Debates of June 17th, 2024

Question No.2619—

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA for the time period of April 1, 2015 to April 30, 2024, that is, the date of the question.

In response to part (a), for this request, the CRA understands “taxpayer” to mean a Canadian resident tenant, either individual or corporation, or an agent acting on behalf of the non-resident, held liable, as a result of an audit, for failing to withhold from residential or commercial rent an amount required under part XIII of the Income Tax Act, i.e., when paid or credited to a non-resident.

The CRA conducted a search of completed audits and found that, during the period from fiscal year 2015-16 to fiscal year 2022-23, eight years, very few audits resulted in a Canadian resident payer being assessed under part XIII. The CRA is bound by section 241 of the Income Tax Act, provision of information, which mandates the confidentiality of taxpayer information. This provision restricts the CRA from disclosing specific details regarding individual audit cases when the dataset is limited in size. The search conducted did not include audits that resulted in the non-resident property owner being reassessed.

The CRA has long-standing and established common practice of raising assessments to the non-resident owners in lieu of the individual Canadian resident tenant.

In response to part (b), disclosing this information risks breaching the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act. The protection of taxpayer information is of utmost importance to the CRA. To protect the integrity of the CRA’s work and to respect the confidentiality of taxpayer information, the CRA cannot provide this information or comment on specific taxpayer files that it may or may not be reviewing.

In response to part (c), the CRA is bound by section 241 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates the confidentiality of taxpayer information. This provision restricts the CRA from disclosing specific details regarding individual audit cases when the dataset is limited in size. The CRA is therefore unable to provide the information requested.

Additionally, the CRA does not track payments against specific account adjustments like audits, as its systems apply payments to a taxpayer’s cumulative outstanding balance by tax year, which can represent multiple assessments, reassessments such as audits of different types, and other adjustments.

In response to part (d), based on the judgment, this case was dismissed, without costs. Please see https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521069/index.do?q=3792391+Canada+Inc.+v+The+King%2C.

There were no expert witness fees.

Salary costs for the CRA employee working this case were estimated at $4,672. This was based on the court case complexity level, hours spent on the file and the officer’s salary rate. It does not include salary costs for indirect activities or other standard corporate costs, such as the employee benefit plan.

In addition, the Department of Justice billed the CRA for the amount of $48,714 for the support provided by the department in this court case.

Please note that these costs cannot be broken down by province or territory.

Question No.2624—

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

With regard to the government's decision to decrease the amount of the carbon pricing revenues rebated for small businesses from 7% to 5%: (a) why is the government decreasing the percentages; and (b) on what date will the decrease take effect?

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

Mr. Speaker, climate action is critical to Canada’s long-term health and economic prosperity. Carbon pricing is widely recognized as the most efficient means of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, which is why the Government of Canada continues to make sure that it is not free to pollute in Canada.

The federal price on pollution is revenue-neutral for the federal government; the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pricing system remain in the province or territory where they are collected. Put simply, every dollar collected from the carbon price is returned.

As of the 2024 25 fiscal year, i.e., starting on April 1, 2024, in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, 93% of direct fuel charge proceeds are returned to residents of these provinces through the quarterly Canada carbon rebate. Eight in 10 households receive more in rebate payments than the costs they face from the federal pollution pricing system. Those living in a rural or small community are eligible for a supplement in addition to the base Canada carbon rebate amount, except in Prince Edward Island, where all residents receive the same amount since there is no census metropolitan area. In recognition of rural Canadians’ higher energy needs and more limited access to cleaner transportation options, the government is proposing, through legislative amendments in Bill C 59, to double the rural supplement from 10% to 20% of the base rebate amount, starting in April 2024.

Also beginning in 2024-25, the proceeds allocated to indigenous governments will double from 1% to 2%, in recognition of the disproportionate impacts of climate change on indigenous communities.

