Debates of Dec. 11th, 2024

Question No.3125—

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, through budget 2021, the Government of Canada is investing more than $27 billion over five years (2021-22 through 2025-26) to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care, ELCC, system with provinces and territories, PTs. When combined with other investments, including in indigenous early learning and child care, IELCC, up to $30 billion will be invested in support of ELCC over the same period. The goal is for families in Canada to have access to regulated ELCC for an average cost of $10 a day by March 2026.

On March 27, 2022, the governments of Canada and Ontario entered into the mutually agreed-upon Canada–Ontario Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement to deliver on average $10-a-day child care for Ontario families by the end of March 2026 and support the creation of 86,000 new licensed spaces by the end of 2026.

As per section 2.1 of the agreement, Canada and Ontario committed to a number of objectives and targets related to access to ELCC.

Ontario commits to using federal funding to increase the net number of licensed spaces for children under age six by flowing funds by the end of fiscal year 2025-26 to support the creation of 76,700 spaces, from 2019 levels, by March 31, 2026, and 86,000 child care spaces, from 2019 levels, by December 31, 2026.

In creating these child care spaces, Ontario commits that federal funding will be exclusively used to support licensed child care and that federal funding will be used predominantly to support the creation of not-for-profit child care spaces to ensure that the existing proportion of not-for-profit licensed child care spaces for children age 0 to 5 will be maintained or increased by the end of this agreement.

For further clarity, at the end of this agreement, the proportion of not-for-profit licensed child care spaces for children age 0 to 5 compared to the total number of licensed child care spaces for children age 0 to 5 will be 70% or higher.

In addition, as noted by the Government of Ontario in its March 28, 2022, news release announcing the Canada-wide agreement, the agreement includes the “protection of all for-profit and non-profit child care spaces, helping to support predominantly female entrepreneurs across the province who provide high-quality child care services.”

Ontario will receive approximately $10.2 billion in federal investments to support its commitments as per the agreement, including commitments to support the creation of 76,700 new affordable child care spaces and lower child care fees to an average of $10 a day by March 2026, and creating a total of 86,000 spaces by December 31, 2026. This $10.2 billion of federal funding is in addition to other federal investments such as approximately $765 million through the Canada-Ontario early learning and child care agreement, 2021 to 2025; close to $150 million through the Canada-Ontario early childhood workforce funding agreement, 2021 to 2022; and over $135 million through the 2023-26 Canada-Ontario ELCC infrastructure agreement. In total, Ontario is scheduled to receive over $11.3 billion in federal funding between 2021-22 to 2025-26 to support child care in the province.

On August 15, the Government of Ontario announced a new parent fee cap of $22 a day along with a new cost-based funding formula for child care operators enrolled in the Canada-wide ELCC system, both of which will come into effect in January 2025.

On October 21, Jill Dunlop, Ontario Minister of Education, wrote to the Minister of Families, Children, and Social Development to note the high interest of for-profit providers in some service system managers in Ontario to join the Canada-wide ELCC system. In this letter, Minister Dunlop highlighted challenges in creating child care spaces in particular regions due to the 70-30 ratio of not-for-profit to for-profit spaces that Ontario committed to uphold in the Canada-Ontario Canada-wide ELCC agreement. The Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario are in ongoing discussions to support the successful implementation of the Canada-wide ELCC agreement.

Canada-wide ELCC agreements predominantly support not-for-profit, public and family-based child care providers, but given the unique ELCC landscape in each province and territory, the Government of Canada recognizes that licensed for-profit providers also play a role. Provincial and territorial early learning and child care systems vary in terms of the proportion of ELCC spaces that are not-for-profit or for-profit.

While Ontario and Canada agreed to keep the proportion of not-for-profit child care spaces at 70% or higher, in New Brunswick, the ratio of for-profit providers is higher than not-for-profit. Under the Canada-New Brunswick Canada-wide ELCC agreement, New Brunswick committed to creating predominantly not-for-profit child care spaces, e.g. 2,000 of the 3,400 spaces to be created. All new child care spaces created are part of the province’s designation system, which ensures high quality standards and includes a market fee threshold to control fees charged to parents.

