Debates of Oct. 30th, 2024

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is not as though the solutions were not known. The problem is that this issue has gone unaddressed for years. There have been federal cuts since 1994 that have never been restored.

The affordable rental housing deficit is even more striking when we consider the development of social housing. In six towns in Quebec, the share of social housing built between 2000 and 2023 ranged from 2% in Trois‑Rivières to 5% in Saguenay. In Montreal, it represented just 2.8% of total housing built.

This absolutely needs to change. What we need is social housing.

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

The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères is rising on a point of order.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties, and I think that, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow me to present a petition that I was planning to table today in the presence of certain elected officials from my riding who are here on Parliament Hill.

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

Is it agreed?

[members]

Agreed.

Verchères Harbour

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to officially table petition e‑4845, which was certified pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petition has been signed by 1,315 people and was initiated by Alexandre Bélisle, the mayor of Verchères, as well as all the municipal councillors, who are here today on Parliament Hill.

The petition calls on the House of Commons to bring this matter to the attention of the Government of Canada and the ministers concerned so that the necessary funds to rehabilitate the Verchères harbour are provided. The Municipality of Verchères has been expressing its interest in acquiring this harbour from Fisheries and Oceans Canada for 25 years. However, nothing has changed, and residents are getting impatient.

As a result of Ottawa's negligence, the Verchères harbour fell into such disrepair that it actually had to be closed for safety reasons. I therefore expect a swift response from the government on this issue, which is of the utmost importance to the people of Verchères.

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

Are there any other unanimous consent motions to come forward?

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I suspect that if you were to ask, you would find consent for me to table our responses to petitions and questions on the Order Paper.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2905, 2907, 2909, 2910, 2914, 2916, 2918, 2919, 2925, 2929, 2931, 2932, 2934 and 2941.

Question No.2905—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With regard to budget 2024 and the government’s subsequent amendments to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act: (a) what criteria did the government use to develop the list of health care professionals and social services professionals included in the amendments; (b) which health care professionals and social services professionals were included in the assessments in (a); (c) for each health care professional and social services professional included in the assessments but not included in the amendments, what is the rationale to exclude the professionals from the final list; (d) what is the total expected cost of the loan forgiveness measures announced in budget 2024, broken down by profession; and (e) what was the estimated cost of including occupational therapists in the loan forgiveness program?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, in recognition of increasing workforce shortages in the health care and social services sectors in rural and remote communities, Budget 2024 committed to expanding the list of eligible occupations for Canada Student Loan, or CSL, forgiveness to 10 new occupations: early childhood educators, dentists, dental hygienists, pharmacists, midwives, personal support workers, physiotherapists, psychologists, social workers, and teachers. This expansion will ensure all Canadians can benefit from greater access to the health and social services they need, no matter where they live.

Several factors were considered in determining the list of newly eligible professions.Labour market information (e.g., the Canadian Occupational Projection System) was used to identify sectors that are projected to be in shortage in the coming years. In addition, extensive consultations were undertaken with provinces and territories, stakeholders from numerous different professions, and student organizations to ensure their voices were heard while the Government examined various options. The need for enhanced mental health supports, the growing importance of interdisciplinary care, and care services for an aging population were all highlighted as priorities for stakeholders. Additionally, certain occupations were identified as playing key roles in supporting the implementation of Government of Canada priorities, namely the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care system, the Canadian Dental Care Plan, and the proposed National Pharmacare Plan. While there are numerous other occupations in shortage in rural and remote communities, fiscal consideration was also taken into account. The expansion of the list to add the additional ten new occupations balances both fiscal prudence and health and social service shortages.

With regard to part (b), a variety of occupations were examined as part of the process of assessing an expansion to the list of professionals eligible for CSL Forgiveness. This included various health and social service occupations that deliver primary care, interdisciplinary health care, and technical/supporting services.

With regard to part (c), numerous occupations are in-demand in rural and remote communities. As noted in the response to (a), several factors were considered to determine the proposed ten new occupations, including labour market information, stakeholder feedback, complementarity with other efforts to address workforce shortages in healthcare and in social services, and financial considerations.

With regard to part (d), the total cost of the loan forgiveness measure over four years, from 2025-26 to 2028-29, is $301.7 million dollars. While Budget 2024 did not provide the cost breakdown by profession, Employment and Social Development Canada officials are currently working on a Regulatory submission, which will disaggregate some of the costs.

With regard to part (e), as the profession of occupational therapists was not retained for the Budget 2024 proposal on Canada Student Loan forgiveness, no cost was estimated for the budget.

