Debates of March 18th, 2024

Question No.2203—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

With regard to the Fall Economic Statement (FES) 2023 and the reference to right-to-repair on page 37: (a) will the amendment to the Competition Act include the right to repair of automotive vehicles; (b) what is the breakdown of all “equipment,” as referenced in the FES, that will be included in the changes to the Competition Act; (c) what other considerations are not included in these proposed changes; (d) which organizations, interest groups and businesses were consulted during the process; and (e) does the government intend to make further changes to the Competition Act to include future considerations left out of this current plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) and (b) of the question, the government introduced the legislative changes referred to in page 37 of the Fall Economic Statement through Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The relevant amendments to the Competition Act can be found in clause 244. They broaden the existing “refusal to deal” provision in section 75 of the act to include refusal to provide means of diagnosis or repair, defined as “diagnostic and repair information, technical updates, diagnostic software or tools and any related documentation and service parts.” The provision is industry-neutral, and can apply in any sector where the criteria set out in section 75 are met.

In response to (c), given the limits of antitrust legislation and federal jurisdiction, the changes to the Competition Act remain rooted in the question of harm to marketplace competition, and represent only one aspect of ongoing government efforts to address the question of repair.

With regard to (d), the proposed reforms were informed by the results of the consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada. This public consultation ran from November 2022 to March 2023 and garnered more than 130 submissions from identified stakeholders. Issues surrounding repairs were primarily raised by members of the automotive and farm equipment sectors, as well as environmental groups. The consultation responses, as well as a “What We Heard” report, are publicly available on the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada website at: https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/strategic-policy-sector/en/marketplace-framework-policy/competition-policy/consultation-future-competition-policy-canada.

As for part (e), the introduction of Bill C-59, together with complementary reforms to the Competition Act enacted through Bills C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, and C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, represent the most comprehensive update to the act since the law’s inception. At this point the government has not announced an intention to modify the act beyond these initiatives.

Question No.2205—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

With regard to the repayment to the city of Windsor for the Ambassador Bridge blockade in February 2022: (a) will the government be providing the outstanding expenses of almost $1 million in reimbursement to the city of Windsor as requested for outstanding legal fees and foregone transit revenue; (b) does the federal government believe this portion of the funds should be recuperated by the province of Ontario, and, if so, what steps has the federal government taken to address this outstanding amount with the government of Ontario; and (c) what are the details of the documentation and reasoning of the federal government's decision to not provide the remaining amount to the city of Windsor?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), there are no plans to issue additional reimbursements to the City of Windsor beyond the eligible expenses totalling $6,094,915 provided via an ex gratia payment issued in 2023.

With respect to part (b), the Government of Canada does not have a view regarding financial issues between the province and Ontario municipalities in this regard.

With regard to part (c), Public Safety Canada officials reviewed the City of Windsor’s claimed expenses against the nation's capital extraordinary policing costs program terms and conditions, the details of which can be found on the website at https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/fndng-prgrms/ntns-cptl-xtrrdnry-plcng-csts/trms-cndtns-en.aspx, and concluded that most would be eligible for reimbursement. This program’s terms and conditions were applied equally to municipalities to determine eligible expenses. In the case of Windsor, all expenses were deemed eligible save for the lost Windsor Transit revenues, which were ineligible.

The only exception pertained to $1,780,983.00 in legal fees and legal support incurred by Windsor for Ambassador Bridge blockage-related injunctions and for obtaining legal support in preparation for the Emergencies Act commission of inquiry. Legal expenses are out of the program’s terms and conditions scope. However and exceptionally, partial reimbursement, in other words, a fifty-fifty split between the municipality and the federal government, was made due to their extraordinary and unforeseen nature. This formula was applied to other municipalities as well.

Question No.2217—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

With regard to expenditures in relation to the Canadian delegation to Davos, Switzerland, in January 2024 for the World Economic Forum, and based on invoices, contracts, or receipts received to date: (a) what is the total of all such expenditures; (b) what are the details for each expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of the goods or services provided, (iv) file number, (v) date; (c) who were the delegation members; and (d) if known, which delegation member incurred each of the expenditures in (b)?

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

Mr. Speaker, under the Access to Information Act, the travel expenses incurred will be published on Open Canada at https://search.open.canada.ca/travel/ within 30 days after the end of the month in which these expenses were reimbursed.

