Debates of Sept. 16th, 2024

Question No.2744—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.

Global Affairs Canada undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The department concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Information on contracts worth more than $10,000 is available on the Open Government site, under Proactive Disclosure at the following link: https://open.canada.ca/en.

Question No.2747—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

With regard to Policy Horizons Canada and the May 2024 report entitled “The Disruptions on the Horizon”: (a) which individuals or organizations, outside of the Government of Canada, contributed to the report; (b) were any of the individuals or organizations in (a) paid to participate, and, if so, how much was each paid; (c) what kind of format was used to gather opinions from individuals or organizations; (d) what specific questions were posed to the individuals or organizations in (a); (e) did Policy Horizons Canada attempt to gather the opinions of individuals or organizations outside of those that participated, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) their names, (ii) the reason provided to Policy Horizons Canada for why these individuals or organizations chose not to participate; (f) what was the total cost to research, prepare and publish the report; (g) has a lessons-learned exercise been conducted following the release of the report, and, if so, what were the results; and (h) is there a follow-up report anticipated and, if so, what are the details, including (i) the estimated date of release, (ii) the proposed budget, (iii) the focus of that report, (iv) whether the same individuals and organizations be consulted, (v) whether the lessons learned from the current report be incorporated into the upcoming report?

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the disruptions assessed in the report were derived from a literature review, expert interviews with individuals, conversations with policy makers within the Government of Canada, workshops with foresight practitioners, as well as Policy Horizons Canada’s ongoing foresight work aimed at analyzing what is changing in our society, what is driving that change, and what new realities could emerge.

To assess the disruptions, Policy Horizons gathered and analyzed input from around 500 stakeholders, colleagues, and foresight experts across the Government of Canada and beyond who responded to the survey. Participants did not represent an organization; they voluntarily responded to a survey as individuals.

The individuals were selected by Policy Horizons Canada for their expertise in one or several domains covered by the disruptions. Policy Horizons Canada composed the survey participant list to include a variety of background and perspectives. All participants are part of Policy Horizons Canada’s larger expert network. About 53% of the survey respondents, or 258 people, were from the Government of Canada, and 47%, or 233 people,) were from outside of the Government of Canada. The names of participants were not collected as part of the survey.

In response to part (b) of the question, no one was paid to participate in any part of the research or survey. Individuals responded on a volunteer basis.

As for part (c) of the question,the disruptions assessed in the report were derived from a literature review, expert interviews with individuals, conversations with policy makers within the Government of Canada, workshops with foresight practitioners, as well as Policy Horizons Canada’s (Policy Horizons) ongoing foresight work aimed at analyzing what is changing in our society, what is driving that change, and what new realities could emerge.

As for part (d) of the question, the following questions were asked in the survey: “Assess each of the following disruptions (35 in total) based on likelihood and impact—how likely it is to occur and how much impact it could have, if it were to occur.

Select what you think the likelihood and impact of the disruption would be on a scale of 1-5 (1 being low, 5 being high).”

“Think of each disruption as a future where a circumstance reaches a critical point and becomes the new normal, or a significant event happens.

Select the option that indicates when you think each disruption could occur, in years. Select 10 if you think the disruption could occur in 10 or more years.”

“Assess each of the following seven disruptions based on interconnections—if one disruption were to occur, which related disruptions would be more likely to occur.

Select two related disruptions for each disruption.”

As for part (e) of the question, Policy Horizons Canada sent the survey to approximately 2000 people within their expert network. Nearly 500, namely, 491, people responded. As participation was voluntary, reasons why individuals chose not to participate was not provided.

Part (f) of the question touched on the total cost to research, prepare, and publish the report. Internal resources provided: the salary for the project team, namely, two EC-06, one EC-04, for approximately 11 months. This includes the development of the report as well as the initial dissemination across the Government of Canada, including workshops, presentations and Futures Week sessions; the salary for communications work, namely, one IS-05, one IS-04, for approximately one week. In addition, executives and staff of Policy Horizons provided input and review.

External resources included the software license to undertake the survey, a cost of $2,192.00; and graphic design work and report layout, a cost of $8,463.70.