Question No.2907—

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

With regard to budget 2024 which stated that the changes to capital gains taxes would increase federal revenues by $19.4 billion over five years starting in 2024-25: (a) how did the government arrive at this figure; and (b) what data sources were used?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, this figure was estimated using historical information on individual, including trust, and corporate tax filings to project capital gains realizations in future tax years, i.e. ending in 2024 through 2029, using the Department of Finance’s forecasting and simulation models.

Adjustments were made to the baseline projections of capital gains realizations to account for some filers choosing to realize capital gains prior to the effective date of June 25, 2024, leaving less capital gains in future years that would have otherwise been subject to the higher inclusion rate had they not been pulled forward.

The simulation models account for, among other things: changes in the inclusion rate on net capital gains and stock options subject to the $250,000 threshold, the inclusion rate for allowable business investment losses, adjustment factors applied to net capital losses of prior years, Alternative Minimum Tax calculations, and the value of the lifetime capital gains exemption.

In addition, it was assumed that the higher inclusion rate for corporations would result in a reduction in the capital dividend account, and a greater value of taxable dividends paid out by corporations to be taxed in the hands of individuals.

Furthermore, an adjustment factor was applied to the model output to account for additional behavioural responses to the reform, i.e. retiming of capital gains realizations across years after 2024, changes in the allocation of assets to fixed income investments.

As for part (b), the Department of Finance’s modelling tools leverage historical personal, trust and corporate income tax filing data from the Canada Revenue Agency.

The growth rates for key income variables, including capital gains and stock options, are based on the same departmental projection model that is used to forecast key fiscal and economic variables for the federal budget.

Question No.2909—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

With regard to the Assessment Framework and Guidelines that deliver on Canada’s G7 and G20 commitments to phase out or rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies: (a) how many tax and non-tax measures have been assessed and met the criteria to be considered an efficient fossil fuel subsidy; and (b) for each tax and non-tax measure identified in (a), which of the six criteria identified in the framework were met?

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of its effort to fulfill Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out or rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, on July 24, 2023, the Government of Canada released the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies (IFFS) Government of Canada Self-Review Assessment Framework and the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Guidelines. The Framework provides a definition of a fossil fuel subsidy and the methodology for assessing efficiency, while the Guidelines prevent the creation of any new inefficient subsidies. The Framework and Guidelines were jointly developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Department of Finance Canada and apply to all federal departments and agencies.

Consistent with the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Self-Review Assessment Framework, the Government of Canada has phased out or rationalized the following nine tax measures supporting the fossil fuel sector: phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands (announced in Budget 2007);reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in conventional oil and gas sector (announced in Budget 2011); phase-out of the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors (announced in Budget 2012); reduction in the deduction rate for pre-production intangible mine development expenses to align with rate for the oil and gas sector (announced in Budget 2013); phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining (announced in Budget 2013); allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025 (announced in Budget 2016); rationalize the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling (announced in Budget 2017); phase out tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favorably treated exploration expenses (announced in Budget 2017); and, phase-out of flow-through shares for oil, gas, and coal activities (announced in Budget 2022).

Canada is currently developing a self-review report which will include information on all identified federal fossil fuel subsidies and its self-assessment against the IFFS Framework. These reports will be made public before the end of 2024.

Question No.2910—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

With regard to the pilot system for rapid heat wave attribution: (a) which heat waves have been assessed to calculate how much human-caused global warming changed the risks of such an event occurring, including during the development of the system; (b) what steps are being taken and what is the expected timeline to expand the pilot to include extreme cold weather events and extreme precipitation; and (c) are there plans to expand the pilot to include wildfires, drought, and floods?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the pilot heatwave attribution system is based directly on a published event attribution analysis of a heatwave which occurred in May 2023 in Alberta. Since the pilot system began running in March 2024, it has been applied to a range of moderate heatwaves in regions across Canada over the period March – June 2024. These have been used to evaluate the system, but the results have not been published.

With regard to part (b), research is going on this year to expand the system to allow attribution of cold extremes, and precipitation extremes. Applying rapid event attribution to cold extremes is a technically straightforward update to the existing system but requires research to ensure that the climate models used are able to simulate these events realistically. Attribution of precipitation extremes requires evaluation of observational datasets, and more in-depth model evaluation. We plan to include these variables in the rapid event attribution system by the end of March 2025.