Due to the high demand and challenges faced in creating not-for-profit child care spaces in rural areas and in francophone settings in New Brunswick, additional flexibility was agreed to, allowing for the creation of a limited number of additional designated spaces in the for-profit sector in rural areas and francophone settings and as part of New Brunswick’s target to create 3,400 designated child care spaces by March 2026, as per the Canada-New Brunswick Canada-wide ELCC agreement.

Question No.3130—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

With regard to the Expression of Interest published by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) for the commercial leasing of a building at Joyceville Institution: (a) what is the specific nature of the unidentified “steel clad structure” to be leased under this Expression of Interest; (b) what type of commercial activities does the steel clad structure have the potential to accommodate; (c) how many offenders would the commercial operation be required to employ; (d) what would be the hourly rate paid by the lessee to the CSC per offender hour worked; (e) what would be the hourly rate received by the offender per hour worked; (f) what types of vocational training and industry-approved certification for offenders would the lessee be required to provide; (g) what are the estimated costs of providing security for commercial activities undertaken within the prison, and who will be responsible for these costs;

(h) what scope of work and specific repairs have been identified for the “fit up” to the “as is” buildings that the lessee would be responsible for; (i) what are the current estimated costs for the “fit up” to the “as is” buildings that the lessee would be responsible for; (j) what specific measures will the CSC take to ensure that any commercial activities undertaken on this property will remain cost-neutral to taxpayers; (k) what is the calculated or estimated monthly market rent that would be charged to the lessee; (l) what are the calculated or estimated monthly costs for utilities that would be charged to the lessee; (m) what are the calculated or estimated total monthly expenses for rent, utilities, and cost recovery that would be charged to the lessee; (n) what specific federal, provincial, and municipal regulations and statutes will the lessee be required to comply with; (o) what is the current estimated market value of the steel clad structure;

(p) what is the current estimated market value of the beef stock barn and paddock; (q) what is the current estimated market value of the cattle chute; (r) since 2022, what specific list of maintenance, repairs, and improvements have been conducted by the CSC on the buildings, including any new or upgraded equipment or technologies that have been added to the steel clad structure, beef stock barn and paddock, and cattle chute; (s) since 2022, what funds have been spent on maintenance, repairs, and improvements to the steel clad structure, beef stock barn and paddock, and cattle chute; (t) since 2022, what funds have been spent on utilities, procurement disbursements and fees, consultant fees, travel, inspections, assessments, building condition reports, as well as drafting, translating, and publishing the Expression of Interest for the steel clad structure, beef stock barn, paddock, and cattle chute; and (u) what is the calculated or estimated cost of disposal or divestment of the buildings?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the steel-clad structure was constructed in 1958. Minor additions were added to the building in 1973 and 1975. A major addition and alteration work was completed in 1987 which included the basement, refrigeration facilities, loading facilities and exterior cladding. The building was previously leased and operated as an abattoir but is currently vacant.

With regard to part (b), it was previously leased and operated as an abattoir. The building has the potential to accommodate commercial activities that benefit not only the offenders in CSC’s custody, but also the community as a whole.

With regard to parts (c) to (e), the number of offenders required for employment would vary depending on the type of operation. The hourly rate paid by the lessee to CSC per offender hour worked and the hourly rate received by the offender per hour worked would be according to CSC inmate pay levels or work release minimum wage.

With regard to part (f), the types of vocational training and industry-approved certification for offenders that the lessee would be required to provide would be dependent on the type of operation.

With regard to parts (g) to (i), the calculated or estimated costs would be dependent on the type of operation and would be the responsibility of the lessee.

With regard to part (j), specific cost-recovery measures would be included in the lease and would be dependent on the type of operation to ensure that any commercial activities undertaken on this property will remain cost-neutral to taxpayers.

