Debates of May 15th, 2023

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1362 to 1367, 1369, 1370 and 1384.

Question No.1362—

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

With regard to the defence policy review of “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, announced in budget 2022: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed for professional and management services with third-party service providers; (b) what are the details of all contracts in (a), including the (i) company the contract was awarded to, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) date the contract was awarded, (iv) expected deliverables; and (c) reflected as a number and a percentage, what is the total number of contracts in (a) that were (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, National Defence does not have any professional and management services contracts with third party service providers related to the categories in the question above.

National Defence is committed to openness and transparency, and proactively discloses contracts valued over $10,000 publicly on Open Canada. Please see: https://open.canada.ca/en/proactive-disclosure.

Question No.1363—

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

With regard to the government’s maximum financial contribution of $260 million through the new Building Canada Fund, under the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component, for the project to extend Highway 19 between Laval and Bois-des-Filion, in collaboration with the Government of Quebec: (a) what is the total amount allocated by the government as part of the agreement for this project; and (b) what are the terms and conditions of the funding agreement for this project?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a), Infrastructure Canada has allocated $260,435,500 to the extension of Highway 19 between Highway 440 in Laval and Highway 640 in Bois-des-Filion project under the provincial-territorial infrastructure component of the national and regional projects of the new building Canada fund, PTIC-NRP-NBCF.

With respect to part (b), the specific terms and conditions of the contribution agreement for this project are being finalized between Canada and Quebec.

In 2018, an umbrella agreement was signed to establish the terms and conditions by which Canada would make its contribution to Quebec for certain road projects under the PTIC-NRP-NBCF.

On March 26, 2019, a federal approval in principle was granted to the project under the PTIC-NRP-NBCF allowing eligibility of expenditures as of that date subject to certain conditions and the signing of an amendment to the Canada-Quebec umbrella agreement signed in 2018, to include the project.

In February 2023, negotiations between Canada and Quebec regarding the inclusion of the project in the amendment to the umbrella agreement were concluded. Approval by Quebec’s Conseil des ministres is now required in order to allow the signing of this umbrella agreement.

The terms and conditions of the PTIC-NRP-NBCF will apply to the project in relation to matters such as eligible expenses, reporting on project progress and communications. Canada's role in the projects is in relation to financial contributions and oversight, whereas Quebec is responsible for the development of the projects and their subsequent operation. Canada will be able to reimburse claims submitted by Quebec in accordance with the terms of the agreement once it is signed.

Question No.1364—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

With regard to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CIDC) insurance amount of $100,000: (a) since November 4, 2015, have there been any (i) meetings, (ii) reports, (iii) policy briefs, (iv) recommendations proposed, for raising the insurable amount, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the date and summary; (b) through what processes is the CDIC insurable amount determined; and (c) through what processes can the CDIC insurable amount be amended?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, deposit insurance is an important element of Canada’s financial system stability framework. It contributes to public confidence in the financial system by protecting depositors’ savings in the unlikely event that a deposit-taking institution fails.

The deposit insurance limit is set out in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. Changing the limit would require a legislative amendment. At this time, the deposit insurance limit remains at $100,000 for each of the nine separate deposit categories.

The Department of Finance Canada held public consultations on changes considered to the deposit insurance framework in the fall of 2016. The consultation paper on the deposit insurance review can be found at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2016/deposit-insurance.html.

Approximately 15 submissions were received from a range of stakeholders, including Canada’s six largest banks and the Canadian Bankers Association. In addition, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, CDIC, held public consultations on proposed changes to the joint and trust account disclosure bylaw needed to implement the deposit insurance review provisions. Submissions the government received permission to publish can be found at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2016/deposit-insurance/submissions.html.

Overall, CDIC depositor data at the time indicated that the framework is working well and provides sufficient coverage for the savings of Canadians. Approximately 97% of all eligible deposit accounts are fully covered under the current framework.

