Debates of Jan. 29th, 2024

Question No.2054—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

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—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

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?

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

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—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

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?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

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—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

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?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

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—

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

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?

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

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—

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

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?

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

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—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

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?

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

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—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

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—

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

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?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

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—

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

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?

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

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—

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

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)?

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

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—

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

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?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

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—

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

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?

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

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.