With regard to parts (k) to (m), the calculated or estimated costs would be dependent on the type of operation and would be the responsibility of the lessee.

With regard to part (n), this would be dependent on the type of operation. The lessee would be responsible for ensuring that all federal, provincial and municipal regulations governing the nature of their business are adhered to.

With regard to parts (o) to (q), CSC does not have estimations for the current market value of these buildings. The market values are only determined during the disposal process, lease or sale, and there are no disposals currently planned for these buildings.

With regard to part (r), since 2022, the work completed at the steel-clad structure includes the repair of the roof penetrations, power washing and disinfection of the building, replacement of the overhead doors, repairs of the stairwell retaining wall, LED light upgrades of outside wall packs, emergency light and exit signs upgrades, replacement of the interior steel door, replacement of the door and lock hardware, an accessibility study, replacement of the building heaters, replacement of the plumbing fixtures. No work has been completed since 2022 on the beef stock barn and paddock, and cattle chute.

With regard to part (s), since 2022, $153,216.79 has been spent on maintenance, repairs and improvements to the steel-clad structure, beef stock barn, paddock and cattle chute.

With regard to part (t), since 2022, $4,809.30 has been spent on utilities and $898.08 for drafting, translating, and publishing the expression of interest for the steel-clad structure, beef stock barn, paddock and cattle chute.

With regard to part (u), the disposal costs for sales vary widely depending on factors like building type, condition, legal fees, and compliance requirements, typically ranging from $75,000 and $250,000 per transaction, making each case unique in its final cost assessment.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if a revised answer to Question No. 3107, originally tabled on December 9, 2024, and the answers to Question Nos. 3122 to 3124, 3126 to 3129, 3131 and 3132 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.3107—

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

With regard to Canada’s relationship with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): (a) what are the complete details of all development assistance spending intended to have an impact in the DRC over the last two years, including, for each spending item, the (i) amount spent, (ii) recipient and any additional delivery partners, (iii) allocation timeline, (iv) amount spent on each item; (b) what are the complete details of all development assistance spending intended to have an impact on Congolese refugees outside of the DRC over the last two years, including, for each item, the (i) amount spent, (ii) recipient and any additional delivery partners, (iii) allocation timeline, (iv) amount spent on each item; (c) what is the position of the government regarding the activities of the March 23 Movement (M23) rebels; (d) what is the position of the government regarding other nations supporting the M23 rebels; and (e) what is the position of the government regarding the end of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3122—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

With regard to Parks Canada's fire mitigation measures: with the exception of Jasper National Park, what are the details of any other instance in the last 10 years where Parks Canada analyzed, considered, studied, or received a proposal to conduct a prescribed fire or other fire mitigation measure but did not end up doing so, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name of the national park or other area impacted, (iv) mitigation action proposed or considered, (v) reason for not taking the mitigation action, (vi) title of the person responsible for the decision not to take the mitigation action?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3123—

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

With regard to travellers entering Canada, broken down by month since January 1, 2024: (a) how many travellers entered Canada, in total, and broken down by type of point of entry (air, road, marine); and (b) for each category in (a), how many and what percentage of travellers (i) submitted their declaration through the ArriveCAN application prior to arrival, (ii) arrived without using the ArriveCAN application?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3124—

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

With regard to chip technology and devices containing chip technology imported from foreign countries, specifically those with which Canada is not allied: (a) what safeguards, if any, are currently in place to ensure that such technology is safe and does not contain any elements, such as remote code execution elements, which could be detrimental to Canada at some point in the future; (b) what is the government doing, if anything, to address the discovered vulnerability in the Microchip Advanced Software Framework which exposes devices to the risk of remote code execution; (c) in addition to the vulnerability in (b), what other vulnerabilities has the government identified related to these chips and their connectivity to the internet; (d) for each vulnerability in (c), what action, if any, has the government taken to address the vulnerability; (e) what measures does the government have in place to address risks, including firmware updates or remote patches, that could introduce new vulnerabilities after deployment; (f) does the government conduct regular penetration testing of imported devices before approving their use in public infrastructure, and, if so, who has been tasked with overseeing such testing; and (g) does the government mandate compliance with international cybersecurity standards or frameworks when procuring or deploying such devices, and, if not, why not?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3126—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

