Debates of Dec. 5th, 2022

Question No.888—

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the above-noted question, the CRA has been asked to respond on behalf of the government as of October 18, 2022.

The Canada emergency response benefit (CERB) was specifically designed to provide millions of Canadians with payments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant must attest that they meet the eligibility criteria for the application and, after the fact, CRA may verify the information that was submitted.

Safeguards are in place to identify and prevent high-risk or potentially suspicious applications from being fully processed. Verification activities are undertaken. These are being used, along with other relevant information available to the CRA, to validate eligibility. If any payments are found to have been made to an individual deemed ineligible, the claimants will be contacted to make arrangements to repay any applicable amounts.

The determination of fraud is a question of fact, and each case must be considered individually to determine whether a claim for benefit is the result of an honest error or a misrepresentation. Each situation is unique, and it is important to note that the verification work on a specific file may take several months, but the overall verification work for all files will take several years.

The CRA is committed to ensuring that the CERB and other emergency benefits were claimed only by those who are eligible.

In response to parts (a) to (e) of the question, the CRA does not capture information in the manner described in the question.

Question No.892—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

With regard to sanctions imposed on Russian individuals in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine: (a) what is the total number of individuals sanctioned to date; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many (i) have assets in Canada which have been seized, (ii) do not have any known assets in Canada; (c) what is the total number of entities sanctioned to date; (d) of the entities sanctioned in (c), how many (i) have assets in Canada which have been seized, (ii) do not have any known assets in Canada; and (e) what is the value of assets seized to date from (i) individuals, (ii) entities?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.

In response to parts (a) to (e) of the question, the special economic measures (Russia) regulations, or the Russia regulations, consist of a wide range of measures, including a dealings ban on listed persons. As of October 8, 2022, in response to the invasion in February 2022, Canada has imposed sanctions on 1271 Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian individuals and 207 Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian entities, effectively subjecting them to an asset freeze as a result of the aforementioned dealings ban.

Canada and its G7 and other allies jointly decided to take further steps to isolate Russia from the international financial system and impose consequences for its actions, including by establishing the Russian elites, proxies and oligarchs, or REPO, task force. Following the March 16, 2022 meeting of the REPO task force, G7 finance ministers released a joint statement outlining their commitment to take all available legal steps to find, restrain, freeze and, where appropriate, seize, confiscate or forfeit the assets of individuals and entities that have been sanctioned in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This commitment seeks to target the assets of key sanctioned Russian elites and proxies.

Canada moved rapidly and is the first country in the G7 to implement the REPO commitment, further demonstrating Canada’s leadership role in the response to Putin’s unjustified and illegal war in Ukraine. The Budget Implementation Act, or BIA, which received royal assent on June 23, 2022, established the new asset seizure and forfeiture authorities as part of Canada’s overall sanctions regime, through designated changes to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. These changes provide authorities to allow Canadian courts to order seized or restrained property in Canada that is owned, held or controlled by sanctioned individuals and entities, to be forfeited to the Government of Canada. Funds resulting from asset forfeiture may be used to compensate victims of human rights abuses, restore international peace and security or rebuild affected states.

Since the enactment of these legislative changes, a whole-of-government effort has been under way to operationalize the new authorities and move forward with respect to the first potential seizure of assets.

At present, the government is actively engaged in identifying and analyzing potential target assets, including building solid evidentiary packages to support seizure and forfeiture orders. Such steps are crucial to the successful implementation of this new regime.

Question No.893—

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

With regard to the dental care provisions in Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing: (a) were the provincial or territorial ministers of Health consulted on these measures, and, if so, what are the specific details, including (i) who was consulted, (ii) how they were consulted, (iii) the dates of the consultations; and (b) were the provisions on the agenda for any federal, provincial, and territorial ministers' meetings, and, if so, which ones and on what dates?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, was introduced on September 20, 2022. Health Canada has and will continue to engage with the provinces and territories, as well as stakeholders including experts, clinicians and industry, on providing dental care for uninsured Canadians. Consultations to date have helped inform the design of the legislation, but no consultations were held specifically on this legislation before Bill C-31 was introduced.

The discussion items for ministerial FPT meetings are confidential, and the details cannot be made available.