As proposed in budget 2024, the share of proceeds allocated to small and medium sized businesses, SMEs, will be returned to them through the new Canada carbon rebate for small businesses. For 2019 20 to 2023 24, over $2.5 billion in proceeds from the price on pollution will be urgently returned to an estimated 600,000 small and medium sized businesses via an accelerated and automated return process. For 2024 25, $623 million in proceeds would be returned to eligible businesses. For this year and future years, the Canada carbon rebate will be assessed and delivered automatically when SMEs file their tax returns.

Moreover, the government continues to support small and medium sized businesses with initiatives that help them transform their businesses, save energy, and continue to be competitive. The government has supported small businesses through several initiatives, including by decreasing the small business tax rate; lowering credit card transaction fees; enhancing the Canada small business financing program; and twice extending the partial loan forgiveness of the Canada emergency business account, CEBA, program. CEBA delivered over $49 billion to help keep nearly 900,000 small businesses and non profits afloat during the pandemic.

Question No.2632—

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

With regard to any arrangements the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) has with banks or other financial institutions to back up their financing in the event that the CIB is dissolved: what are the details of any such agreements, or similar type of agreements that the CIB has entered into, including who the agreement is with, when it was signed, whether there is a cost to taxpayers, what collateral or guarantees are involved, and how much is being paid to each of the financial institutions?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to any arrangements the Canada Infrastructure Bank, CIB, has with banks or other financial institutions, CIB has nothing to report.

Question No.2633—

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

With regard to the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Client Support Centre, in its Montreal offices: what is the number of (i) unilingual anglophone, (ii) bilingual, (iii) unilingual francophone, agents?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, is concerned, the total number of agents working at the client support centre in the province of Quebec is 275.

This consists of i) 13 unilingual anglophone agents, ii) 262 bilingual agents, and iii) no unilingual francophone agents.

As such, the current workforce is 95% bilingual and 5% unilingual anglophone.

Question No.2635—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

With regard to the government's safe supply, safer supply and prescribed alternatives programs, broken down by year for the last two years: (a) which companies were allowed to import drugs into Canada that were to be used under the programs, broken down by drug that they were allowed to import; (b) how much of each drug was each company (i) allowed to import, (ii) importing, into Canada; and (c) what are the details of all contracts the government has had, or currently has, with companies related to providing drugs for the programs, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value of the contract, (iv) amount of drugs provided as part of the contract, in total and broken down by substance?

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

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada does not operate prescribed alternatives programs or make decisions about what prescription drugs are prescribed to clients by these programs. The choice of medication is a decision between the practitioner and their patient, and licensed companies do not play a role in this decision.

With regard to questions (a) and (b), all prescription drugs containing controlled substances sold in Canada are supplied by pharmaceutical companies that hold licences issued by Health Canada. Health Canada cannot share the names of the companies that imported substances, for security and confidential business reasons. It is also not possible to determine the quantity of substances imported for the purposes of prescribed alternatives as this is not indicated on the permit application. When applying for a permit, licensed companies must indicate the purpose of the import. Examples of purpose of importation are medical use, research purposes, commercial sale in Canada, drug development purposes, repacking for export, etc.

As of June 7, 2024, there are 131 companies that hold a controlled substance licence in Canada for controlled substances that are for medications reported to be used in federally funded substance use and addictions program, SUAP, prescribed alternatives projects. The above information does not mean 131 companies have imported or supplied medications containing controlled substances that are being used in a project providing prescribed alternatives. Rather, it is the total number of companies that hold a controlled substance licence in Canada for controlled substances that are for medications reported to be used in federally funded SUAP prescribed alternatives projects.

With regard to question (c), Health Canada does not have contracts with individual pharmaceutical companies for the medications used in prescribed alternatives programs.

