Debates of Dec. 12th, 2023

Question No.1868—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

With regard to the morale of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the statement in a July 23, 2023, briefing note from Canadian Forces Chaplain General, BGen Guy Bélisle, that “CAF leaders and members feeling more undervalued and underappreciated than at any point in recent memory”: (a) what is the government’s assessment of why CAF leaders and members feel undervalued and underappreciated; (b) what new measures, if any, will the government implement to improve CAF morale; and (c) when was the last time that the CAF conducted a thorough analysis of the state of morale, and what were the findings of that analysis?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the well-being of Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, personnel is of the highest priority to the CAF and National Defence, and the retention of trained and experienced personnel is fundamental to the professionalism and operational effectiveness of the organization. The Defence Team wants every Canadian to see service to Canada within the CAF as a first-rate career choice, which is why efforts are underway to strengthen how the organization recruits, retains, and takes care of its people.

With regard to (a) and (c), National Defence and the CAF recognize that military service places unique demands on CAF members and their families, including unique cost-of-living challenges due to operational tempo and job requirements. The CAF is also experiencing a shortfall in personnel, and the Defence Team is undertaking significant reconstitution efforts to make the organization stronger and more effective.

Your Say Matters: Defence Team Well-Being Survey, or YSM, is a survey aimed to obtain Defence Team members’ attitudes, perceptions, and experiences on a broad range of work and organizational factors related to well-being, organizational culture, and retention.

The 2022 YSM was administered, at random and in anonymous format, to members of the Defence Team, including CAF members, Regular and Primary Reserve, and National Defence civilian personnel, between March and May 2022, with approximately 8,000 CAF respondents. The results showed overall that the responding CAF members have moderate levels of morale, with more than a third of the respondents reporting low morale.

With regard to (b), National Defence is committed to improving the morale and welfare of the CAF and have implemented a number of initiatives in support of this effort. This includes delivering a 12.03% cost of living increase for CAF members and covering rations and quarters for members who have not yet completed all qualifications required for their first employment in their military occupation.

The CAF is further advancing meaningful culture evolution efforts to help build a more inclusive environment. Since its creation in 2021, Chief Professional Conduct and Culture conducted engagement with over 16,000 Defence Team members and external stakeholders to listen and learn from their lived experience, which informs the way forward to improving the culture within the Defence Team.

Ensuring that our soldiers, sailors, and aviators are equipped with modern and effective equipment also remains a priority for National Defence. This includes continued investments through Strong, Secure Engaged. For example, since 2017, the Government of Canada has developed a clear plan of action to modernize continental defence, including an investment of $38.6 billion over 20 years in NORAD modernization, and delivered critical new equipment to the CAF. This includes the purchase of F-35 advanced fighter aircraft, Canadian Surface Combatant ships, Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles and the Medium Support Vehicle System.

Finally, further initiatives will be launched in 2024 as efforts continue to create a healthier work environment for all to thrive and achieve increased operational readiness and effectiveness.

Question No.1869—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With regard to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada’s (FCAC) July 2023 Guideline on Existing Consumer Mortgage Loans in Exceptional Circumstances (Guideline): (a) how many financial institutions who provide mortgage lending in Canada were consulted by the FCAC on this Guideline; (b) did any of the financial institutions consulted raise concerns with the FCAC regarding the Guideline, prior to the implementation, and, if so, what are the details, including what concerns were raised and by which financial institutions; (c) if no financial institutions were consulted before the FCAC implemented the Guideline, why were they not consulted; (d) have any financial institutions raised concerns with the FCAC since the Guideline was introduced, and, if so, what are the details, including what concerns were raised and by which financial institutions; and (e) is the Guideline temporary or will the FCAC leave it in place indefinitely?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC, protects Canadians by supervising the compliance of federally regulated financial entities, such as banks, with their legislative obligations, codes of conduct and public commitments, and by strengthening Canadians’ financial literacy.

In response to the current economic environment, FCAC developed the Guideline on Existing Consumer Mortgage Loans in Exceptional Circumstances, which can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/industry/commissioner-guidance/mortgage-loans-exceptional-circumstances.html. The Guideline sets out how FCAC expects federally regulated financial institutions to provide tailored support to consumers with mortgages on their principal residence who are experiencing severe financial difficulty.

Guidelines establish practices that FCAC expects regulated entities to incorporate within their business operations. They are intended to assist regulated entities in complying with market conduct obligations stemming from legislation, regulations, codes of conduct and public commitments.

With regard to (a), consultations are part of FCAC’s standard practice in developing guidelines. FCAC launched public consultations on the proposed Guideline on March 21, 2023, and received comments until the close of the consultation period on May 5, 2023.