Question No.896—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

With regard to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms): (a) what are the details of all studies, surveys and focus groups conducted by the government and related to the effectiveness of the measures contained in the bill, including, for each (i) who conducted the study, (ii) the type of study (focus group, survey, etc.), (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the participant demographics, (v) the questions asked and results, (vi) the methodology used, (vii) the website where findings are available to the public, if applicable; and (b) what are the details of each contract pertaining to (a), including, for each, (i) the vendor, (ii) the date of the contract, (iii) the value, (iv) which studies, surveys or focus groups were connected to the contract, (v) a description of goods or services, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, official consultations were not conducted for Bill C-21, which is currently before Parliament. In the development of the previous Bill C-21, which died on the Order Paper in 2021 at the call of the federal election, consultations were undertaken with stakeholders to help inform the development of the bill. The majority of the measures of the previous bill were retained in the current bill. They are as follows.

With regard to part (a) of the question, in 2018, Public Safety launched an engagement process to help inform policy, regulations and legislation to reduce violent crime involving firearms, in particular around limiting access to handguns, assault-style firearms and measures to reduce firearm-related violent crime. The engagement process included a series of eight in-person round tables, an online questionnaire, a written submission process and bilateral meetings with a range of stakeholders.

With regard to part (a)(i) of the question, Hill and Knowlton Strategies was retained by Public Safety Canada to provide support in undertaking this engagement project. Public Safety Canada developed the agenda for the in-person round tables and selected and invited participants. Hill and Knowlton facilitated these discussions. The online questionnaire was developed and launched by Public Safety Canada. Hill and Knowlton’s role was to analyze and report on data collected through all engagement channels. Public Safety Canada reviewed draft versions of this report and provided Hill and Knowlton with written feedback, which was incorporated into the final written report.

The response to part (a)(ii) of the question is in-person round tables, an online questionnaire, written submissions and bilateral meetings with stakeholders

With regard to part (a)(iii) of the question, Public Safety held a series of eight in-person round tables in four cities: Vancouver on October 22, 2018; Montreal on October 25, 2018; Toronto on October 26, 2018; and Moncton on October 29, 2018. In total, 77 stakeholders participated in these sessions. Thirty-six written submissions were received. The online questionnaire was open for one month and was available online to all Canadians between October 11 and November 10, 2018. There were 134,917 questionnaires completed.

In response to part (a)(iv) of the question, regarding in-person round tables, stakeholders represented the provincial government; law enforcement; municipalities; not-for-profit associations, such as health, community services, youth, victims; education; wildlife and conservation; retailers; academia and research; and the firearms and sports shooting community.

Regarding the written questionnaire, more than half of the respondents were male. Most came from either Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia or Alberta. Most lived in an urban setting, and nearly half owned a firearm.

Parts (a)(v) and (a)(vi) of the question are not applicable.

The answer to part (a)(vii) of the question is the engagement summary report, “Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault-Style Firearms” at publicsafety.gc.ca.

Concerning part (b) of the question, the answers are as follows: (i) Hill and Knowlton Strategies; (ii) October 9, 2018, to May 31, 2019, inclusive; (iii) $206,428.40; (iv) this contract was in relation to the October 2018 regional round tables with stakeholders in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick; (v) designing the in-person engagement sessions, developing the strategy, facilitating up to eight sessions with stakeholders, developing a summary report from the round tables and online written submissions, and developing a consolidated public-facing report; (vi) it was a call-up against Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Question No.898—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

With regard to the impact of rising interest rates on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC): what are the CMHC's projections on the number, total value, and percentage of CMHC insured mortgage loans that will be in a default situation based on (i) current interest rates, (ii) higher interest rates, broken down by 50 basis point intervals?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, part of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s, or CMHC’s, mandate is to contribute to market stability by providing information on potential housing market vulnerabilities.

In terms of insurance risk, interest rates are but one consideration and should not be looked at in isolation. CMHC’s corporate-wide stress testing program and capital adequacy is forward looking and responsive to emerging events, and interest rates are one of the factors taken into consideration in the analysis. Performing such frequent analyses allows CMHC to identify potential threats to our capital and liquidity levels and enhance our operational readiness, as necessary. People can consult CMHC’s last published 2022-26 corporate plan for more information, specifically page 37 for financial highlights, page 60 for commercial operations and mortgage insurance, and page 80, appendix 5, regarding stress testing.

CMHC’s 2023-27 corporate plan will be submitted to Parliament according to schedule and will include the current rate environment, further forecasts and our capital adequacy projections.

Additionally, as part of its quarterly financial reporting, CMHC reports on mortgage arrears, defaults, via its mortgage loan insurance business supplement, June 30, 2022, specifically tab 25, transactional homeowner and portfolio, arrears; and tab 26, transactional homeowner and portfolio, claims paid. Note that default does not mean an insurance claim.