Question No.2639—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

With regard to Public Services and Procurement Canada and the “mPersona“ application: (a) what was the total amount paid to the 34 employees tasked to use the “mPersona” application created by Symaiotics; (b) what was the total amount paid to Symaiotics and any other company during the application’s trials, and, if there were other companies, how much was each company paid, broken down by company; and (c) how many hours did the 34 employees work on the application?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, compensation officers tested the mPersona tool as part of their assigned duties to determine whether it could speed up payroll processing. PSPC employees received their regular salaries during the testing, and did not receive additional payments.

With regard to (b), the source code for the mPersona application is open, available and free to anyone wishing to use, modify or distribute it. PSPC paid no money to Symaiotics or any other company for its use, and no contract was awarded in relation to mPersona. The use of mPersona had no financial implications for PSPC.

With regard to (c), PSPC employees spent approximately 1,600 hours testing mPersona. After this point, PSPC determined it had gathered enough information to discontinue its use.

Question No.2641—

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

With regard to the claim on page 29 of the 2024 budget document entitled “Tax Measures: Supplementary Information,” that the federal government returns more than 90% of direct proceeds from the fuel charge to individuals through the Canada Carbon Rebate: (a) what indirect or other proceeds from the carbon tax does the government receive; (b) how much money was received by the government in the last fiscal year from each of the indirect or other proceeds listed in (a); and (c) if the government does not track how much revenue it receives in indirect or other proceeds from the carbon tax, (i) why not, (ii) why does it make claims about people benefitting from the carbon tax knowing that it does not track this data?

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

Mr. Speaker, climate change is an existential challenge, and climate action is critical to Canada’s long-term health and economic prosperity. Carbon pricing is widely recognized as the most efficient means of reducing our greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions, which is why the Government of Canada continues to make sure that it is not free to pollute in Canada.

The federal price on pollution is revenue neutral for the federal government; all of the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pricing system remain in the province or territory where they are collected. Put simply, every dollar collected from the carbon price is returned.

The Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax, or GST/HST, is calculated on the final amount charged for a good or service. The general rule that was adopted at the inception of the GST, in 1991 under prime minister Brian Mulroney, and carried over for the HST, is that this final amount includes other taxes, levies and charges that apply to the good or service and are generally embedded in the final price. As such, the final amount charged could include an amount attributable to the federal fuel charge. This longstanding approach to calculating the GST/HST ensures that tax is applied evenly across goods and services consumed in Canada. It also makes it easier for vendors to calculate the amount of tax payable, for consumers to understand, and for the Canada Revenue Agency to administer.

The incremental GST/HST revenues from the embedded federal fuel charge in the final price of goods and services are not available. The extent that the fuel charge is passed onto consumers will vary by type of goods and services, and the GST/HST is not applicable on some types of supplies, like basic groceries. This makes it difficult to precisely determine the additional GST/HST revenues from the federal fuel charge. Moreover, the government does not track the amount of GST/HST that is collected for each type of good or service that a vendor may sell. When firms remit the GST/HST that they have collected on their taxable sales, they report and remit to the Canada Revenue Agency only one single amount for all jurisdictions. Requiring vendors, like small businesses, to track GST/HST collected on the individual types of goods or services they sell by jurisdiction would impose a significant reporting burden on them.

The government reports the direct fuel charge proceeds collected and returned annually through the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act Annual Report. For more information on the proceeds collected and returned, please see the Annual Report for 2022 at the following website: https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.893583/publication.html.