With regard to part (g) of the question, as the report was published on May 7, 2024, a lessons-learned exercise has not been conducted at this time.

Lastly, with regard to part (h) of the question, Policy Horizons Canada, as the Government of Canada’s centre of excellence in foresight, intends to continue its Disruptions on the horizon work. The content and details regarding future reports have not been determined at this time.

Question No.2753—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

With regard to visas for international students in Canada: how many international students (i) are currently studying in Canada, (ii) are studying at institutions accredited by Universities Canada, (iii) are studying at institutions that are members of the National Association of Career Colleges, (iv) have transferred institutions within Canada during their period of study, (v) are in a K-12 program?

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

Mr. Speaker, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, manages the international student program and is responsible for issuing study permits to foreign nationals seeking to study in Canada. While IRCC tracks the total number of study permit holders, in the absence of an exit control system, it is not guaranteed that all these study permit holders are currently residing in Canada as international students can leave the country at any point in time after arrival.

Here is the information that IRCC is able to share.

On May 3, 2024, 1,073,435 study permit holders held a valid permit to study in Canada, and 341,531 of them were studying at institutions accredited by Universities Canada. The data in part (iii) is not tracked by IRCC. The information in part (iv) is not recorded in IRCC's database, so IRCC is unable to provide the requested information based on the available data. Of the above-mentioned study permit holders, 159,055 are at the K-12 level study level.

Question No.2756—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

With regard to the government's Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund applications and the statements made by the Mayor of Merritt, Michael Goetz, and the Mayor of Princeton, Spencer Coyne, both in British Columbia, that their municipalities' applications for funding under this program were denied by the government without explanation: (a) why was Merritt’s application denied; (b) why was Princeton’s application denied; and (c) how do these funding rejections align with the Prime Minister’s statement to these communities after the flooding that he and his government would “have their backs”?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government's applications under the disaster mitigation adaptation fund, the DMAF, and the statements made by the Mayor of Merritt, Michael Goetz, and the Mayor of Princeton, Spencer Coyne, in response to part (a) of the question, the DMAF is a national, merit-based, competitive program, and projects are assessed based on the information provided in the project application only. Officials from Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, or HICC, have met with Merritt to discuss the results of the process. HICC recognizes the importance of all projects it receives but funds are limited, and there were hundreds of projects that needed to be considered in the last round.

With respect to part b), DMAF is a national, merit-based, competitive program, and projects are assessed based on the information provided in the project application only. HICC officials will meet with Princeton to discuss the results of the process towards the end of June. HICC recognizes the importance of all projects it receives but funds are limited and there were hundreds of projects that needed to be considered in the last round.

With respect to part c), DMAF has been consistently oversubscribed since its inception in 2018, and, during the latest intake, the program received applications requesting more than six times the $900 million of funding available. The department received hundreds of well-prepared applications for important projects to improve the resilience of communities from coast to coast to coast. Due to the high level of interest, the department was unable to provide funding to all projects.

Question No.2757—

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

With regard to Destination Canada: (a) how much economic activity is generated in Canada each summer from the domestic tourism industry; (b) of the economic activity in (a), how much and what percentage of (i) passengers, (ii) economic activity, is from domestic tourists who arrived via automobiles or road trips; and (c) what is Destination Canada's position on the statement regarding car trips that was made by the Minister of Health on May 30, 2024, that “They can enjoy their 10 hours in the car and let the planet burn”?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, in the third quarter of 2023, approximately $27.5 billion in economic activity was generated by Canadian residents travelling domestically, according to the Statistics Canada National Travel Survey.

With regard to part (b), Destination Canada does not have access to data on domestic travel by mode of transport. However, data specifically on domestic trips by Canadian residents can be found publicly at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2410004501.

With regard to part (c), Destination Canada does not have a comment on the Minister of Health’s statement.