Question No.2218—

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

With regard to the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care system: what is the amount per child that the government provides to each province or territory for each child enrolled in the program?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is investing over $27 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, ensuring all families have access to high-quality, affordable, flexible, and inclusive regulated early learning and child care, no matter where they live.

Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements have been signed with all provinces and territories, including an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec, to reduce fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day across Canada by March 2026.

The terms and conditions under which the federal government transfers funding to provinces and territories is outlined in the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreements. Each province or territory is allocated base funding of $2 million, and the remainder of each province and territory’s funding is calculated using the formula F x K/L, where F is the annual total funding amount transferred to provinces and territories for the fiscal year minus the base funding from all provinces and territories; K is the total population of children aged 0 to 12 in the province or territory on July 1 of that fiscal year, as determined using population estimates from Statistics Canada; and L is the total population of children aged 0 to 12 on July 1 of that fiscal year, as determined using population estimates from Statistics Canada.

Each agreement outlines the province or territory’s projected share of total notional financial provisions for each fiscal year from 2021-22 to 2025-26, subject to parliamentary appropriations.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, provinces and territories have primary responsibility for matters pertaining to education, including the design and delivery of early learning and child care programs and services. Each province and territory has its own system governed by legislative and regulatory frameworks, including varying licensing standards. To this end, any requirements a province and territory may put in place regarding the provision of funding to operators is at their discretion, provided these requirements meet the terms and conditions outlined in the Canada-wide agreements. As such, the Government of Canada is not in a position to provide information regarding the dollar amount per child enrolled in the system, as each province and territory would have their own respective mechanisms to allocate the funding.

Question No.2220—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

With regard to the Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Labour Code (Menstrual Products): SOR/2023-78: (a) what was the total amount spent by the government on consultations and consultants related to the development and the implementation of the new regulations; and (b) what are the details of all contracts related to the consultations or consultants in (a), including, for each, the (i) date of the contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount or value, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (i.e. sole-sourced, competitive bid)?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, all consultations related to the development and the implementation of the new regulations were conducted virtually and in-house. This resulted in zero costs incurred. The only related costs were to publish the notice of intent, namely $1,542 on May 4, 2019, and to pre-publish the regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I, namely $17,779 on October 15, 2022.

With respect to part (b), no contracts were awarded related to the development and implementation of the new regulations.

Question No.2223—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

With regard to the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many Self-administered Police Service Agreements have been (i) signed, (ii) renewed, (iii) not renewed; and (b) of the agreements in (a)(iii), what is the (i) police service name, (ii) date the agreement expired, (iii) reason the agreement was not renewed?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are 36 self-administered police service agreements supported by the first nations and Inuit policing program. These agreements vary in duration, given that each self-administered police service has the discretion to negotiate the term of the agreement.

Since November 4, 2015, of the 36 signed agreements, all agreements have been renewed or extended. Notably, three of the 36 agreements were amended in 2023 in the context of an ongoing Canadian Human Rights Tribunal complaint brought forward by the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin Anishnaabe Police, the Anishinabek Police Service, and the Treaty Three Police Service. These services chose not to renew their respective funding agreements for 2023-24 and each agreement will expire on March 31, 2024.

Question No.2230—

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

With regard to the Fall Economic Statement 2023 projecting that the unemployment rate is expected to rise to 6.5% in the second quarter of 2023: (a) what analysis was utilized to calculate this projection; (b) how does the projection’s analysis apply sector by sector; and (c) how does the projection’s analysis apply province by province?

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

Mr. Speaker, the economic outlook presented in the 2023 fall economic statement, or FES, released on November 21, 2023, is based on the Department of Finance survey of private sector economists conducted in early September 2023. The average of private sector forecasts has been used as the basis for economic and fiscal planning since 1994, helping to ensure objectivity and transparency and introducing an element of independence into the government’s economic and fiscal forecast. See page 7 in the “Economic and Fiscal Overview” section of the FES 2023, at https://www.budget.canada.ca/fes-eea/2023/report-rapport/FES-EEA-2023-en.pdf.

In the survey, private sector economists are asked to provide forecasts for selected economic indicators, including the unemployment rate for Canada. The survey results do not provide detailed projections at the sectoral level or at the provincial level.