FCAC participated in 13 stakeholder engagements and received 36 written submissions from stakeholders, including members of the public, consumer advocacy groups, academics, financial institutions, and industry associations.

Industry-specific consultations took place via engagements with the Canadian Bankers Association, or CBA, representing a wide range of Schedule I, Schedule II, and Schedule III banks, namely Member banks, which are listed at https://cba.ca/member-banks?l=en-us, the Canadian Credit Union Association, or CCUA, for Canada’s credit unions, and some caisses populaires.

With regard to (b), four of the 36 written submissions received from stakeholders were submitted by financial institutions or their respective trade associations (the CBA and the CCUA). FCAC’s “What we heard: Public consultation on the Guideline on Existing Consumer Mortgage Loans in Exceptional Circumstances”, which can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/corporate/transparency/consultations/mortgage-loans/what-we-heard.html, provides an anonymized summary of all the comments received during the public consultations and indicates how FCAC addressed this input.

With regard to (c), this part is not applicable given the response to (a).

With regard to (d), since the Guideline’s implementation, financial institutions raised some of the following concerns with FCAC through regulatory supervisory touchpoints: consistency of guidelines and the consistent interpretation of those guidelines, timelines for the update of systems, how to define and identify consumer at risk, and more.

With regard to (e), the guideline is a response to the current exceptional circumstances facing mortgage holders. FCAC will continue to monitor the economic environment and adjust its approach, as appropriate.

Question No.1879—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

With regard to the Privy Council Office's Results and Delivery Unit: (a) what is the total amount of mandate letter commitments that are being tracked from the 2021 ministerial mandate letters, broken down by reporting lead (i.e. minister); and (b) as of October 2023, broken down by reporting lead (i.e. minister) and identification number, how many of the 2021 ministerial mandate letter commitments are identified (i) as completed by the government, (ii) to have seen actions taken by the government but not completed, (iii) as not being pursued by the government?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water]

Mr. Speaker, the list of mandate letter commitments, as aligned with the December 2021 mandate letters, is publicly available at https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/8f6b5490-8684-4a0d-91a3-97ba28acc9cd.

Information regarding the progress of our government’s commitments is publicly available as part of the Public Accounts of Canada, at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/index-eng.html, the Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates, at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/government-expenditure-plan-main-estimates.html, the Supplementary Estimates, at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/supplementary-estimates.html, and the budgets, at https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/federal-budget.html and at https://www.canada.ca/en/news.html.

Question No.1884—

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

With regard to the Lytton Homeowner Resilient Rebuild Program: (a) how much money has been distributed through the program to date; (b) how many recipients have received funding through the program; (c) what was the average payment amount received; and (d) how many applications have been received to date?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), concerning the Lytton Homeowner Resilient Rebuild Program, Pacific Economic Development Canada, or PacifiCan, distributed $0 between May 31 and October 24, 2023. In order to receive the fire-resilient or fire-resilient and net zero homes grant, the homeowner is required to complete home construction and meet all stated program requirements. As of October 24, 2023, all three applicants were in process but had not yet achieved the requirements.

With regard to (b), as of October 24, 2023, a total amount of $279,288 has been committed towards three recipients.

With regard to (c), the average payment to participants is $0 as of October 24, 2023. The average is expected to be $93,096 once grants are distributed.

With regard to (d), as of October 24, 2023, PacifiCan received three applications.

Question No.1886—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

With regard to the government’s response to the explosion at the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza, which occurred on October 17, 2023: (a) to whom were the Minister of Foreign Affairs' comments on October 17, 2023, that “Bombing a hospital is an unthinkable act, and there is no doubt that doing so is absolutely illegal”, which were posted on X (Twitter), addressed; (b) on what basis did the Minister of Foreign Affairs assess that the explosion at the Gaza hospital was illegal; (c) when did the Minister of National Defence notify the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the government’s statement, the “more likely scenario is that the strike was caused by an errant rocket fired from Gaza”, would be issued; and (d) did the Minister of Foreign Affairs change her position regarding the illegality of the explosion at the Al Ahli hospital following the statement in (c) from the Minister of National Defence, and, if not, why not?

[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.

The Government of Canada unequivocally condemns the brutal and horrific terrorist attacks against the people of Israel by Hamas, which took place October 7, 2023. Canada has been clear that Israel, like all states, has a right to defend itself, and that it has an obligation to do so in accordance with international law. Canada has called on all parties to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure.