CMHC does not have projected numbers on CMHC-insured mortgage loans that will be in a default situation based on the current interest rate or higher interest rates, broken down by 50 basis point intervals.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 882 to 884, 887, 889 to 891, 894, 895, 897 and 899 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.882—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

With regard to Prairies Economic Development Canada (PrairiesCan): (a) what is the total amount of project funding announced by the agency since its inception; (b) what is the total amount of project funding where the funding has actually been transferred to the recipient since the agency's inception; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by year; and (d) what are the details of all projects which have been funded by the agency to date, including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) date of announcement, (iii) project description, (iv) amount of funding being provided by PrairiesCan, (v) percentage of total project costs represented by the amount in (iv), (vi) start date, (vii) expected completion date, (viii) amount of PrairiesCan funding actually delivered to the recipient to date, (ix) recipient?

(Return tabled)

Question No.883—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

With regard to the Post Living Differential (PLD) allowance offered by the Department of National Defence to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members, broken down by Canadian Forces bases, region and year in the past 10 years: (a) what is the amount of PLD allowance offered to members, in dollars and percentage of salary; (b) how many members receive the PLD allowance; (c) how many members do not receive the PLD allowance; (d) how many members are living in single versus family units; (e) when did the department last undertake a comprehensive review of the PLD levels; (f) are there plans to undertake a review of the PLD allowance; and (g) what criteria is used to determine whether the PLD allowance is offered or not?

(Return tabled)

Question No.884—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

With regard to the claim by the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, that he used the month between finding out about Laith Marouf's comments and speaking out publicly about them, to consult with departmental officials on the government's legal options for withdrawing the money from the Community Media Advocacy Centre: (a) what are the details, including a specific timeline, for any consultations held in the month following July 20, 2022; (b) what are the titles of all departmental officials who were consulted; and (c) on what date and by what method (email, verbal consultation) was each official in (b) consulted?

(Return tabled)

Question No.887—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

With regard to the Tourism Relief Fund: (a) what is the complete list of criteria used by officials to determine the fund recipients; (b) how many applications for funding were received from British Columbia; (c) of the applicants in (b), how many were granted funding; (d) how many (i) businesses, (ii) non-profits, have received this funding in British Columbia; (e) of the recipients in (d), how many received (i) repayable, (ii) non-repayable, contributions; and (f) what is the timeline for when an application is received, when a decision is rendered, and when it is communicated to the applicant?

(Return tabled)

Question No.889—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

With regard to the government's response to foreign governments recruiting retired personnel from the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF): (a) what is the Department of National Defence's policy with respect to retired personnel from the RCAF accepting contracts or other paid work from foreign governments; (b) is the Department of National Defence aware of any former RCAF members accepting contracts or other paid work from the People's Republic of China since January 1, 2016; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, (i) what is the nature of that work, (ii) what is the total (dollar, contribution) value of that work, (iii) how many former RCAF members are involved, (iv) how many former RCAF members were CF-18 pilots, (v) what national security steps, if any, have been taken to prevent sensitive information from being divulged to an adversarial foreign government; (d) is the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development aware of any attempts by diplomatic staff from the People's Republic of China or other officials to recruit former members of the Canadian Armed Forces; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, (i) what steps has the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development taken to prevent such recruitment activities, (ii) have any diplomatic staff from the People's Republic of China been expelled from Canada as a result?

(Return tabled)

Question No.890—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

With regard to the Roxham Road border crossing: (a) how many individuals have used the Roxham Road border crossing to enter Canada, broken down by month since January 1, 2021; (b) what are the ongoing monthly costs related to the crossing, including costs associated with processing individuals crossing the border; (c) what is the breakdown of (b) by type of expenditure; (d) how many officers or employees from (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Canada Border Services Agency, (iii) Citizenship and Immigration Canada, have been assigned to duties related to the border crossing or the individuals who crossed into Canada at that location; (e) what are the details of all contracts awarded by the government since January 1, 2021, in relation to the border crossing, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount or value, (iv) description of goods or services, including the volume, if applicable; (f) for each contract in (e), was it sole­ sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; and (g) for each sole-sourced contract in (f), why was there not a competitive bidding process?

(Return tabled)

Question No.891—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

With regard to expenditures on communications professional services (codes 035, 0351, and 0352) since April 1, 2021, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the vendor, (iv) the description of goods or services, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or competitively bid?