Question No.2236—

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

With regard to “the Barn” on the grounds of Rideau Hall: (a) what is the square footage of The Barn storage facility; (b) can members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts visit the new storage facility for a tour, and, if not, why not; (c) is the new storage facility appraised, and, if so, what is it’s appraised value; (d) is the new storage facility insured, and, if so, what is the value of the insurance policy; (e) does the new storage facility have a backup generator, and, if so, how is the backup generator powered (e.g. gas, diesel, propane); (f) what equipment is stored in the new facility; (g) does the new storage facility include a kitchen and break room for staff; and (h) was the approximately $600,000 that was saved by reprofiling the Barn project returned to the government, and, if so, (i) what amount was transferred back to the government, (ii) on what date did the transfer occur?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the size of the service, maintenance and storage facility totals 9,257 gross square feet, or 860 gross square metres.

In response to part (b) of the question, the service, maintenance and storage facility is not suited for tours, given that it serves as the central working area for the operation and maintenance of the Rideau Hall site and grounds, as well as the five other official residence properties in the national capital region. A tour could be arranged for the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, taking into account the operational nature of this facility.

With respect to part (c) of the question, the service, maintenance and storage facility has not been appraised.

In answer to part (d) of the question, the NCC self-insures all buildings that it owns and occupies.

In response to part (e) of the question, the service, maintenance and storage facility does not have a backup generator.

Regarding part (f) of the question, the service, maintenance and storage facility’s indoor parking accommodates various types of vehicles, such as utility vehicles and riding mowers. In the winter, one bay is dedicated to the storage and maintenance of equipment required for upkeep of the public skating rink. The exterior work zone serves as a parking area for larger tractors, trailers and an on-road fleet. Stored in a designated space within the facility are manual and power tools, landscape equipment, hardware, geotextiles and fertilizers. The facility also serves as longer-term storage for other kinds of equipment, including tires, form work for heritage building components, and seasonal and event equipment.

In response to part (g) of the question, the service, maintenance and storage facility does not have a kitchen. There is space made available for staff breaks and meals within the open space.

In response to part (h) of the question, as a Crown corporation, every year, the NCC develops a corporate plan that includes its operating and capital budgets. This plan is approved by the board of directors and submitted to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada and the Treasury Board for approval. Project delivery at the NCC is governed by the process for project management, which is modelled after Treasury Board’s “Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes”. As part of this process, the NCC leverages tools such as the Treasury Board’s project complexity and risk assessment tool to evaluate project risks and inform contingencies. When there are cost variations on a project-by-project basis, funding is reallocated in a responsible manner between projects. This is done in accordance with the budgetary envelope detailed in the corporate plan and approved by Treasury Board. At this point in time, any projects exceeding $5 million require approval from the board of directors.

Question No.2237—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

With regard to audits conducted by or on behalf of the Department of Industry of Crown corporations and government agencies, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of each audit, including the (i) date it first commenced, (ii) date it was completed, (iii) cost of the total audit, (iv) name of the agency or Crown corporation subject to the audit, (v) reason for the audit, (vi) findings?

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

Mr. Speaker, a search was conducted in Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s, or ISED’s, departmental financial coding system with regard to audits conducted by or on behalf of the Department of Industry of Crown corporations and government agencies since January 1, 2016. ISED has not conducted any audits of Crown corporations or government agencies since January 1, 2016.

Crown corporations, as arm’s-length organizations, are not subject to the Treasury Board “Policy on Internal Audit”. The Financial Administration Act, or FAA, requires that all parent Crown corporations have an audit committee. The FAA further stipulates that the Auditor General of Canada is appointed the external auditor, or joint auditor, of each Crown corporation, unless otherwise dictated in the corporation’s legislation or the Auditor General waives the appointment. The Treasury Board Secretariat’s “Guidelines for Audit Committees in Crown Corporations and Other Public Enterprises” has guidelines on exemptions from internal audit.

Reports to Parliament prepared by the Office of the Auditor General are available at the following address: https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_lpt_e_1706.html.

Question No.2243—

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

With regard to emergency preparedness infrastructure shipped to First Nation reserves by Indigenous Services Canada, and broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) how many reports of emergency preparedness infrastructure in need of repair or replacement were reported to the department; (b) how many incidents of replacement materials becoming damaged in-transit were reported to the department; (c) how many incidents of replacement materials becoming damaged due to a lack of storage capacity were reported to the department; and (d) of the incidents in (b) and (c), how many projects were (i) delayed, (ii) cancelled by the department?