The Government of Canada also recognizes the dire situation and human tragedy in Gaza and has been clear that the price of justice cannot be the continued suffering of all Palestinian civilians. Canada has called for Canadians, including foreign nationals, to be permitted to leave, for the release of all hostages, for unimpeded access for humanitarian aid, including life-saving access to medical services, food, fuel, and water, and for an end to the violence.

The Government of Canada continues to work with allies and partners in the region towards a lasting peace. Canada stands firmly with the Israeli and Palestinian peoples in their right to live in peace, security, and dignity, without fear, and supports a two-state solution where a peaceful, prosperous, and safe Palestinian state thrives alongside a peaceful, prosperous, and safe state of Israel.

Global Affairs Canada regularly prepares situation reports and briefing products that cover a broad range of developments in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, as it does for other regions. Such reports are used alongside a variety of other sources, including open-source media reports and information from other government departments, in assessing the veracity of reporting on international incidents and determining an appropriate response.

As indicated by the Department of National Defence, or DND, on October 21, 2023, analysis conducted independently by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command indicates with a high degree of confidence that Israel did not strike the al-Ahli hospital on October 17, 2023. Based on open source and classified reporting, the DND and the Canadian Armed Forces have assessed that the strike was more likely caused by an errant rocket fired from Gaza. This assessment is informed by an analysis of the blast damage to the hospital complex, including adjacent buildings and the area surrounding the hospital, as well as the flight pattern of the incoming munition. Reporting from Canada’s allies corroborates the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces’ findings.

Question No.1891—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

With regard to the Auditor General’s report entitled “Modernizing Information Technology Systems”: why does the government not retain historical data as cited in section 7.40 of the report?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, due to technical limitations with the Application Portfolio Management, or APM, system, it cannot record historical information about applications. The system was designed in 2013, and at the time it was only meant to record a point-in-time snapshot about applications, and not a historical time series. There is currently an active APM system redesign project and retaining historical data is one of the requirements for the new system, and although we cannot confirm that the vendor will be able to implement this requirement in the new software, appropriate solutions will be in place to alleviate the current limitations.

The upcoming systems will be designed to integrate a robust array of cutting-edge features and data, enhancing our capabilities and providing deeper insights into our environment. Through these modern advancements, we will gain a more comprehensive understanding of the IT ecosystem, fostering improved adaptability and informed decision-making.

As an interim solution and given the existing limitation, Excel extracts of the data have been made annually since 2018-19, and daily since January 2022 to allow for historical data analysis.

Question No.1892—

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

With regard to the finding in the Auditor General’s report entitled “The Benefits Delivery Modernization Programme”, that “Employment and Social Development Canada, in 2017, encountered numerous obstacles and delays in its implementation of the programme and had to make difficult choices about the sequence of key steps”: (a) what were these obstacles and delays; and (b) what difficult choices were made?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens’ Services]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s report on Benefits Delivery Modernization, or BDM, states that “Employment and Social Development Canada, since 2017, encountered numerous obstacles and delays in its implementation of the programme and had to make difficult choices about the sequence of key steps.”

BDM is a complex, large scale, multi-year undertaking, and the programme plan continues to be refined as scope, timing and other factors are assessed. As the work underway in BDM continues, the Programme is gaining a greater understanding of the complexity of unraveling the decades-old Old Age Security, or OAS, and Employment Insurance, or EI, system.

The obstacles and delays encountered by Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, since 2017 were mainly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the downstream impacts, as well as the switch from EI to OAS as the first benefit to onboard.

Due to COVID impacts, a number of key resources were temporarily deployed outside of the Programme to support the GC’s overall emergency response. At the peak of the response, nearly 25% of BDM’s employees were deployed outside of the Programme to assist other departments and agencies. Specifically, BDM’s employees assisted with the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, with their call centre and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, with their Fish Harvesters Benefit. As a result, some key decisions and activities related to the BDM Programme were delayed, resulting in downstream impacts on the Programme Definition phase.

To address these developments, the BDM Programme conducted an assessment to identify what elements of Programme Definition could still be delivered. Consequently, the timelines for the completion of the Programme Definition phase were delayed.

In 2021, in response to an elevated risk of system failure, ESDC accelerated the migration of OAS, the oldest of the three legacy systems, ahead of EI.