Question No.2760—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With regard to the change announced by the Prime Minister on May 24, 2024, that Catherine Blewett, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, was being reassigned to become a Senior Official at the Privy Council Office (PCO): (a) what will her responsibilities be as a Senior Official at the PCO; (b) why was the Senior Official position not listed in the last organizational structure chart published by the PCO in April 2024; (c) where will the Senior Official position fit in to the PCO's organizational structure chart; and (d) how many days per week will she be required to show up in person at the PCO in Ottawa?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the change announced by the Prime Minister on May 24, 2024, that Catherine Blewett, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, was being reassigned to become a Senior Official at the Privy Council Office (PCO), the response is as follows to part (a) of the question, senior official positions at PCO are determined on a case-by-case basis in response to organizational needs and are often employed for transitions in the senior ranks of the public service.

As for part (b), senior official positions at PCO are not listed in the organizational structure chart, due to the temporary nature of the role.

With regard to part (c), senior official positions generally report to the Clerk of the Privy Council, including the position Catherine Blewett is holding.

With regard to part (d), pursuant to the Privacy Act, details of an employee’s work agreement are considered personal information and therefore cannot be disclosed.

Question No.2762—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

With regard to the statement on page 99 of the 2023 Fall Economic Statement that "The government will begin purchasing up to an annual maximum of $30 billion of Canada Mortgage Bonds, starting as early as February 2024": (a) when did the government begin purchasing the bonds; (b) what is the amount and value of the bonds purchased to date; (c) what are the government's projections in relation to how much of the $30 billion in bonds per year the government expects to default or write-off; and (d) what specific measures, if any, are in place to ensure that the government's finances are not adversely impacted by any increase in the default rate of these bonds?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the government conducted its first purchase of Canada mortgage bonds, or CMBs, on February 14, 2024.

With respect to part (b), to date, the government has purchased $11 billion of Canada mortgage bonds. More details on Canada mortgage bonds purchased by the government are available at the Bank of Canada website at https://www.bankofcanada.ca/markets/canada-mortgage-bonds-government-purchases-and-holdings/.

As of May 31, 2024, the market value of the government’s CMB portfolio was equivalent to $11.1 billion.

Although the government tracks the fair value of its CMB portfolio, CMBs are accounted for at amortized cost, not at their fair value. Consequently, movement in CMB value has no financial impact on the portfolio.

With respect to part (c), the government does not expect any incremental losses on these holdings due to existing federal government guarantees. It does not expect defaults or write offs.

Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, mortgage default rates in Canada have historically been low.

Given all these structures in place, there has not been a default on CMBs since the introduction of the program in 2001.

With respect to part (d), due to the existing guarantee mechanisms in place that protect CMBs against default risk and that significantly mitigate risk, the purchase of CMBs does not increase the government’s risk exposure.

Question No.2765—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

With regard to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) decision, announced in June 2024, that it would require online streaming services to pay five percent of their Canadian revenues to CRTC as part of implementing the measures contained in Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) how many different streaming services does the CRTC expect to receive payments from; (b) how much annual revenue does the CRTC expect to receive; (c) what assurances, if any, has the CRTC received to ensure that the 5% percent is not passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices; and (d) what analysis, if any, was done on the impact of higher subscription prices as a result of the payment requirement on inflation or the cost of living?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that regulates broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest. It holds public consultations and makes decisions based on the public record.

The Online Streaming Act, which amended the Broadcasting Act, requires the CRTC to modernize the Canadian broadcasting framework and ensure that online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content.

Immediately after the new legislation was adopted, the CRTC published a regulatory plan and launched four public consultations, including one on what base contributions online services must make to support the Canadian broadcasting system.

During the public consultation on contributions, the CRTC received more than 360 detailed submissions and held a three-week public hearing where it heard from over 120 groups. Based on the public record, the CRTC decided online streaming services that make $25 million or more in annual revenues in Canada are required to contribute 5% of their Canadian revenues to support the Canadian broadcasting system.

The CRTC does not receive the base contributions. The contributions will be made directly to independently administrated funds. Online streaming services also have some flexibility, for example, to direct parts of their contributions to support Canadian television content directly.

The CRTC estimates that 13 audio and audiovisual services belonging to nine ownership groups will be required to make a base contribution.

With regard to part (b), the CRTC does not receive the base contributions. The contributions will be made directly to independently administrated funds.

In terms of part (c), the CRTC does not have the authority to regulate the pricing of online streaming services.