With regard to the government's use of the third-party contractor The Right Door Consulting & Solutions Inc. since January 1, 2016: what are the details, broken down by department, of travel expenses incurred by the government related to contracts signed with The Right Door Consulting & Solutions Inc., including the (i) dates, costs, and flight details of all flights expensed by The Right Door Consulting & Solutions Inc., (ii) dates, costs, and locations of lodgings expensed by The Right Door Consulting & Solutions Inc., (iii) dates, costs, and items charged as per diems expensed by The Right Door Consulting & Solutions Inc.?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3127—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada: (a) what are the details of travel expenses incurred by the government related to third-party management-consulting contractors since January 1, 2019, including the (i) dates, costs, and flight details of all flights expensed by third-party contractors, (ii) dates, costs, and locations of lodgings expensed by third-party contractors, (iii) dates, costs, and items charged as per diems expensed by third-party contractors; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a)(i) to (a)(iii) by (i) month, (ii) quarter, (iii) third-party contractor?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3128—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

With regard to the CRA: (a) how many toll-free telephone lines are available for taxpayers to contact the agency, broken down by purpose or business line; (b) what are the toll-free telephone numbers in (a); (c) for callers who call each of the numbers in (b), what has been the average wait time to speak with an agent, for each of the last five years; (d) what percentage of callers to the numbers in (b) received a message that the line was full and they should call back later, for each of the last five years, broken down by month and year; and (e) what percentage of calls to the numbers in (b) were disconnected before an agent could answer, for each of the last five years, broken down by month and year?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3129—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

With regard to the National Housing Strategy: (a) what funding programs or streams are dedicated to, or include streams or criteria for, rural or remote communities, and how much funding has been allocated for and disbursed by each one, broken down by year; (b) what is the population cap, or analogous constraint, on applications to funding programs or streams dedicated to, or which consider the recipient’s location as, rural or remote communities, broken down by funding program or stream and year; (c) what municipalities, groups, or projects received funding based, in whole or in part, on the location of the recipient being in an area defined as rural or remote, and how much funding was received by each recipient, broken down by year, province, funding program or stream, and rural or remote designation; (d) which municipalities received funding from funds dedicated to rural or remote communities, and how much funding was received by each recipient, broken down by year, province, funding program or stream, and rural or remote designation; (e) which municipalities, which are not designated communities, received funding from funds dedicated to rural or remote communities, and how much funding was received by each recipient, broken down by year, province, funding program or stream, and project or application;

(f) in total, how much funding has been provided through funding programs or streams dedicated to, or which consider the recipient’s location as, rural or remote communities, to municipalities with populations of fewer than 35,000, broken down by year, province, funding program or stream, and recipient; (g) what methods or figures are used to determine or track the number of homeless people in areas or municipalities with populations of fewer than 35,000; (h) how many people were homeless in areas or municipalities with populations of fewer than 35,000, since 2015, broken down by year, province, and municipality or area; (i) what methods or figures are used to determine or track the number of homeless people who are in, or migrate to, urban areas who are from areas or municipalities with populations of fewer than 35,000 and migrated to an urban area due to homelessness; and (j) how many people were homeless in urban areas who are from areas or municipalities with populations of fewer than 35,000 and migrated to an urban area due to homelessness, since 2015, broken down by year, province, urban municipality or area, and originating municipality or area with a population of fewer than 35,000?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3131—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