Question No.1896—

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) administration of Part XIII of the Income Tax Act over the past 20 tax years: (a) has the CRA held any Canadian resident tenant (i.e. residential or commercial) liable for failing to withhold and remit the tax payable by their non-resident landlord or required a Canadian resident tenant (i.e. residential or commercial) to pay any outstanding taxes of their non-resident landlord; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the total number of instances of this occurring, broken down by tax year, tenancy type (i.e. residential or commercial), and total amount of funds that the Canadian resident tenant was held liable to pay; (c) does the CRA have any internal policies, directives, standards or guidelines on administering Part XIII of the Income Tax Act within the context of a relationship between a Canadian resident tenant (i.e. residential or commercial) and a non-resident landlord; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the details of any such documents; (e) has the CRA modified, or does the CRA have plans to modify in the future, its policies, directives, standards or guidelines on administering Part XIII of the Income Tax Act following the ruling of the Tax Court of Canada in 3792391 Canada Inc. V. The King, 2023 TCC 37; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the details of any such modifications?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, as of October 24, 2023, the date of the question.

With regard to (a), per a review of the records available within its systems, the CRA has held one Canadian resident tenant liable for failing to withhold and remit the tax payable by their non-resident landlord as a result of an audit.

With regard to (b), only one case, which was a commercial tenancy, was found. To protect the integrity of the CRA’s work and to respect the confidentiality provisions of the Acts it administers, the CRA cannot provide taxpayer information or comment on specific taxpayer files.

With regard to (c), the CRA’s Non-Resident Audit Manual contains guidance on the administration of Part XIII of the Income Tax Act in cases where rental income for Canadian properties is received by a non-resident.

With regard to (d), to preserve the integrity of its compliance programs, as a standard practice the CRA does not disclose specific details about its audit or review techniques. However, a general summary of the CRA’s Non-Resident Audit Manual referred to in (c) follows: If a payer fails to withhold the required amount of the Part XIII tax from an amount paid to a non-resident, the payer and non-resident are both liable for this amount and the general practice of the CRA is to assess the payer for any amount owing. However, the CRA’s Non-Resident Audit Program takes into consideration all relevant facts and may instead assess the non-resident.

With regard to (e) and (f), as there are currently no plans to make changes to the CRA’s policies, directives, standards or guidelines on administering Part XIII of the Income Tax Act following the ruling of the Tax Court of Canada in 3792391 Canada Inc. V. The King, 2023 TCC 37, no further details regarding modifications apply in this case.

Question No.1901—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

With regard to Infrastructure Canada’s program funding: (a) since 2015, has Infrastructure Canada become aware of any projects funded by the department that have, or are alleged to have, employed illegal labour or projects in which any employee, or individual working in relation to the project, was not paid the minimum hourly wage required by federal or provincial law; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each instance, including the (i) name of project, (ii) project description, (iii) summary of wrongdoing or allegations, (iv) date on which the department became aware, (v) description of the actions taken, including the dates of each action, (vi) date on which the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities or the minister’s office was first notified, (vii) actions taken by the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, if any; and (c) what mechanisms are in place to ensure that no projects receiving government funding employ illegal labour or labour that is not paid the minimum hourly wage required by law?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to program funding for Infrastructure Canada, or INFC, in response to (a), INFC is not aware of any projects that have been funded by the department since 2015 that have, or are alleged to have, employed illegal labour or projects in which any employee, or individual working in relation to the project, was not paid the minimum hourly wage required by federal or provincial law.

With regard to (b), the answer to (a) is negative. INFC has not been made aware of illegal labour practices or minimum wage infractions on its funded projects through any of its project monitoring practices or interactions with recipients.

With regard to (c), information on recipients’ labour practices is not collected through project applications or project reporting. However, INFC’s contribution agreements with funding recipients include a standard provision requiring that all projects be compliant with all applicable laws and regulations, which would include all applicable labour laws.

Question No.1903—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With regard to visas for international students in Canada: how many international students (i) are currently studying in Canada, (ii) are studying at institutions accredited by Universities Canada, (iii) are in post-graduate studies, (iv) have transferred institutions within Canada during their period of study, (v) have completed their program of study in the last year, (vi) dropped out of their program of study in the last year, (vii) died in the last year, (viii) died by suicide in the last year?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, does not hold information on the number of study permit holders who are currently residing in Canada, mainly due to the fact that people can leave the country at any point in time.

With regard to part (i), as a proxy, IRCC holds information on the total number of study permit holders. On September 30, 2023, 1,015,744 study permit holders held a valid permit.

With regard to part (ii), 343,470 students are studying at institutions recognized by Universities Canada.

With regard to part (iii), 133,370 are in post-graduate studies.

With regard to parts (iv) through (viii), this data is not tracked by IRCC.

Please note that data are preliminary estimates and subject to change. Study permits are valid on September 30, 2023, and a client’s most recent study permit is considered. A client’s designated learning institution, DLI, is based on the current permit. The list of DLIs is based on the following website for Universities Canada: https://www.univcan.ca/universities/member-universities/. Universities Canada is a membership organization and not an official accrediting organization.