With regard to part (d), the CRTC does not have the authority to regulate the pricing of online streaming services.

Question No.2766—

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

With regard to the revelation by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) at the Standing Committee on Finance on June 3, 2024, that "the government has economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself and the OBPS. We've seen that, staff in my office, but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it": (a) who in the government issued this gag order on the PBO; (b) what were the findings of any economic analysis which was subject to the gag order; (c) why was the gag order issued; and (d) how does the gag order comply with the Prime Minister's commitment in 2015 to provide Canadians with the most transparent and open government in the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a collaborative relationship with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO. We always have and always will cooperate fully with the PBO’s requests, including by providing all the specific documents and information that respond to the parameters of his requests.

Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, like all departments in the government, routinely gives the PBO privileged access to data sets to support him in the creation of high-quality analysis.

These data sets are not analysis, they are raw data, and they can sometimes contain sensitive private data. They respond to a specific request for information from the PBO and do not represent any kind of comprehensive economic analysis.

Occasionally, data shared with the PBO may contain sensitive information that relates to specific companies. In order to protect their privacy and respect business confidentiality, such data must be managed in accordance with the Statistics Act.

ECCC recognizes the PBO’s discretion to release some or all of the information as he sees fit and trusts the PBO will manage the information he receives in accordance with his mandate and any relevant legal requirements. We have reviewed all of the data in the material that was released on June 13 and are confident that none of it is confidential and can therefore be disclosed publicly.

The PBO’s analysis of Canada’s carbon pollution pricing system confirms that the majority of households receive more in Canada Carbon Rebate payments than they face in direct costs due to pricing.

Climate change is imposing increasing costs on Canadians, and Canada has made an international commitment to tackling this global challenge.

The Government made the decision to place a price on pollution because it is widely recognized as the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon pollution that causes climate change. It reduces the pollution that drives more extreme climate impacts, and orients Canada’s economy to capture the advantages of a net zero transition.

Any comprehensive analysis of the economic benefits of carbon pricing would also need to include the financial investments that result in part from carbon pricing regimes. Putting a price on carbon pollution encourages businesses to find ways to be more efficient, invest in cleaner technologies, and shift toward cleaner energy sources.

The Government looks forward to receiving the PBO’s revised report in the fall and hopes it includes a more comprehensive analysis of carbon pricing that includes all the costs of climate change and the economic benefits of taking action to combat it.

Question No.2770—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

With regard to cyberattacks on government servers since January 1, 2021, broken down by department or agency and by year: (a) how many attempted cyberattacks are estimated to have occurred; (b) how many cyberattacks resulted in the server or data being compromised in any way; (c) what is the breakdown of (b) by the resulting damage (data stolen, server mined, unknown, etc.); (d) for each instance where data was stolen or compromised, (i) what was the date, (ii) how many individuals' data was involved, (iii) how were the affected individuals notified, (iv) what is the incident summary; and (e) for each instance in (b) where an individual's data was not involved, (i) what was the date, (ii) what is the incident summary, (iii) what damage, if any, was caused to any government servers, networks, or equipment?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as part of its mandate, Communications Security Establishment Canada, CSE, protects electronic information and information infrastructures that are of importance to the Government of Canada, helping to thwart criminal or state-sponsored cyber threat activity targeting our systems. Every day, CSE uses its sophisticated cyber capabilities and technical expertise to identify and defend against threats to Canada’s information systems and networks, and to take active measures to address them.

The definition of the term “cyberattack” is highly variable. CSE uses the term “malicious cyber attempts” to capture unsuccessful attempts to identify vulnerabilities and penetrate a system. CSE does not track disaggregated statistics regarding malicious cyber attempts on government servers or websites. However, as outlined in the recently released 2023-2024 Annual Report, CSE’s Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, known as the cyber centre, blocked an average of 6.6 billion potentially malicious actions a day ranging from routine scans to sophisticated intrusion attempts.

When a cyber incident occurs, responding rapidly and taking the right steps can significantly reduce the potential harm and speed up the recovery process. The cyber centre’s definition of a cyber incident covers a wide range of attempted threat activity, whether successful or not. During 2023-24, the cyber centre helped respond to 2,192 cyber security incidents across the Government of Canada and Canadian critical infrastructure. This is slightly more than the previous year.