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

Mr. Speaker, Indigenous Services Canada’s emergency management assistance and capital facilities and maintenance programs provide funding to on-reserve and other eligible first nations communities. First nations communities are responsible for assessing their infrastructure and emergency management services needs and applying for funding.

First nations own, operate and procure their infrastructure. Neither ISC’s emergency management assistance program nor the capital facilities and maintenance program ships infrastructure or equipment to first nations. This responsibility lies with the communities that have procured services from third party providers.

Question No.2245—

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

With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s (CIB) policies concerning funding for the Indigenous Community Infrastructure Initiative (ICII) and Indigenous Equity Initiative (IEI), broken down by fiscal year since the inception of the CIB: (a) what is the total amount of funding delivered through the (i) ICII, (ii) IEI; (b) of the funding in (a), how much funding has been delivered and what is the total amount of funding in (a) delivered to (i) rights-holding Indigenous governments, (ii) non-profit or not-for-profit organizations representing the interests of Indigenous communities, (iii) for-profit companies or organizations whose leadership comes from First Nations, Inuit, or Métis communities, (iv) for-profit companies or organizations whose leadership does not come from a First Nation, Inuit, or Métis community; and (c) how much funding has been delivered through each of the CIB’s priority industry sectors?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the policies of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB, concerning funding for the indigenous community infrastructure initiative, or ICII, and the indigenous equity initiative, or IEI, broken down by fiscal year since the inception of the CIB, please refer to the attached annex.

Please note that the CIB made the following interpretations. With respect to parts (a) and (b) of the question, regarding funding delivered, the CIB interpreted “funding delivered” to represent the total capital allocated to projects that have achieved financial close as of February 15, 2024. As of February 15, 2024, the CIB has committed a total of $312.2 million towards 11 projects, benefitting 59 indigenous communities under the ICII and IEI, which will be deployed over a period closely resembling each respective project’s construction timeline. The CIB’s long-term target is to invest at least $1 billion in projects that benefit indigenous communities in Canada.

On February 15, 2024, the CIB announced an investment commitment of $138.2 million to support the development of Atlantic Canada’s largest planned energy storage project by Nova Scotia Power Inc., or NS Power, in collaboration with Wskijinu'k Mtmo'taqnuow Agency Ltd., or WMA, an economic limited partnership owned by 13 Mi’kmaw communities. Under the terms of these arrangements, NS Power, Nova Scotia’s main electricity provider, will receive a loan of up to $120.2 million, while WMA will receive an equity loan of up to $18 million. The project, which is subject to regulatory approval, involves the construction and deployment of energy storage facilities in the communities of White Rock, Bridgewater and Waverley. CIB’s equity loan to WMA is its first under the IEI. The IEI fills a market gap by providing indigenous communities access to capital and opportunities to invest in infrastructure projects across Canada.

To date, $77.4 million of the capital committed to ICII and IEI has been deployed, and $234.8 million remains available for use by the project partners.

In addition to the direct ICII and IEI loans to date, the CIB is supporting indigenous infrastructure through project acceleration funding as well as CIB involvement in projects that help to enable indigenous participation in those projects.

With respect to part (c) of the question, the CIB has interpreted the question to be in reference to amounts previously outlined in questions (a) and (b), and not the entire CIB portfolio. Information related to total funding delivered through each of the CIB’s priority industry sectors for the entire portfolio can be found directly on the CIB website, https://cib-bic.ca/en/about-us/reports-and-transparency/, as part of quarterly and annual financial reporting.

Question No.2247—

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

With regard to the Sidney Island deer cull: (a) what are the details of all discussions and meetings regarding the legality of hunting (i) by helicopter, (ii) at night, (iii) using silencers, (iv) using .223 caliber bullets, (v) using high capacity magazines; (b) what departments, agencies, entities, offices and individuals, including those from First Nations, provincial and municipal governments, entities and non-governmental organizations, were involved, including the company hired to eradicate the deer; and (c) what supporting documents exist regarding this cull, including, but not limited to, emails, texts, briefing notes, memos and reports, and what are the details of such documents?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, the Sidney Island Ecological Restoration Project is a multi-jurisdictional restoration project that aims to facilitate recovery of forest ecosystems that have been significantly damaged due to over-browsing by introduced European fallow deer. The project has been collaboratively built from the ground up with project partners co-developing the project’s vision and goals, conducting thorough expert analysis by specialists and animal welfare organizations to implement the project safely, and then co-designing restoration actions.

