Debates of April 8th, 2024

Question No.2329—

[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, or ELCC, system, ensuring all families have access to inclusive and affordable regulated child care, no matter where they live. Canada-wide ELCC agreements have been signed with all provinces and territories, or PTs, including an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec, to reduce fees to an average of $10 a day and support the creation of over 250,000 spaces nationwide by March 2026.

In response to parts (a) and (b) of the question, the Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care supports the Government of Canada’s vision of a Canada-wide ELCC system that ensures all families have access to high-quality, affordable, flexible and inclusive early learning and child care, no matter where they live.

Employees of the federal secretariat support the implementation of a Canada-wide ELCC system by carrying out a range of activities; single employees are not “assigned” to support work for a single jurisdiction. Functions include managing federal-provincial/territorial agreements, developing policy, acting as liaison with domestic and international ELCC stakeholders, and supporting research and innovation projects across ELCC’s foundational pillars: access, affordability, quality, flexibility and inclusion.

As of February 15, 2024, salaries for the secretariat totalled $9,015,781 for a total of 76 full-time equivalents. In support of program delivery, the secretariat’s operating funding totalled $8,798,615, also as of February 15, 2024. This operating funding includes but is not limited to supporting the following activities: data and research activities, including surveys and research undertaken by Statistics Canada; the operations of the national advisory council on ELCC and the FPT forum of ministers most responsible for ELCC; bilateral, stakeholder and international relations; and administrative support for the Prime Minister’s awards of excellence.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, PTs have primary responsibility for matters pertaining to education, including the design and delivery of ELCC programs and services. Each PT has its own system, governed by legislative and regulatory frameworks that carry differing costs, to administer the Canada-wide system in their respective jurisdiction.

In this respect, questions regarding the costs and the number of full-time equivalents assigned to administer ELCC programs and services in each PT should be directed to the appropriate PT ministries most responsible for child care.

Question No.2330—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

With regard to what the Minister of Finance and officials in the Department of Finance knew about the allegations contained in a February 6, 2024, report from Sam Cooper that, since 2015, more than 10 Toronto-area branches of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) had issued at least $500 million in home loans to diaspora buyers claiming exaggerated incomes or non-existent jobs outside of Canada: (a) were the minister and Department of Finance officials aware of these allegations prior to approving the acquisition of the HSBC by the Royal Bank of Canada in December 2023, and, if so, what impact did these allegations have on the approval decision; (b) was the government aware that these fraudulently obtained mortgages facilitated a large money laundering operation, and, if so, when did it become aware; and (c) what action, if any, is the government taking in response to these allegations?

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

Mr. Speaker, on acquisition applications subject to ministerial approval, the department relies on a rigorous review process undertaken by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, to provide the Minister of Finance with advice on matters relevant to the application. The relevant matters for the minister’s consideration are set out in section 396 of the Bank Act. Given its role as a regulator, the Department of Finance will not comment on any supervisory or regulatory process that may be underway.

Canadians must have confidence in the integrity and security of their financial institutions. In this regard, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC, and OSFI, continue to engage with financial institutions to promote, monitor and enforce compliance with anti money laundering and anti-terrorist financing and prudential lending requirements respectively. FINTRAC and OSFI engage closely and regularly to share supervisory insights and coordinate supervision of federally regulated financial institutions in Canada.

Question No.2332—

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

With regard to Correctional Service Canada (CSC), in total and broken down by year since 2016: (a) how many federally incarcerated inmates have sought a medically assisted death; (b) how many federally incarcerated inmates have been granted a medically assisted death; (c) what is the breakdown of inmates in (a) and (b) by (i) dangerous offenders, (ii) high-profile offenders, (iii) multiple murderers; (d) of the inmates in (b), for how many was a natural death (i) reasonably foreseeable, (ii) not reasonably foreseeable; (e) what is the breakdown of inmates in (b) by (i) those who received a medically assisted death inside a prison or CSC facility, (ii) those who died in a hospital or other similar location; and (f) of those who received a medically assisted death within a CSC facility, what is the breakdown by (i) location, (ii) name of facility?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the CSC’s top priorities is ensuring that those who are incarcerated in Canada’s federal institutions have access to quality, safe, patient-centred and culturally responsive care. This is underscored by CSC’s legislative mandate and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, which includes providing essential health care and reasonable access to non-essential health care to federal inmates, in keeping with professional standards. As part of this, CSC is responsive to the needs of offenders, including quality and compassionate palliative and end-of-life care.