CSE and its cyber centre generally do not comment on cyber incidents. However, since January 1, 2021, CSE has publicly acknowledged its involvement in supporting government partners who have experienced cyber incidents. On January 19, 2022, a cyber incident was detected against Global Affairs Canada, or GAC. CSE and its cyber centre, in conjunction with government partners including the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Office of the Chief Information Officer and Shared Services Canada, worked together to respond to the incident. In March 2022, CSE and its cyber centre worked with the National Research Council in response to a cyber incident. In October 2022, CSE and its cyber centre worked with the IT branch of the House of Commons Administration in response to a cyber incident. The cyber centre provided cyber security assistance and support to ensure that critical services for parliamentarians and House of Commons staff remain functioning. In September 2023, CSE and its cyber centre reported several distributed denial of service campaigns, also known as DDoS campaigns, targeting the Government of Canada, provinces and territories, as well as the financial and transportation sectors. The cyber centre worked with government partners and supporting organizations outside the government as well. In January and February 2024, CSE and its cyber centre worked with colleagues at GAC as they managed a cyber incident. In February 2024, CSE and its cyber centre worked with colleagues at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP, as they managed a cyber incident. In March 2024, CSE and its cyber centre worked with colleagues at the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) and Global Affairs Canada as they managed a cyber incident.

Given the constantly evolving threat environment in which CSE operates, for reasons of national security, CSE is unable to provide any additional information. Releasing the requested detailed information would allow hostile actors to gain insights into our security and processes that would jeopardize CSE’s operations, thereby compromising national security.

Question No.2771—

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

With regard to applications received by the government to run supervised consumption sites, since 2015 and broken down by province or territory: (a) what are the addresses and services offered or potentially offered for each application received; and (b) for each application in (a), broken down by address or site, is the status of the application (i) received but a decision has not yet been made, (ii) approved but not yet operational, (iii) approved and operational, (iv) rejected?

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

Mr. Speaker, comprehensive information on applications received by the government to run supervised consumption sites since 2015, including details such as province or territory, city and location, approval and expiration dates, and authorized services, is available at the Supervised consumption sites: Status of applications website at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/supervised-consumption-sites/status-application.html. This resource provides insights into sites currently offering services under a valid exemption from section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, authorized sites not currently offering services, open applications pending approval, and refused applications that did not receive an exemption under section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Web tables are generally updated monthly and therefore may not reflect the current status as of today.

Question No.2773—

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

With regard to Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund applications received from communities in British Columbia since 2021: (a) what are the details of all applications which were denied funding, including, for each, the (i) name of the city, town or municipality, (ii) date of the application, (iii) disaster event related to the application, (iv) reason that the funding was denied; (b) what specific criteria is used, including any scoring or grading system, to determine whether an application is approved or denied; and (c) if a scoring or grading system was used, what score or grade was given to each application in (a)?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund applications received from communities in British Columbia since 2021, in response to parts (a) and (c), the Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund is a national, merit-based, competitive program. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, or HICC, recognizes the importance of all projects it receives, however funds are limited, and there have been hundreds of projects considered within the specified timeframe. In processing Parliamentary Returns, the Government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and project-specific details have been withheld on the grounds that it constitutes provincial and third-party confidential information protected under the ATIA.

HICC officials extend an offer to meet with recipients individually to discuss the results of the process. It is at the discretion of applicants to communicate their application information and status publicly.

With respect to part (b), the Applicant Guide contains details regarding criteria. It can be found at https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/alt-format/pdf/dmaf-faac/dmaf-faac-applicant-guide-demandeur-en.pdf.

Question No.2774—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

With regard to meetings held between the US Ambassador, David Cohen, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry or the Deputy Minister: what are the details of all meetings in which the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act has been raised, including, the (i) date and time, (ii) names and titles of those in attendance, (iii) location, (iv) summary of the discussions?

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

Mr. Speaker, there was no meeting between the U.S. Ambassador, David Cohen, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry or the deputy minister during which the artificial intelligence and data act was raised.