Question No.2643—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

With regard to those fatalities and serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines and tracked by Health Canada (HC) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) did HC or the PHAC or any other federal agency or entity or agency contracted by the federal government detect a safety signal when examining, (i) the VAERS data from the USA, (ii) the EudraVigilance data from Europe, (iii) the Yellow Card data from England; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative for either (i), (ii) or (iii), what are the safety issues and how is the federal government addressing them; (c) what are the respective provincial numbers of vaccine-associated fatal and non­fatal heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular events recorded in Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s), between December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2023; (d) given the data from (c), has HC, the PHAC, or another federal government body such as the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) undertaken the research to determine if there has been an increase in the events described in (c) compared with their baseline values prior to the COVID-19 vaccine roll-outs; (e) what does the temporal association between the fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in (c) and the timing of the mRNA­based vaccine roll-outs (primary series and boosters) show, per age group; (f) has the submission of any provincial health agencies' reports of vaccine-associated fatalities been denied by Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s); (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, how many reports of fatalities were denied by Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s) and for what reasons; (h) how many fatalities and SAEs associated with any drug or medical devices removes that item from the market; (i) how many fatalities and SAEs associated the mRNA-based vaccines will be deemed sufficient, as a threshold safety signal, to shut down the distribution of the mRNA products and what agency has established this benchmark; and (j) in consideration of cumulative reports of fatalities and SAEs during Pfizer's 3-month post-marketing phase, and in Canada and other jurisdictions around the world associated with the mRNA products, why was this vaccination program permitted to continue and who made that decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is Health Canada’s top priority, and the Department of Health exercises stringent regulatory oversight over vaccines. Before a vaccine is approved in Canada, the department conducts a rigorous scientific review of its safety, efficacy and quality. Submissions typically contain extensive data regarding the vaccine's safety, efficacy and quality, including results of pre-clinical and clinical studies, details on manufacturing processes, and information on adverse events following immunization. An authorization is only issued when benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks of its use.

In response to (a) and (b), following authorization, Canada has a robust and well-established vaccine safety surveillance system involving Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, provinces and territories, and vaccine manufacturers. Health Canada continues to monitor the safety profile of health products once they are on the Canadian market, to help ensure that the benefits of the product continue to outweigh the risks. The safety profile of these products is monitored by reviewing safety information submitted by manufacturers as well as considering safety information from international regulators that may come from their spontaneous reporting databases, such as Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, data from the USA, EudraVigilance data from Europe or the Yellow Card data from England. When new safety issues are identified, Health Canada takes action, which may include communicating new risks to Canadians and healthcare professionals or changing the recommended use of the product. Detailed information about known and potential risks associated with the use of COVID-19 vaccines is included in their Canadian Product Monographs, or CPM. Further information on CPMs of COVID-19 vaccines can be found on the Health Canada website COVID-19 vaccines and treatments portal at canada.ca.

In response to (c) to (g), Health Canada and the PHAC have been actively monitoring and reviewing reports of adverse events following immunization, or AEFI, for COVID vaccines. There are two databases which capture Canadian AEFI reports. AEFI reports submitted by provincial and territorial public health authorities and federal departments are captured in the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System, or CAEFISS, which is managed by PHAC. In addition, the Canada Vigilance Program, or CVP, managed by Health Canada, receives AEFI reports from manufacturers, Canadian hospitals, healthcare professionals and consumers. In general, AEFI reports received by Health Canada are included in the CVP database unless it is missing any of the 4 minimum criteria, such as identifiable patient, identifiable reporter, product suspected of being responsible for the reaction, and adverse reactions. Information about COVID-19 vaccine AEFIs reported in Canada, including the number of reports of vaccine-associated fatal and non-fatal heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular events, is published on the Government of Canada’s website. AEFI reports by age and sex are also included on the website. It is important to note that these reports do not necessarily imply that a relationship between the adverse event and the vaccine has been established. However, they are an important information source supporting ongoing safety monitoring.

The PHAC has published results of the following event-specific analyses investigating the potential increase in events described in (c) compared with their baseline values prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollouts.

It is also important to consider that the risk of cardiac complications has consistently been shown to be increased following COVID-19 illness. It is important to keep in mind that there is temporal overlap between the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 and the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, and scientific care must be taken to separate the contribution of viral illness versus rare incidences of certain AEFIs following vaccination to the total number of these events observed in the Canadian population.