The analysis undertaken for the review indicated that raising the deposit insurance limit would not enhance protection to the savings of the vast majority of individuals in Canada because their deposit accounts are currently already covered under the framework. In line with international best practices, Canada’s framework covers the large majority of depositors but leaves a substantial amount of corporate deposits exposed to the possibility of loss in the event of a bank failure. These uncovered depositors, therefore, have an interest in the risk management practices of the member institution.

Increasing the limit would provide a proportionally higher benefit to corporate depositors, while increasing CDIC exposure which would need to be offset through additional premiums paid by CDIC member institutions, thereby potentially affecting the cost of financial services. This would not further the objectives of deposit insurance and could shift the existing balance between financial stability and market discipline, contrary to international best practices.

Based on the review, several proposed amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act were introduced in 2018 with legislative changes made from 2019 to 2022. The amendments modernized the scope of deposit insurance coverage to better protect depositors, e.g., foreign currency and extended term limits on guaranteed investment certificates, while clarifying and simplifying the deposit insurance framework for depositors, making it easier to understand, e.g., registered deposits and mortgage tax accounts.

Budget 2023 announced the government may amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to provide expanded authorities to increase deposit insurance and related measures in the event of a market disruption.

The budget implementation act, 2023, no. 1 proposes amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to authorize the Minister of Finance, upon the Governor in Council’s approval, to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit until April 30, 2024. Specifically, the proposed legislation would provide the minister temporary authorities to increase the deposit insurance limit to a higher threshold if doing so would, for example, protect financial stability and support consumer confidence in the banking system. This would strengthen the financial stability tools available to the Government of Canada in the current economic environment.

Should the minister seek to temporarily increase the deposit insurance limit, the minister would be required to consult the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the president and chief executive officer of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada prior to doing so.

The minister would be required to publish a report and table it in Parliament on a monthly basis during the period in which the deposit insurance limit is raised. The minister would also be required to undertake a review of these amendments after April 30, 2024, and publish a report on the review.

Question No.1365—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to government assessments comparing different procurement options for the proposed High Frequency Rail project: has the government conducted any assessments, and, if so, (i) which external professionals or consultants, if any, were used in conducting the assessments, (ii) which procurement approaches did the assessments consider, (iii) what were determined to be the advantages and disadvantages of each procurement approach considered, (iv) which other transportation projects or jurisdictions were analyzed as part of the assessments?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No.1366—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to Transport Canada's (TC) Small Vessel Compliance Program (SVCP): (a) how many vessels have owners registered with the SVCP since its inception, broken down by year; (b) how many vessels were denied certification after having applied for registration, broken down by postal code and reason for denial; (c) how many vessels registered in each year did not register in the subsequent year; (d) how many small vessels does TC estimate are currently eligible for the SVCP; and (e) how many of the vessels currently certified by the SVCP are commercial towing vessels?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

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

Question No.1367—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to emission reduction objectives established by the government, per the requirement of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act: (a) what is the 2026 objective; (b) on what evidence or modelling was the objective based; (c) does the government anticipate Canada will surpass or fall short of its 2026 objective; and (d) what does it estimate the difference of (c) will be, in tons of CO² equivalent emissions?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), subsection 9(2.1) of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act requires the Government of Canada to include an interim greenhouse gas, GHG, objective for 2026 in its 2030 emissions reduction plan, ERP. Canada’s 2026 interim GHG objective is 20% below 2005 levels. The interim objective is not an official target akin to Canada’s 2030 nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, but the act does require that the mandatory progress reports associated with the 2030 ERP, to be published in 2023, 2025 and 2027, include an update on the progress that has been made towards achieving the interim GHG emissions objective for 2026.

With regard to part (b), the 2026 interim GHG objective was set to be in line with Canada’s emissions reduction trajectory to 2030, based on the projections included in the 2030 ERP. Projections for the 2030 ERP use a combination of two modelling approaches: a bottom-up approach and a back-casting approach.

The bottom-up approach provides an estimation for emissions reductions achievable from existing climate measures, including some ERP measures, which at the time of publishing the ERP accounted for 470 megatonnes, Mt, or 36% below 2005 levels.

The back-casting approach, on the other hand, caps total emissions at the level needed to achieve the 2030 target of 40% below 2005 levels and identifies economically efficient potential reductions from each sector.