With regard to part (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada has collaborated with Natural Resources Canada to carry out an event attribution study of the 2023 Canadian wildfire season which has been submitted to a scientific journal but has not yet been peer reviewed. It is anticipated that this study could be used as a basis for attribution of future extreme wildfire seasons on an expedited timeline, compared to many months for a typical analysis. Such analyses are typically applied to a whole fire season, rather than individual wildfires. Research on rapid event attribution of flooding across Canada is a part of the rapid event attribution project and it will be developed in the next two to five years. Droughts tend to be longer-term phenomena that are not as well suited to rapid attribution. We do not currently have plans to include drought in the rapid event attribution system, but attribution of drought is a subject for future research.

Much of this research is taking place at Environment and Climate Change Canada offices at the University of Victoria, in Victoria.

Question No.2914—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

With regard to the increase to capital gains taxes announced in budget 2024: prior to the release of budget 2024, did the government consult anyone on these tax increases, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) who was consulted, (ii) how they were consulted, (iii) when they were consulted?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada regularly consults Canadians and stakeholders in the context of pre-budget consultations, with over 16,000 submissions and suggestions received in advance of Budget 2024.

A search of the records of the Department of Finance did not produce any results.

Question No.2916—

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

With regard to Health Canada's (HC) decision to approve the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines and the Prime Minister's subsequent support for the vaccine mandates in the federal public sector and vaccine passports for travel purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what is the immunological mechanism of action of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that enables them to stop the spread of SARS-CoV2; (b) what data supports this mechanism of action; (c) who or what agency provided the data and verified the data; (d) when was this data provided to (i) HC, (ii) the Office of the Prime Minister; (e) what data did Pfizer and Moderna produce to HC that demonstrated (i) the period of time the spike protein is produced in the body, (ii) where in the body the spike protein is produced; and (f) in relation to (e), what was the period of time Pfizer and Moderna tracked the spike protein in their clinical studies?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is Health Canada’s top priority, and the department exercises stringent regulatory oversight over vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccines. Before a vaccine is approved in Canada, the department conducts a rigorous scientific review of its safety, efficacy and quality. Submissions filed by vaccine manufacturers typically contain extensive data regarding the vaccine's safety, efficacy and quality, including results of pre-clinical and clinical studies, details on manufacturing processes, and information on adverse events following immunization. For your information, the clinical data that was submitted in support of the approval of COVID-19 vaccine by manufacturers, can be found on the Clinical Information Portal. An authorization was only issued when anticipated benefits of the vaccine outweighed the potential risks of its use.

The mRNA in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines provides instructions for how to make the viral spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. The spike protein triggers an immune response. The body then prepares antibodies and cells that help fight the virus if it enters the body in the future. Additional details on how the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work ca be found at COVID 19 mRNA vaccines – Canada.ca. The vaccines have demonstrated to be highly effective in prevention of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Studies on the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of the drug product were conducted and were submitted as part of the pre-clinical and early clinical trial phase data packages that companies are required to submit to regulatory agencies, including Health Canada. The pre-clinical data provided by the companies demonstrated that vaccine-produced spike protein is rapidly broken down and does not persist in the body. These data were analyzed by Health Canada prior to authorizations being granted for the COVID 19 vaccines. The outcomes of some of these studies can be found in the Summary Basis of Decision for each product, available on the COVID 19 vaccines and treatments portal.

Question No.2918—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With regard to Health Canada's (HC) review of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccine products: (a) did HC consider the specific nature of the nanotechnology of the lipid particles used for the modRNA vaccine delivery; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what was their assessment; (c) why was the fact that modRNA vaccines contain nanotechnology omitted from the product monograph-label; (d) did HC assess the toxicity of pegylated nanoparticles, specifically the risk for complement activated related pseudo allergy (CARPA) with the lipid nanoparticles used in the mRNA vaccines; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, why was this not included in the product labelling; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why wasn't this assessed; (g) did HC assess the risk of toxicity due to the nanoformat of these vaccines; (h) if the answer to (g) is affirmative, what was the assessment result; (i) if the answer to (g) is negative, why not; (j) did HC assess the lipid nanoparticles as a novel excipient; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, what was the assessment; (l) if the answer to (j) is negative, why not; (m) with respect to nanotechnology products and their unique properties and behaviors particularly in their application to the modRNA vaccines, did HC examine (i) the safety, (ii) the effectiveness, (iii) the risk to the environment, (iv) its specific regulatory status; (n) if the answers to (m)(i) to (m)(iv) is affirmative, what were the assessment results; (o) if the answers to (m)(i) through (m)(iv) is negative, why not; (p) how do established safe levels of DNA apply, (i) when using pegylated LNPs as a delivery system, (ii) when a product that contains pegylated LNPs requires repeated dosing; and (q) what assessment was performed to assess the risk of residual DNA when using pegylated LNPs as a delivery system in a vaccine which requires repeated dosing?