In response to (h) and (i), in regard to a product withdrawal from the Canadian market, there is no specific threshold nor an established benchmark regarding the number of fatalities or number of serious adverse events, or SAEs, by which drugs or medical devices, including mRNA-based vaccines, would no longer be available on the Canadian market. This determination would be based on a scientific review of the balance of risks and benefits. As noted above, if the available evidence, including data obtained through surveillance, indicates that the risks outweigh the benefits, Health Canada will take appropriate action.

In response to (j), Health Canada reviewed safety reports including data from Pfizer’s three-month post-marketing phase submitted by the manufacturer. The information reviewed did not identify new safety concerns and was consistent with the known safety profile of COMIRNATY. Outcomes of Health Canada’s safety reviews for COMIRNATY are available online at the Post Authorization Activity Table for COMIRNATY. To date, the benefits of these vaccines continue to outweigh their known risks.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, or NACI, is an external advisory body that provides independent, expert advice on the optimal use of vaccines approved for use in humans in Canada. NACI guidance is based on a rigorous review and assessment of the quality of the available evidence. Decision-making relies on the consideration of multiple factors including burden of disease, vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy/effectiveness and programmatic factors. NACI’s guidance is advisory in nature as provinces and territories are responsible for designing and delivering their immunization programs.

NACI continued to recommend the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine as a review of the available evidence showed that the benefits of the immunization program outweighed the risks.

Question No.2646—

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

With regard to bonuses paid out at VIA HFR – Dedicated Project Office in the 2023-24 fiscal year: (a) what was the amount paid out in bonuses (i) in total, (ii) to executives; (b) how many individuals received payments; (c) what percentage of officials that received bonuses were (i) at or above executive level or equivalent, (ii) below the executive level or equivalent; (d) what is the average amount of payments (i) at or above executive level or equivalent, (ii) below the executive level of equivalent; and (e) what is the highest amount of payment?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the response to (a)(i) is $94,520.55 gross; the response to (a)(ii) is $94,520.55 gross. The response to (b) is 1. The response to (c)(i) is 100%; the response to (c)(ii) is 0%. The response to (d)(i) is $94,520.55 gross; the response to (d)(ii) is N/A. The response to (e) is $94,520.55 gross).

Question No.2647—

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

With regard to end-of-life marine vessel decommissioning and recycling, colloquially known as Shipbreaking, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many oversea tows of retired laker or coastal ships did Transport Canada approve; (b) how many of the oversea tows of retired lakers or costal ships that Transport Canada approved changed their final destination once in international waters; and (c) how many retired laker or costal ships were recycled in Canada?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Transport Canada does not approve oversea tows of retired lakers or coastal ships. However, Transport Canada conducted a total of 12 safety assessments of international towing operations of dead ships departing Canada since January 1, 2016: one in 2022; two in 2021; one in 2020; six in 2019; and two in 2018.

In response to (b), his information is unknown. Transport Canada does not keep track of changes to destination as these ships are not required to be reported after leaving Canadian waters.

In response to (c), Transport Canada does not collect this information as Canadians are not required to report vessel recycling. However, the department has been made aware of two vessels that were recycled in Canada in 2022.

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 Questions Nos. 2620 to 2623, 2625 to 2631, 2634, 2636 to 2638, 2640, 2642, 2644, 2645, and 2648 to 2650 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.2620—

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

With regard to federal housing investments for Vancouver Island, since February 1, 2006, broken down by year: (a) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of non-profit or community housing and how many units were developed; (b) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of cooperative housing and how many units were developed; and (c) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of purpose-built rental housing and how many units were developed?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2621—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

With regard to the statement by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in the House of Commons chamber on April 18, 2024 that, “In the budget, we have already announced that we are going to increase the maximum sentences for auto theft”, for each auto theft offence: (a) how many people have been convicted of each of the related offences since January 1, 2016, broken down by year and offence; (b) of those convicted in (a), how many offenders received the maximum sentence, broken down by year and offence; and (c) how many offenders have received the mandatory six months imprisonment for a third offence?