With regard to (c), results from Canada’s most recent GHG emissions projections to 2030 coming from the "With Additional Measures" scenario, which was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2022 as part of Canada's Eighth National Communication and Fifth Biennial Report on Climate Change, show that Canada is still on track to meet it with emissions being projected to be 18.2% below 2005 emissions in 2026.

With regard to (d), according to the results from the "With Additional Measures" scenario, the difference between Canada's projected 2026 emissions and its target is 13 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Question No.1369—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to Transport Canada's (TC) response to flight delays caused by air traffic controller (ATC) shortages at the Toronto (YYZ), Montreal (YUL) and Vancouver (YVR) airports: (a) what are TC's estimates related to shortages of operational ATCs in (i) 2023, (ii) 2024, (iii) 2025; (b) how many times were ground delays, programs or operational reductions put in place due to a lack of required amount of ATCs, broken down by month and airport; (c) what is the total number of flights that have been impacted in relation to shortages of operational ATCs, broken down by month for the last five years; (d) what was the average length of the delay for the flights impacted; and (e) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) commercial passenger, (ii) cargo, (iii) private, aircraft?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

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

Question No.1370—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

With regard to the information leaks about the contents of the budget by senior government sources to multiple media outlets on March 27, 2023, prior to the budget being released on March 28, 2023: (a) did the government launch an investigation to uncover the identity of those who leaked budget information, and, if so, what are the details of the investigation; (b) if no investigation was launched, why not; and (c) does the government have a double standard on investigating leaks based on whether or not the leak is part of a communications strategy initiated or approved by the Office of the Prime Minister?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board)]

Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office, PCO, did not launch an investigation or a fact-finding effort regarding a leak of information pertaining to the budget.

PCO investigates unauthorized disclosures in a consistent and standardized manner.

Question No.1384—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

With regard to the government's net debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio calculation: does the government include the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) assets as part of its net debt calculation, and, if so, what is Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio without using CPP assets as part of its calculation?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the federal debt as presented in federal budget documents does not include the financial assets of the Canada and Quebec pension plans, CPP and QPP.

That said, when presented for the country as whole, i.e., including all levels of government, Canada’s net debt, total liabilities less financial assets, does include the financial assets of the CPP and QPP. These assets have been accumulated through decades of savings by Canadians and are of significant value.

Statistics Canada and the International Monetary Fund do not publish a measure of Canada’s net debt that excludes the financial assets of the CPP and QPP, given that these assets are considered part of the general government sector under international accounting standards.

Canada’s well-funded public pension programs are an international rarity. Most advanced countries operate pay-as-you-go systems, where current contributors pay for current retirees. By accumulating CPP and QPP assets over decades, Canadians have ensured that Canada’s public pension plans are sustainable, meaning that they are well funded for at least the next 75 years at current contribution rates, which greatly enhances Canada’s overall fiscal sustainability.

The choice that Canadians have made to set money aside to keep the CPP and QPP sustainable for future generations is a tremendous fiscal advantage for Canada relative to most other countries, many of which have chosen not to fund their pension plans. As a result, these assets are rightly included when assessing Canada’s fiscal position relative to its international peers.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1361, 1368, 1371 to 1383 and 1385 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.1361—

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) reconstitution measures, since October 6, 2022: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed for professional and management services with third-party service providers; (b) what are the details of all contracts in (a), including the (i) company the contract was awarded to, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) date the contract was awarded, (iv) expected deliverables; and (c) reflected as a number and a percentage, what is the total number of contracts in (a) that were (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1368—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With regard to homeowner applications received by the Greener Homes program since its inception: (a) what is the breakdown of applications by postal code; (b) what percentage of applications have been (i) approved, (ii) denied, and, for each category, in which postal codes; (c) how many of the applications in (b)(ii) have involved heat pump installations and in which postal codes; (c) what is the average length of time between the submission of an application and reimbursement; and (d) what targets has the department set for the (i) number of completed projects, (ii) number of heat pump installations, (iii) total emissions reductions achieved by the program?