Medical assistance in dying, or MAID, is a complex and deeply personal matter, and CSC ensures a robust and compassionate process for those who may wish to access these services. The eligibility requirements within CSC follow the legislative requirements that apply to all Canadians. Once an individual makes such a request, a physician or nurse practitioner will meet with them to discuss relevant information, offer referrals to support services such as mental health professionals, chaplains, elders, etc., and schedule the individual for an eligibility assessment. It should be noted that CSC’s guidelines require that an external physician or nurse practitioner perform the second eligibility assessment and that the procedure be completed externally to CSC, namely in a community hospital or health care facility, other than in exceptional circumstances.

The process related to the provision of MAID is comprehensive and contains numerous safeguards to ensure that federally incarcerated individuals are afforded the same rights as all other Canadians.

As of February 13, 2024, the total number of requests that CSC has received since the implementation of the legislation was 37, of which 10 eligible individuals received MAID. Furthermore, of the individuals who received MAID, nine received it in external facilities and one received it within a correctional facility at the individual’s request. All procedures were carried out by health professionals outside the service.

In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Information with regard to specific cases has been withheld on the grounds that it constitutes personal information.

Question No.2336—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

With regard to the increase to the government's tax on alcohol scheduled for April 1, 2024: (a) how much revenue is the government projected to receive from the tax on alcohol in the 2024-25 fiscal year; and (b) how much additional revenue is the government projected to receive in the 2024-25 fiscal year as a result of the April 1, 2024, tax increase on alcohol?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, revenues from the federal excise duty on alcohol products are projected to be $2.2 billion in 2024 25.

In response to part (b), in real terms, the government does not anticipate an increase in revenues as a result of the inflation adjustment mechanism. Excise duty rates on alcohol are indexed to the consumer price index to ensure that they maintain their effectiveness, including in meeting their health objectives, and that excise duty revenues generated do not decline over time. On March 9, 2024, the government proposed to cap the inflation adjustment at 2% for beer, spirit and wine excise duties, effective for two years starting on April 1, 2024. This cap on excise duties represents a decline in revenues and is presented in the fiscal framework as a reduction of $63 million in 2024 25 and $353 million over five years.

Question No.2337—

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

With regard to patrols on land by Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) employees in the area of southwest Nova Scotia: (a) how many DFO employees are conducting regular patrols on land in (i) Queens County, (ii) Lunenburg County, (iii) Kings County, (iv) Annapolis County, (v) Digby County, (vi) Yarmouth County, (vii) Halifax County, (viii) Hants County; (b) what are the hours, including standby hours, worked by the employees in (a), from 00:00 to 23:59; and (c) what is the Conservation and Protection Detachment responsible for each of the counties in (a)?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to patrols on land by Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, employees in the area of southwest Nova Scotia and in response to parts (a) and (c) of the question, there are 48 DFO employees regularly in the area of southwest Nova Scotia, conducting regular patrols on land. DFO’s conservation and protection, or C and P, detachments in southwest Nova Scotia do not plan and execute operations based on county lines.

DFO’s C and P directorate is unable to report this data at either the detachment or county level, so as to preserve the integrity of its law enforcement planning and operational activities.

In response to part (b), employees work 7.5-hour shifts at various times during a 24-hour period and are available to respond to urgencies as necessary.

Question No.2339—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

With regard to the finding of the Auditor General that the government's ArriveCAN application mistakenly told 10,000 people that they needed to quarantine in June 2022: (a) what compensation or recourse has the government made available to these 10,000 people; and (b) which minister has taken responsibility for this mistake?

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

Mr. Speaker, as this matter is the subject of ongoing litigation, the CBSA will refrain from commenting on it.

