Debates of Sept. 16th, 2024

Question No.2776—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

With regard to international trips taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all trips where the minister has introduced and discussed topics related to fisheries and fisheries management, including, for each, (i) the names and titles of those in attendance, (ii) the date and time of the meeting, (iii) the location of the meeting, (iv) a summary of the specific topic discussed at the meeting?

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for the proper management and control of fisheries, and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. To carry out this broad mandate, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, supports its minister through co-operation in regional fisheries management organizations such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development Act, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for the conduct of diplomatic and consular relations on behalf of Canada, which includes providing legal advice to DFO on international law questions and coordinating Canada’s treaty adoption process from the negotiating mandate to the entry into force including with respect to fisheries and fisheries management.

In response to parts (i) to (iv) of the question, Global Affairs Canada does not have a central information management system that systematically captures when and if the current and former ministers of Foreign Affairs introduced or discussed topics related to fisheries and fisheries management during meetings conducted on international trips.

After a manual search of records since November 4, 2015, Global Affairs Canada officials provided briefing materials specific to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on fish or fisheries management for 35 international trips. Further validating the specific instances during these trips in which fisheries and fisheries management were introduced or discussed is not possible within the time provided for a response without risking the disclosure of information that is inaccurate or misleading, or would be injurious to the conduct of Canada’s international affairs.

Question No.2777—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

With regard to individual expense receipts submitted by a board of director, chair, or CEO, at Export Development Canada, since 2018: what are the details of all items expensed, including the (i) dollar value of each expense, (ii) product or service expensed, (iii) name of the venue for the product or service expensed, (iv) name of the city in which it was expensed, (v) reason for the expense, (vi) name and title of the individual it was expensed under?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion]

Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (i) to (vi) of the question, Export Development Canada, or EDC, undertook an extensive preliminary search 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. EDC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Export Development Canada is governed by a Board of Directors whose representatives are primarily from the private sector. The Board's responsibility is to supervise the direction and management of EDC and oversee its strategic direction as outlined in the Corporate Plan. Board members are appointed by the Government of Canada, and report to Parliament through the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development.

The Export Development Canada Board of Directors has comprised 10-12 members per calendar year since 2018, including the Board Chair. The total number of members having served on the Board since 2018 is 21. The Board and its committees meet in-person 3-4 times annually.

Export Development Canada is guided by the guidelines and regulations concerning the management and governance of Crown corporations set by the Treasury Board Secretariat. The Travel and Hospitality Expense Policy for the Boards of Directors of EDC and Development Finance Institute Canada, or FinDev, and the External Communications and Representation & Orientation, Training and Development Policy for the Board of Directors articulate the Board’s travel parameters.

Export Development Canada’s President and Chief Executive Officer works with the Executive Management Team to oversee day-to-day operations and execute the business strategy as outlined in EDC’s Corporate Plan. Although a member of the EDC and FinDev Canada Boards, the CEO is covered under the EDC Employee Travel Guideline rather than the Board Travel and Hospitality Expense Policy.

Current executive and Board of Director disclosures are publicly available online at https://www.edc.ca/en/about-us/corporate/disclosure/travel-hospitality-expenses.html.

Question No.2778—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

With regard to the funding provided by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) to the MaRS Discovery District (MaRS): what are the details of all agreements between ISED and MaRS since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) value of any funding received, (ii) form of funding received, (iii) date that the agreement was agreed to by both parties, (iv) details on the purpose of the agreement, (v) intended use of the funding by MaRS in their role as a registered charity?

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

Mr. Speaker, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has not provided funding to the MaRS Discovery District since November 4, 2015.

