Debates of Dec. 16th, 2024

Firearms

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I will ask the hon. member to please simply withdraw the comments. No further editorial comment is required.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw.

Pornography

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions here today.

The first petition comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about sexually explicit material online. The consumption of sexually explicit material by young people is associated with a wide range of serious harms, including the development of addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, particularly against women.

Parliament has recognized these harmful effects and the increasing accessibility of sexual explicit material online for young people, and sees that as an important part of public health and as a public safety concern.

The folks who have signed the petition are calling on the Government of Canada to recognize a 2017 study by the Standing Committee on Health, and they call on the House of Commons and the government to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting comes from Canadians from across the country who want to raise awareness about #TrudeauMustGo. It has been a top trending hashtag on Twitter—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Again, members cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. I am going to ask the hon. member, even when quoting, that when referring to a member who sits in the House, he makes sure not to use their name.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has the floor.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting comes from Canadians from across the country who want to recognize a particular hashtag that has been trending on Twitter saying that the Prime Minister must go. It has been a top-trending hashtag, and more than 500,000 people have retweeted it.

The petitioners have described their concerns around the Prime Minister, including his divisive comments and attitudes towards Canadians who have made different health decisions. They also note that the Prime Minister has passed laws, including Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bills, which cancelled many energy projects and drove away investment through their excessive regulations. Petitioners note that the Prime Minister has generated more debt than all previous Canadian governments combined.

Petitioners want the government to axe the tax, and they note that the carbon tax continues to drive up prices and punish Canadians who have to drive to work or to school or to get groceries. They also note the serious lack of ethics by the Prime Minister: the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the billionaire island scandal, the WE Charity scandal, the $6,000-a-night hotel scandal and the multi-million dollar arrive scam app. As well, the petitioners are concerned with the Prime Minister's inaction on foreign interference.

Therefore, the folks who have signed the petition call on the Prime Minister to resign from office and to call a carbon tax election.

Natural Health Products

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of Canadians who are outraged by the government's attack on natural health products. They call on the House to pass the excellent private member's bill from my colleague the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

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. 3145, 3146, 3148, 3149, 3153 and 3159.

Question No.3145—

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

With regard to Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan) 2016 ministerial review of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project: what did NRCan do with the submissions from the public and the meeting minutes?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the 2016 ministerial review of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project was carried out by an independent review panel. The engagement activities completed by the panel, including holding public meetings, receiving email submissions and creating an online questionnaire, were summarized in a public-facing report posted on the NRCan website and used to inform the final report to Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources.

The report summarizing the submissions from the public to the online questionnaire is available at: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/pdf/Questionnaire-Nielsen_reportTMX_en.pdf.

The final report from the ministerial panel for the Trans Mountain expansion project to the Minister of Natural Resources is available at: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pdf/16-011_TMX%20Full%20Report-en_nov2-11-30am.pdf.

Question No.3146—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

With regard to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC), broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount of funding allocated to the OSIC; (b) what is the total number of (i) full-time, (ii) full-time equivalent, (iii) part-time, (iv) temporary or contract, workers employed by the OSIC; (c) what is the total number of complaints or incidents reported to the OSIC which (i) were admissible to the OSIC, (ii) were inadmissible to the OSIC, (iii) warranted provisional measures; and (d) what is the total number of complaints or incidents reported to the OSIC that were deemed inadmissible due to the (i) respondent not being under the authority of a Program Signatory, (ii) respondent being involved at the provincial, territorial, club or other level of a Program Signatory?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), since 2018, Sport Canada has worked in consultation with experts and athletes to promote safe, welcoming and inclusive environments for all sport participants, bolstered by investments in budgets 2018, 2019, 2022 and 2023.

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, OSIC, was launched by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, SDRCC, in June 2022 as part of the abuse-free sport program. The OSIC manages complaints related to violations of the universal code of conduct to prevent and address maltreatment in sport, UCCMS, and undertakes sport environment assessments. The abuse-free sport program also offers education, prevention tools and resources.

Given that the abuse-free sport program, including the OSIC, was established in 2022, Sport Canada did not provide funding for the program prior to the 2021-22 fiscal year. However, since 2021-22, Sport Canada has provided the following funding to support the abuse-free sport program, including the OSIC: $2,067,500 in 2021-22, including $272,500 to establish the OSIC; $4,000,000 in 2022-23, including $1,862,200 to implement the OSIC; $6,000,000 in 2023-24, including $3,380,000 to maintain and enhance the OSIC; and $4,000,000 in 2024-2025, including $2,685,000 to maintain the OSIC.

With regard to part (b), given that the abuse-free sport program, including the OSIC, was established in 2022, the following information pertains to 2022 onward. In 2022-23, the OSIC had six full-time staff members and one part-time staff member. In 2023-24, the OSIC had seven full-time staff members, one part-time staff member and one temporary staff member. As of 2024-25, the OSIC has 10 full-time staff members, one part-time staff member and three temporary staff members.