Question No.2340—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

With regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys or Costco.

Question No.2344—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

With regard to properties owned and operated by government departments or agencies: what is the inventory of government buildings and properties (i) within the municipality of Crossfield, Alberta, (ii) within the municipality of Airdrie, Alberta, (iii) within the municipality of Cochrane, Alberta, (iv) within the municipality of Canmore, Alberta, (v) within the municipality of Banff, Alberta, (vi) within the electoral district of Banff-Airdrie that are not included in the aforementioned municipalities?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the directory of federal real property, or DFRP, found at https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dfrp-rbif/introduction-eng.aspx, is the central repository for basic information on the Government of Canada’s real property holdings, both land and buildings. The inventory can be searched by various attributes found in the left-hand menu of the website, e.g., by municipality or by electoral district. All search results can be downloaded directly from the website.

Please note that federal custodian organizations are responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the information reported in the DFRP. They may also choose to restrict the publication of information about a property or building based on their internal security criteria.

Question No.2354—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

With regard to the government’s funding of the $34 million Sault Smart Grid: (a) what was the process by which the government made the decision to invest in this project; (b) what internal policy analyses were done on the project, and what were the results of those analyses; (c) were any privacy and security risks identified for this project; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are those risks; (e) were any consultations done by the government before approving the project, and, if so, who was consulted and what feedback was received; (f) if the answer to (e) is negative, why not; (g) what conditions are attached to this funding; (h) how will the funding be disbursed; (i) are there reporting requirements as part of the funding agreement, and, if so, what are the details of those requirements; (j) is the government aware of any public consultations that Sault Ste. Marie has undertaken with the community on this project; (k) if the answer to (j) is affirmative, what concerns, if any, is the government aware of that were raised by community members, including (i) data privacy concerns, (ii) security concerns, (iii) cost concerns; (l) has the government done an internal analysis of the costs and benefits of automated meter information technology, and, if so, what are the results of that analysis; and (m) what efforts has the government made to ensure Sault Ste. Marie will (i) protect the system’s security, (ii) ensure redundancy, (iii) protect privacy?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada provided $7.658 million in funding to the Sault smart grid project through the green infrastructure smart grid program. The program selected projects through a competitive request for proposals process. Applications were assessed by a committee of evaluators according to established evaluation criteria and recommended for funding consideration.

Responsibility for matters such as project regulatory approval, public consultation and assessment of privacy and security risks rests with the provincial electricity regulator, which in the case of this project is the Ontario Energy Board, or OEB. Any specific questions pertaining to consultation, privacy or security should be addressed to the OEB.

In response to parts (a) and (b) of the question, the evaluation of the project was completed by a technical review committee according to defined evaluation criteria such as alignment with program objectives, project risk and project impact. As one of the top-ranked projects resulting from the evaluation of proposals, the project was considered as part of an overall recommended portfolio for the technology types and regional balance aspects provided. The result of this portfolio analysis was that the project was recommended for funding by the program.

In response to parts (c) and (d) of the question, the legislative responsibility to assess privacy and security risks belongs to the provincial electricity regulator, in this case the OEB. The project application to the program referenced existing cybersecurity requirements and their considerations within the project, with no issues identified by reviewers.

With respect to part (e) of the question, project evaluations by the technical review committees, composed of subject matter experts internal to the federal government and external, and within the program were completed to determine a recommended portfolio of projects for approval. The feedback from the evaluation committee focused on the merits of the proposals measured against the established evaluation framework.

In response to part (f) of the question, utility projects require approval from provincial electricity regulators to move forward, in this case the OEB. These regulatory review processes are intensive, involve extensive consultation processes and require that sufficient engagement be demonstrated where applicable. NRCan approved funding up to 25% of total project costs, and disbursement of funds was contingent on the ability of the proponent to obtain the regulatory approval necessary to proceed. The program did not add additional consultation requirements.