Question No.2779—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to the construction and planned construction of all ships under the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement project of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, since the program was introduced: (a) for each ship, what percentage of all materials and equipment was initially planned to be of Canadian manufacturing and origin, and what was the percentage at the time of completion; and (b) what is the specific origin and manufacturer of all materials and equipment used?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Canadian Surface Combatant project, the CSC project, is currently in definition phase, the design of ships is not finalized and, consequently, construction has not commenced. As such, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, is not yet able to provide the percentage of all materials and equipment planned to be of Canadian manufacturing and origin. The selection of equipment for incorporation into the ship is ongoing, and PSPC is making every effort to maximize Canadian manufacturing and content wherever feasible.

To this end, PSPC has signed or is in the process of negotiating contracts with numerous Canadian suppliers. PSPC has engaged companies from five different provinces to work on the CSC project and will continue to work to expand the list of Canadian suppliers working on the ships.

Question No.2780—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

With regard to the 2017 mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to negotiate time­limited Rights Reconciliation Agreements with First Nations in Atlantic Canada and Quebec: what are the details of all agreements under this mandate, including, for each, (i) the name or title of the agreement, (ii) a detailed summary, (iii) the date that the agreement was signed, (iv) the names of the First Nations with whom DFO signed the agreement, (v) the names and titles of the individuals at DFO who signed the agreement?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, during the term of the 2017 Rights Reconciliation Agreement mandate, 8 agreements with 14 of the 34 Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey First Nations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, the Gaspé region of Quebec, as well as the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik in New Brunswick were reached, namely,The Interim Fisheries Implementation Agreement was signed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including the Canadian Coast Guard, or DFO, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, or CIR, and by the Chiefs of Elsipogtog First Nation and the Esgenoôpetitj First Nation. The agreement was signed on August 16, 2019. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the First Nations’ Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nations’ capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear; and, establish a future negotiation process regarding the co-development of a collaborative fisheries management approach.

The Fisheries Resources Agreement was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR and by the Chief of Wolastoqiyik Wahsipekuk First Nation, formerly Maliseet of Viger First Nation. The agreement was signed on August 23, 2019. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the First Nation’s Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nation’s capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and, establish a new collaborative management process, implemented through an operational joint committee and an executive committee, comprised of DFO and First Nation representatives, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.

The Rights Reconciliation Agreement on Fisheries was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR and by the Chief of Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government, or LMG. The agreement was signed on April 16, 2021. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize LMG’s Aboriginal right to fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, and Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nation’s capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and, establish a new collaborative management process, implemented through a Co-Governance Fisheries Committee and an Executive Oversight Body, comprised of DFO and LMG’s representatives, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the LMG.

The Collaborative Fisheries Management Agreement was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR and by the Chief of Abegweit First Nation. The Agreement was signed on April 14, 2023. The purpose of this Agreement is to: recognize the First Nation’s Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; provide funding to the First Nation for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and, establish a new collaborative management process, implemented through a Joint Operational Committee and an Executive Oversight Board, comprised of DFO and First Nation representatives, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.

The Hybrid Fishery Agreement was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR, and by the Chief of Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik, or PNS, and President of the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc. The agreement was signed on April 27, 2023. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the PNS’s Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, and Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nation’s capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and, establish a new collaborative management process, implemented through a Joint Committee, comprised of DFO and First Nation representatives, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.

The Agreement on Fisheries was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR, and by the Chiefs of the Nation Micmac de Gespeg and the Micmacs of Gesgapegiag. The agreement was signed on June 2, 2023. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the First Nations’ Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nations’ capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and establish a new collaborative management process between DFO and Gespeg and Gesgapegiag, implemented through a Fisheries Committee and an Executive Committee established with each First Nation, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.

The Annex “A” Interim Collaborative Fisheries Management Agreement was signed by the Minister of DFO, and by the Chiefs of Elsipogtog First Nation and Esgenoôpetitj First Nation on June 20, 2023. The purpose of this agreement is to establish a new collaborative management process between DFO and Elsipogtog and Esgenoôpetitj First Nations, implemented through a Joint Operational Management Committee and an Executive Oversight Committee, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nations; and, provide funding to the First Nations for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities.