With regard to the cow barn under construction by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) at Joyceville Institution and the dairy research program: (a) what was the original anticipated cost of building a cow barn at the time of the June 2018 announcement, and what was the anticipated cost of building the barn at the time the construction contract was awarded in March 2022; (b) what was the original projected date of barn completion at the time of the start of construction in April 2022, and what is the current projected date of completion of the barn; (c) what is the total amount of spending on the barn construction to date, and what is the total projected cost to achieve full barn completion; (d) beyond the barn construction costs, what is the amount of spending to date on procurement fees, consultancy fees (design, engineering, geotechnical, environmental, etc.), travel and meals, contingencies, project management, contract administration, and dairy equipment and technology for the cow barn since 2018; (e) since 2018, what has been the total amount of spending on renovating the existing barns at Collins Bay Institution as temporary housing for the dairy cows, heifers, and calves;

(f) since 2018, what has been the total amount of spending on animal feed, veterinary care, and carcass removal for the cows in temporary housing; (g) what is the total amount of spending on the acquisition of dairy cows, heifers, and calves since 2018, and of this, what is the total amount paid to the Pen Farm Herd Co-Op specifically; (h) what is the total number of dairy cows, heifers, and calves purchased since 2018, and of this, how many were purchased from the Pen Farm Herd Co-Op specifically; (i) what is the current number of dairy cows owned by the CSC, and what is the projected cost of future livestock acquisitions to begin the dairy research program; (j) what is the current projected date for barn occupation by cows, and what is the current projected start date for dairy operations in the barn;

(k) what specific research will be conducted in the barn, and what amount of quota has been provided for the dairy research; (l) what are the total projected monthly revenues to be generated by the CSC from the dairy research program, broken down by source; (m) what are the total projected monthly expenses for the dairy research program, broken down by source, including staff salaries, veterinary care, feed, waste management, milk transportation, utilities, facility and equipment maintenance, internet fees, licensing, inspections, security and supervision; (n) how many cows will be milked and what volume of milk will be produced when the dairy research program reaches full quota production; (o) by what date does Dairy Farmers of Ontario require the CSC to reach full quota production, and when does the CSC anticipate reaching full quota production; (p) what specific accommodations and changes have been made to the barn design and construction to meet McGill’s research requirements and standards, and what have been the costs of these accommodations and changes to date;

(q) what other accommodations and changes have been made to meet McGill’s research requirements and standards, including renovation of additional facilities at the Joyceville site for dry cows, calves, and equipment isolation sheds, and what have been the costs of these accommodations and changes to date; (r) where will the milk from the CSC’s dairy research program be sold, at what price, and will the milk enter commercial streams sold to the public; (s) how many staff will be employed directly in the cow barn and in which shifts, broken down by CSC staff and McGill staff; (t) how many offenders will be employed directly in the cow research barn; (u) what specific jobs will offenders engage in as part of the dairy research program specifically, and what vocational training and industry trade certifications will be associated with offender participation in the dairy research program specifically;

(v) who are the members of the Animal Care Committee overseeing the dairy research program and what financial compensation, if any, will they receive; (w) what specific measures will be in place to preserve institutional security and privacy, biosecurity, animal welfare, regulatory compliance, and McGill’s good standing with the Canadian Council on Animal Care; (x) what is the volume of the manure lagoon and what is the volume of liquid and solid waste that will be produced by the dairy research program; (y) once complete, what is the projected or estimated market value of the cow barn; and (z) what is the estimated cost of disposal or divestment of the cow barn?

(Return tabled)

Question No.3132—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

With regard to federal funding for environmental projects within the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, since the 2005-06 fiscal year: broken down by fiscal year, recipient, project, total contribution, funding program, and type of funding, what have been the federal investments in (i) terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, (ii) ecosystem and habitat protection, conservation, and restoration, (iii) species recovery, including, but not limited to, salmon, (iv) Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, (v) green infrastructure, (vi) conservation financing, (vii) energy efficiency, (viii) clean transportation, (ix) living natural resources and land use, (x) sustainable water and wastewater management, (xi) pollution prevention and control, (xii) climate change mitigation and adaptation, (xiii) the circular economy?