All necessary statutory and regulatory authorities were granted for this operation, including permits granted by Parks Canada, Transport Canada, the Province of British Columbia and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Access to private property to carry out the operation was provided by the Sidney Island Strata Corporation and the Islands Trust Conservancy.

Specifically, with respect to part (i), operations by helicopter, a special flight operations certificate, or SFOC, to operate at low elevations was not required for operations above Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, as this work was done for the purpose of the National Park Reserve administration and was thus permissible under Canadian aviation regulations 602.15(1)). An SFOC was issued to Kestrel Helicopters by Transport Canada for the portions outside of Parks Canada boundaries and jurisdiction.

Two aviation security exemptions were issued by Transport Canada to include Kestrel Helicopters Ltd. in the existing exemptions for contract companies, which exempts these companies from the application of section 526 and subsection 527(1) of the Canadian aviation security regulations, or CASR, 2012, and to include Wildlife Capture Management Ltd., Kiwi Field Crew Ltd. and Coastal Conservation Ltd. in the existing exemptions for air carriers, which exempts these companies from the requirements set out in subsections 78(1), 78(2), 79(1), 79(2) and 80(1) of the CASR 2012.

With respect to flying at night, permits were issued to three professional marksmen by the Province of British Columbia, granting exemption from the following regulations under the Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488: 3(1)(b)(i) hunting/killing wildlife with a firearm or bow during prohibited hours, and 3(1)(b)(ii) hunting/killing wildlife with the use of or aid of a light or illuminating device.

With respect to part (iii), using silencers, and part (v), using high-capacity magazines, permission to use the suppressors and 10-round magazines was granted to the contractor under their business firearms licence, issued by the chief firearms officer of the RCMP.

With respect to part (iv), using .223 caliber bullets, the use of .233 caliber bullets to hunt deer is legal in British Columbia, as per section 17(1)(e)(i) of the British Columbia hunting regulation. Further, the federal regulations prescribing certain firearms and other weapons, components and parts of weapons, accessories, cartridge magazines, ammunition and projectiles as prohibited or restricted, SOR/98-462, do not list .223 bullets as prohibited ammunition.

In response to part (b) of the question, project partners include W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council Pauquachin First Nation, Tsawout First Nation, the Province of British Columbia, the Sidney Island community, and Islands Trust Conservancy. This project has received additional participation and support from Cowichan Tribes and Penelakut Tribe.

The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is not a project partner but was consulted on the project's methodology, provided feedback on the project’s operational plan and attended several days of the on-site operation as an observer.

Members of the public have had the opportunity to provide input at various stages of the project: In spring 2021, project partners consulted local indigenous and community members on the project proposal, and in July and August 2023, the public had the opportunity to review the detailed impact assessment and provide feedback.

A primary contractor was tasked with the development and implementation of an operational plan for the eradication of invasive European fallow deer from Sidney Island. Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of Parks Canada, awarded this contract to the successful bidder, Coastal Conservation Inc., a Canadian company, on March 29, 2022. The request for proposals, including the requirements for developing a plan for the removal of fallow deer and an option to conduct eradication activities, was posted publicly and available to domestic and international firms.

Parks Canada has also consulted Transport Canada, Public Safety Canada, the Department of Justice, the First Nations Health Authority, Island Health, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Capital Regional District.

In response to part (c) of the question, Parks Canada has released documents related to this project through access to information requests. Copies of the documents can be requested online at https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati.

Question No.2250—

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

With regard to Correctional Service Canada’s role in distributing the Net Aggregate Damages Award payments from the Federal Administrative Segregation Class Action Settlement: (a) how many federally incarcerated inmates received payments from the Federal Administrative Segregation Class Action Settlement, in total and broken down by correctional institution; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by how many are (i) classified as Dangerous Offenders, (ii) classified as High-Profile Offenders, (iii) convicted of multiple murders; and (c) what was the average settlement payment received by a federally incarcerated inmate, overall and broken down by institution and by each subsection in (b)?