Please also note that the study level of a client is based on the recent permit. Post-graduate studies are defined as clients who have identified their level of study being either a master or a doctorate.

Question No.1905—

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

With regard to the government's recently published draft Clean Electricity Regulations: (a) how many megawatts of unabated fossil fuel electricity does Environment and Climate Change Canada estimate will be remaining on Canada's electricity grid in 2035; and (b) how many tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions will this represent on an annual basis?

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

Mr. Speaker, to support reliability and affordability, the draft regulations include flexibilities that allow a limited and declining ongoing role for fossil fuel generation. This flexible approach will enable provincial utilities and system operators to plan and manage their systems in accordance with relevant provincial circumstances, while creating a clear signal for reducing emissions over time.

According to the regulatory impact analysis statement, RIAS, for the draft clean electricity regulations, CER, in 2035, 9% of Canada’s electricity capacity will come from emitting sources, which are expected to decline over time. This would account for approximately 19,789 megawatts of emitting electricity capacity. However, it is important to note that this value also includes biomass and waste generation, which are not considered fossil fuels. The complete breakdown of forecasted electricity capacity under the draft regulatory scenario can be seen in table 5 of the CER RIAS. Further information is available at the following link: https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-08-19/html/reg1-eng.html

The regulations on their own would decrease annual emissions from 62 megatonnes to less than nine megatonnes remaining from grid electricity in 2035. These remaining emissions will also be exposed to the carbon price of a particular year to further bring us to net zero.

The proposed CER is expected to deliver nearly 342 megatonnes of cumulative emissions reductions between 2024 and 2050.

These projections are from the RIAS that accompanied the draft CER. Please note that Environment and Climate Change Canada will provide updated estimated impacts associated with the final regulations when they are published. The impacts may differ to the extent that the final regulations differ from the draft CER published in the Canada Gazette, part I.

Question No.1909—

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

With regard to the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative: (a) how much of the initiative's $650 million budget has been allocated within each of the strategy's pillars; (b) what projects have received funding commitments and under which pillars do these fall; and (c) what is the total amount of funding that has been disbursed under each of the pillars?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), program funding for the Pacific salmon strategy initiative, PSSI, is distributed in the following manner: $262.5 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, is for conservation and stewardship; $145.3 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, is for salmon enhancement; $204.4 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, is for harvest transformation; and $35 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, is for integration and collaboration.

With regard to part (b), numerous new initiatives and projects are now under way across all four implementation pillars of the Pacific salmon strategy initiative.

Under the conservation and stewardship pillar, new science investments have been made to improve understanding of salmon ecosystems. The British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation fund, a cost-shared federal-provincial program, has also been renewed. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, is demonstrating leadership internationally through funding science and high seas inspection in the north Pacific Ocean. Funding is also supporting the launch of the new DFO habitat restoration centre of expertise, which is advancing a number of initiatives related to salmon habitat restoration, including emergency salmon recovery efforts related to the recent flood, drought and wildfires in British Columbia.

Examples of current projects under way under the salmon enhancement pillar include the expansion of mass marking programs, which supports mark selective fisheries for the recreational fishing sector; the retrofitting and modernizing of existing hatcheries; and the planning and designing of new salmon hatchery facilities.

Under the harvest transformation pillar, PSSI is supporting modernized harvest management approaches for indigenous, commercial and recreational Pacific salmon fisheries that respond to current and future population trends. In addition, the department continues to explore new harvest opportunities for indigenous harvesters through terminal fisheries, and the recreational sector through mark selective fisheries. The new Pacific salmon commercial licence retirement program has also recently completed the first application round, where commercial salmon licence eligibility holders are able to voluntarily retire their licence eligibilities permanently for market value through reverse auction.

Finally, several initiatives are under way under the PSSI’s integration and collaboration pillar, most notably the launch of a targeted action plan measure, number 41, under the recently announced federal UN declaration act action plan, and efforts to modernize DFO’s Pacific salmon data and its availability through a new Pacific salmon data portal.

With regard to part (c), here is a breakdown of funds disbursed under each of the four PSSI implementation pillars: $33.5 million has been disbursed under conservation and stewardship; $28.4 million has been disbursed under salmon enhancement; $33 million has been disbursed under harvest transformation; and $8.4 million has been disbursed under integration and collaboration.

Question No.1915—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

With regard to cost estimates related to the Benefits Delivery Modernization Programme: (a) what methodology was used by Employment and Social Development Canada to conclude the programme would cost $1.7 billion; and (b) what methodology was used by the third-party review to conclude that the cost would be between $2.7 billion and $3.4 billion?