The Rights Implementation Agreement on Fisheries was signed by the Minister of DFO, the Minister of CIR, the Co-Chair of Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn Inc., or MTI, and the Chiefs of the following First Nations: Amlamgog, Fort Folly; L’nu Menigug, Indian Island; Metepenagiag, Red Bank; Natoaganeg, Eel Ground; Oinpegitjoig, Pabineau: and Tjipogtotjg, Buctouche. The agreement was signed on July 5, 2023. The purpose of this agreement is to recognize the First Nations’ Treaty right to harvest and sell fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood; support the First Nations’ capacity to participate in the fisheries by providing funding to acquire fisheries’ access, such as licences and quota, as well as vessels and gear, and funding for implementation and governance related to fisheries management activities; and establish a new collaborative management process between DFO and MTI, through a Joint Technical Committee and an Oversight Board, to discuss, share information and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister of DFO on various fisheries issues of interest to the First Nation.

Question No.2782—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

With regard to the April 7, 2021 decision of the former Minister of Justice, Hon. David Lametti, ordering a new trial for Jacques Delisle: (a) what are the details of all legal advice received by the former minister regarding the holding of a new trial, including, for each instance, (i) the identity of the person who provided the advice, (ii) the mandate conferred by the minister, (iii) the evidence reviewed; and (b) what are the details of the 2017 Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG) report on former justice Delisle’s case, including the (i) evidence reviewed, (ii) conclusion, (iii) recommendation made to the minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the April 7, 2021, decision of the former Minister of Justice ordering a new trial for Jacques Delisle, the details of all legal advice received by the former minister regarding the holding of a new trial, including the identity of the person who provided the advice, the mandate conferred by the minister and the evidence reviewed, is subject to solicitor-client privilege. However, we can advise that retired Ontario Court of Justice judge Paul Belanger provided legal advice in this matter as an outside special advisor, and the Criminal Conviction Review Group, the CCRG, provided its own legal advice to the minister as part of its briefing materials.

With respect to details of the 2017 Criminal Conviction Review Group’s report on former Justice Delisle’s case, including the evidence reviewed, conclusion, and recommendation made to the minister, the CCRG’s investigation report is, in all cases of post-conviction review where an investigation report is created, confidential and privileged. It is only ever shared with the applicant and the relevant prosecuting authority pursuant to an undertaking not to disclose further. In this case, however, the report was made public through the court process involving Mr. Delisle despite the aforementioned undertakings having been provided. As such, while privilege on the basis of sections 19 and 21 of the Access to Information Act would normally apply, a copy of the report has been made public and can be accessed through the registrar of the Quebec Superior Court.

Question No.2783—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

With regard to the government’s purchase of GeneXpert Systems for rapid diagnostic testing acquired to facilitate access to rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2: (a) how many GeneXpert Systems are owned by Health Canada and, of those, how many are currently being operated; (b) what kinds of testing are the machines currently being used for; (c) is the government planning on using the full range of testing capabilities of the GeneXpert Systems to test for other infectious diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C; and (d) is there a plan for the use of the GeneXpert systems to help counter increasing rates of new HIV and Hepatitis C cases, and, if so, (i) how will new locations be chosen and will community-based organizations be prioritized, (ii) will this plan include provisions for training operators to ensure proper use and accurate results, (iii) will this plan have provisions to ensure the financial sustainability to guarantee ongoing operations?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, has 457 GeneXpert Systems, some of which were received on behalf of Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC; 260 of these systems have been deployed by PHAC.

In terms of Part (b), the vast majority of GeneXpert Systems distributed by PHAC are currently being utilized for respiratory virus testing, in other words for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, Influenza B and Respiratory Syncytial Virus. Additionally, pilots are under way for community-based testing for tuberculosis and for sexually transmitted and blood borne infections, or STBBIs, at three sites.

With regard to part (c), the GeneXpert Systems were purchased for use during the COVID-19 pandemic for respiratory virus testing. PHAC is currently investigating their capability for other pathogens.