These figures only include the OSIC’s employees and contractors. The entire abuse-free sport program includes more employees who are not part of the OSIC, such as those employed to work on safe sport education, athlete/survivor outreach, research, legal aid, mental health support, accounting and communications, as well as safeguarding tribunal staff. The director of sanctions and its deputy director are not included in these figures as they do not report to the OSIC.

With regard to (c)(i), the following information was gathered through the SDRCC’s regular reporting, which is publicly available. Between June 20, 2022, when the OSIC was launched, and March 31, 2023, a total of 96 complaints were received, 32 of which were admissible to the OSIC. In 2023-24, a total of 299 complaints were received, 134 of which were admissible to the OSIC. In the first period of 2024-25, a total of 187 complaints were received, 77 of which were admissible to the OSIC.

With regard to (c)(ii), in 2022-23, 64 of the 96 complaints received were deemed inadmissible to the OSIC. In 2023-24, 165 of the 299 complaints received were deemed inadmissible to the OSIC. In the first period of 2024-25, 110 of the 187 complaints received were deemed inadmissible to the OSIC.

With regard to (c)(iii), in 2022-23, provisional measures were imposed by the office of the director of sanctions, DSO, in eight cases. In 2023-24, provisional measures were imposed by the office of the DSO in 34 cases. In the first semester of 2024-25, provisional measures were imposed by the office of the DSO in 32 cases.

Further information can be found on the OSIC’s website, annual reports from 2022-23 and 2023-34 and periodical reports from June 20–September 19, 2022, September 20–December 31, 2022, January 1–March 31, 2023, April 1–June 30, 2023, July 1–October 31, 2023, November 1–March 31, 2024, and April 1–September 30, 2024. For more information, please contact the OSIC.

With regard to (d)(i) and (ii), clear data on the total number of complaints deemed inadmissible due to the respondent not being under the authority of a program signatory or being involved at the provincial, territorial or club level is not available for fiscal year 2022-23. As of April 1, 2023, the Government of Canada required federally funded sport organizations to participate in the abuse-free sport program to be eligible for federal funding. During this transition, some cases initially deemed inadmissible were reactivated when relevant sport organizations joined the abuse-free sport program.

The following information was gathered through the SDRCC’s regular reporting, which is publicly available. In 2023-24, complaints were deemed inadmissible for the following reasons: the organization listed is a program signatory of abuse-free sport, but the respondent is not a participant under the authority of a signatory, e.g., involved at the club level only – 63%; the matter is unrelated to the UCCMS – 26%; or the complaint/report contained inadequate information to proceed, e.g., no respondent identified, and no method of contacting the reporter to obtain necessary information was provided – 8.2%; the organization is not a signatory – 1.4%; other reasons – 1.4%.

The total number of inadmissible complaints is not available, as some complaints were deemed inadmissible for multiple reasons and are counted in more than one of the above categories.

Further information can be found in the OSIC’s website, annual reports from 2022-23 and 2023-34 and periodical reports from June 20–September 19, 2022, September 20–December 31, 2022, January 1–March 31, 2023, April 1–June 30, 2023, July 1–October 31, 2023, November 1–March 31, 2024, and April 1–September 30, 2024. For more information, please contact the OSIC.

Question No.3148—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

With regard to Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and the information note "Vertical farming and pest control products," dated or last modified on May 1, 2024: (a) what was the scientific rationale for issuing the note; (b) what about the methods of vertical farming made the PMRA consider it necessary to categorize and treat vertical farms differently than traditional greenhouses; (c) what are the details of all conversations or correspondence the PMRA has had with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on this matter, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of communication, (iii) summary of the contents, (iv) participants; and (d) how many applications have been received by the PMRA for the use of pest control products in vertical farms since the publication of this note, and of the applications, (i) what is the processing time, (ii) how many were approved, (iii) what products have been approved for use in vertical farms?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), as Canada’s federal pesticide regulator, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, published the information note, “Vertical farming and pest control products” on May 1, 2024, in order to ensure the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. Due to rising confusion within the user industry surrounding whether they could use pesticides labelled for greenhouses in vertical farming, and to help provincial partners address this, the PMRA felt the publication of this information note would aid in clearing up any potential confusion.

In Canada, pesticides are federally regulated under the Pest Control Products Act, PCPA, which is administered by Health Canada’s PMRA. As stipulated under the PCPA, a pesticide may only be permitted to be used or sold in Canada after it has undergone a rigorous scientific assessment process that provides reasonable certainty that no harm to human health and the environment will occur, and that products have value, when used according to label directions. Under the Pest Control Products Regulations, pesticide label directions must include any use limitations, including the intended site for the use of a pesticide, e.g., greenhouses, and procedures to reduce risks associated with that use must be included on the product label.