Regarding part (g) of the question, funding conditions are specified in a standard contribution agreement between Canada and the proponent, in this case PUC Distribution Inc. Project CAs use general terms that are non-negotiable unless those standard provisions are a legal impediment to entering into the agreement. The CA outlines a variety of conditions, including but not limited to intellectual property, indemnity, default, reporting requirements, disposition of assets, conflict of interest, confidentiality, eligible expenditure period, total project costs and contribution percentages.

In response to part (h) of the question, funding was disbursed quarterly following review and approval of quarterly expense reports submitted by the proponent within the eligible expenditure period from September 5, 2018, to March 31, 2023. NRCan reimbursed funding only based on eligible expenses incurred within a given quarter. NRCan contributed a total combined amount of $7.658 million towards the project.

In response to part (i) of the question, the contribution agreement specifies reporting requirements, including documentation for submitted claims, ongoing progress and technical reports, final financial and technical reports, post-completion revenue reporting, and a technical performance report for hold-back release.

With respect to parts (j) and (k) of the question, the project received approval from the OEB in April 2021 via a decision and order whereby the OEB determines sufficiency of engagement and the associated regulatory approval process provides opportunities for public intervention.

In response to part (l) of the question, the program did not complete its own internal analysis of the costs and benefits of advanced metering infrastructure. The costs and benefits of utility projects are specific to each utility system. Analysis of the costs and benefits is the responsibility of the regulator, in this case the OEB, which found that the project is in the public interest, delivering direct benefits to customers.

As for part (m) of the question, the legislative responsibility to ensure that a utility will protect system security, ensure redundancy and protect privacy belongs to the provincial electricity regulator, in this case the OEB. This performance is considered during provincial regulatory approval filings and requires regular demonstration of compliance. NRCan funding is contingent on receiving regulatory approval to proceed.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Questions No. 1589, originally tabled on September 18, 2023, Question No. 2002, originally tabled on January 29, 2024, Question No. 2261, originally tabled on March 20, 2024, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2279, 2281, 2284 to 2288, 2290, 2292, 2295, 2296, 2298, 2299, 2301 to 2303, 2305, 2309, 2312, 2314 to 2316, 2319 to 2321, 2324, 2327, 2331, 2333 to 2335, 2338, 2341 to 2343, 2345, 2346, 2351 to 2353, and 2355 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

Question No.1589—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

With regard to the New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP): (a) how many project applications were submitted in each province for the last three calls for community project proposals, broken down by constituency; (b) how many of the projects in (a) received a grant or contribution, broken down by constituency; (c) what calculation formulas are used to allocate grants and contributions by province when calls for project proposals are made; (d) according to the memorandum of understanding, what are the details of the collaboration between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec for the implementation of the NHSP; and (e) who sits on the selection committee established by the memorandum of understanding in (d)?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2002—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

With regard to government contracts signed with GCstrategies since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what are the details of all such contracts, including, for each, the (i) date signed, (ii) value, (iii) start and end date of the work, (iv) detailed description of the goods or services, (v) details on how the contract was awarded (sole-sourced, competitive bid), (vi) titles of officials who approved or signed off on the contract; and (b) for each contract in (a), what is the current status, including if any aspects of the contract remain open, or if the contract has been completed and settled?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2261—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

With regard to bonuses for executives at the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), broken down by year since 2020: how many and what percentage of executives got bonuses (i) in total, (ii) broken down by province, (iii) broken down by correctional institution or other place of employment (i.e. CSC head offices)?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2279—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

With regard to the mandate and responsibilities of the Grocery Task Force, broken down by month since its inception: (a) what are the details of all engagements with governments and consumer advocacy stakeholders, including the (i) date of the engagement, (ii) purpose of the engagement, (iii) name of the organization or government being engaged, (iv) activities being coordinated; (b) what are the details of all engagements with external partners, experts, and industry representatives to undertake analysis, including the (i) date of the engagement, (ii) purpose of the engagement, (iii) partner, expert, or representative being engaged; (c) what work has been done with consumer groups to report findings to Canadians, including the (i) date that work was initiated, (ii) consumer group with which work was done, (iii) details of the findings that resulted in work, (iv) date on which those findings were reported to Canadians; and (d) what grocery-related information has the task force shared with Canadians to help them make informed marketplace choices?