriously when administering the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act and does so by acting with integrity, in accordance with legislation, policy and audit guidelines.
Canadian taxpayers and registrants have the right to have an authorized representative interact with the CRA on their behalf. Communicating with the CRA does not influence the CRA’s processes. Regardless of the size or value of a company, the outcome of an audit is based on the application of legislation to the facts of each case.
The CRA does not systematically track taxpayer or representative contact and as a result is unable to provide the requested information.
Question No. 2193—
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office concerning artificial intelligence, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (v) the value of the contract related to the poll?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2023, the Privy Council Office has not obtained any polling data concerning artificial intelligence.
Question No. 2194—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to any polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office concerning grocery affordability, since January 1, 2023: (a) what are the details of all polling conducted, including (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the questions asked, (v) the results of the poll, (vi) the value of the contract related to the poll?
Response
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested is publicly available via Library and Archives Canada and can be found at the following link: https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/privy_council/index.html.
Question No. 2201—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the opening of a First Home Savings Account (FHSA): (a) how many licensed FHSA issuers have been approved by the government to date; (b) how many FHSAs have been opened to date; (c) are individuals who own residential property or properties that are not their principle residence considered a first-time home buyer for the purpose of opening an FHSA; and (d) do the individuals in (c) qualify to open an FHSA, and, if so, how many have opened an FHSA?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, as of December 13, 2023, the date of the question.
With regard to part (a), the first home savings account, FHSA, legislation does not require the CRA to license or approve financial institutions that wish to become FHSA issuers. They must meet the eligibility requirements found in the definition of qualifying arrangement under subsection 146.6(1) of the Income Tax Act. Part of those requirements involves submitting a specimen plan containing required documentation that conforms to the requirement of the act for review and approval by the CRA. To date, 29 unique FHSA issuers submitted one or more specimen plans that have been approved by the CRA.
With regard to part (b), the CRA will be unable to provide information about the number of FHSAs that have been opened to date until all FHSA annual information returns have been processed. Financial institutions will only start filing these returns after December 31, 2023. The returns are due by the end of February 2024.
With regard to part (c), for the purposes of opening an FHSA, a first-time homebuyer is an individual who did not, at any time in the current calendar year before the account is opened or at any time in the preceding four calendar years, live in a qualifying home or what would be a qualifying home if located in Canada as their principal place of residence that either they owned or jointly owned, or that their spouse or common-law partner at the time the account is opened owned or jointly owned.
An individual who owns residential property or properties that are not their principal residence at any time in the current calendar year before the account is opened or at any time in the preceding four calendar years would be considered a first-time homebuyer for the purposes of opening an FHSA.
With regard to part (d), to open an FHSA, an individual must meet all of the eligibility criteria as outlined on the CRA website entitled “Opening your FHSAs”: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/first-home-savings-account/opening-your-fhsas.html#h-1. An individual needs to meet all of the above conditions to open an FHSA. If individuals do not meet all of the conditions above, they are not a qualifying individual and cannot open an FHSA.
In the context of the administration of the FHSA program specifically, information about individuals who own residential property or properties that are not their principal residence will not be collected by the CRA.