There is currently not sufficient data for Health Canada to assess the hazards and risks associated with vertical farming, such as occupational and dietary exposure risks and how the pesticide breaks down in the work environment after application under vertical farming conditions. This lack of availability of the required scientific data is a result of this method of crop protection being relatively new. Therefore, in order to ensure the safety of those involved in current vertical farming practices in Canada, PMRA issued an information note to inform all parties of the requirement for this registered use on pesticide products.

With regard to part (b), it is important to note that each intended site for the use of a pesticide, i.e., use site category, USC, has mandatory and specific data requirements that must be submitted with an application to register a pesticide for sale or use in Canada. This information is listed on the PMRA webpage Use Site Category (DACO Tables).

Vertical farming differs from greenhouse growing in various aspects including air circulation, lighting and plant density. These differences can affect how much pesticide a worker is exposed to, how long the pesticide remains on the treated plants, how much may be transferred to skin and clothing, etc. The PMRA is in the process of investigating how these differences may affect potential risks of pesticide use in vertical farming, and what, if any, amendments to data requirements would be needed to register pesticides for this use.

With regard to part (c), there have been no dedicated exchanges or correspondence between Health Canada’s PMRA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA, on this topic. However, the PMRA outlined its efforts to learn more about this new technology in October 2022 and November 2023, at the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, meetings of the North American Trilateral Technical Working Group on Pesticides. Regulatory officials from the USEPA were present at both meetings.

With regard to part (d), to date, Health Canada’s PMRA has not received any applications for the specific use of pesticides in vertical farming.

Question No.3149—

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

With regard to media reports that the CRA discovered hackers had used H&R Block credentials to get unauthorized access into hundreds of Canadians' personal CRA accounts, change direct deposit information, submit false returns and pocket more than $6 million in fraudulent refunds: (a) how many users' accounts were accessed; (b) how many accounts had their direct deposit information changed by hackers in this instance; (c) how many false returns were submitted; (d) how much money was paid out in fraudulent refunds; (e) how much of the fraudulent refund money has since been recovered; and (f) how much of the fraudulent refund money does the CRA (i) expect, (ii) not expect, to recover in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, the CRA can neither confirm nor deny the assertion contained in the preamble to the above-noted question regarding the named entity. The confidentiality provisions of the acts administered by the CRA prohibit the CRA from commenting on specific taxpayer information. This also includes information that may have been obtained from third parties, for example, tax preparers, as information collected through the electronic filing of returns, EFILE, is protected under the Income Tax Act.

With regard to parts (a) to (f), for reasons noted in the preamble to this response, the CRA is unable to speak to any specific cases. Generally speaking, when the CRA becomes aware of suspected identity theft cases, it undertakes an analysis and investigates the situation. Furthermore, until such an analysis or investigation is complete, the CRA would not comment as the information may be incomplete or could lead to inaccurate or misleading conclusions.

Question No.3153—

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

With regard to the government's response to Order Paper Question Q-2825 and the data provided by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada titled “Police-reported incidents of arson occurring at religious institutions, region, 2010 to 2022”: what are the details of the accounts, including the names and locations for each instance of arson referenced?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, the data provided in Q-2825 regarding the geographical region represented the lowest level of geography permissible under the Statistics Act. Additionally, the data was shared specifically for locations identified as religious institutions. The Statistics Act strictly prohibits Statistics Canada from disclosing any information that could identify an individual, household, business, agricultural operation or location without explicit consent or in very specific and limited circumstances authorized by the act. As a result, Statistics Canada is legally bound to withhold the requested information to ensure compliance with these stringent confidentiality requirements.

Question No.3159—

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

With regard to government litigation related to the non-compliance of contractual obligations of contracts signed with the government, having a value in excess of $1 million, commenced or ongoing since January 1, 2024: (a) how many contracts are the subject of litigation; and (b) what are the details of each contract, including the (i) date, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of the vendor, (vi) litigation court?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice undertook a preliminary search in order to determine the number of litigation files and quantity of information that could fall within the scope of the question, as well as the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. It was concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual review of files, and that relevant information, if any, be extracted on a case-by-case basis, which is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

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 the government's response to Question Nos. 3147, 3150 to 3152, 3154 to 3158 and 3160 could be made for orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.3147—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

With regard to the National Advisory Council on Poverty, broken down by year for each of the last five years: (a) what were the expenditures of the council, in total and broken down by line item; (b) how much remuneration did members of the council receive, in total and broken down by member; (c) what are the details of all hospitality expenses incurred by members of the council, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) vendor, (iv) amount, (v) purpose of the event; (d) how much was incurred in travel expenses by the council; and (e) what are the details of each trip expense by council member, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) total cost, (v) breakdown of the costs, (vi) purpose of the trip?