As for part (d), PHAC is currently exploring the feasibility of using the GeneXpert Systems for HIV and Hepatitis C testing. However, neither of the HIV and Hepatitis C tests for these systems have been approved for use in Canada.

Future plans will depend on the results of the pilots currently under way.

Question No.2788—

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

With regard to complaints received by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total number of complaints (i) received, (ii) resolved; (b) what was the average resolution time, in days, for complaints regarding (i) radio, (ii) television, (iii) telecommunications, (iv) other, broken down by type; (c) what is the total number of complaint proceedings (i) started, (ii) completed; and (d) what is the average completion time, in days, for proceedings in (i) radio, (ii) television), (iii) telecommunications, (iv) other?

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

Mr. Speaker, since 2016, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, has received over 117,000 complaints. A comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information which is not possible in the time allotted as it could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No.2791—

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

With regard to the Next Generation Human Resources and Pay system's development, procurement and test trials: (a) how much has been spent to date on the system; (b) which companies bid on the project; (c) how many points were attributed to the bid of each company in (b); (d) which company or companies were chosen to test their systems in government departments; and (e) for each company that was chosen to test their systems, which departments, agencies, or other government entities, did each of these companies test their systems in?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, to date, $79,465,823.04, including taxes, has been spent on the new system.

With respect to part (b), seven vendors submitted bids to participate in the invitation to qualify process that closed in October 2018, including Canada Workday ULC, Ceridian Canada Ltd. (Dayforce), Freebalance Inc., Infor (Canada) Ltd, Oracle, Saba Software Inc., and SAP Canada Inc. Based on that process, SAP Canada Inc, Ceridian Canada Ltd. (Dayforce), and Canada Workday ULC were deemed eligible to bid on the resulting request for proposals in May 2019. In September 2021, following two years of functional and technical assessments of the solutions proposed by these three vendors, the Government of Canada signed a contract with Ceridian to test Dayforce.

With respect to part (c), details on the results of the evaluation, including point totals, cannot be released as it is third-party confidential information.

With respect to part (d), Ceridian Canada’s Dayforce solution was tested in departments. Information on the testing can be found in the final findings report published in February 2024 at https://www.canada.ca/en/shared-services/corporate/publications/2023-24/next-generation-hr-pay-final-findings-report.html.

With respect to part (e), as noted in the final findings report, the system was tested with the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.

Question No.2792—

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

With regard to Canada Post's climate action targets: (a) how much has Canada Post spent on carbon offsets each year since 2015; and (b) how much has Canada Post spent to date on solar panels (i) in total, (ii) broken down by province or territory, (iii) broken down by location or post office?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canada Post's climate action targets, Canada Post is a Crown Corporation that operates at arm’s length from the Government and has the mandate to be financially self-sustaining in a highly competitive sector that includes global companies like Amazon, FedEx and UPS. Canada Post has a unique and long-standing mandate that requires the national postal service to be funded through revenues generated from the sale of products and services, and not through taxpayer dollars. Therefore, the requested information regarding how much Canada Post has spent on carbon offsets each year since 2015 is commercially sensitive and has always been treated as confidential.

With a large and diverse building portfolio across the country, Canada Post is committed to reducing emissions from its facilities. Canada Post facilities that have solar panels include the Letter Carrier Depot, or LCD, West Depot Toronto, in Ontario; the LCD Scarborough, in Ontario; the Albert Jackson Processing Centre, in Ontario; the Halifax Regional Office & Mail Processing Plant, in Nova Scotia; and the LCD Northwest Calgary, in Alberta.

Question No.2794—

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

With regard to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), broken down by year since January 1, 2019: (a) how many cases of (i) gender discrimination, (ii) disability discrimination, were filed against the CPPIB; (b) of the cases in (a), how many were settled without formal litigation; (c) how many non­disclosure agreements were signed by former employees related to the cases in (a); (d) what percentage of the employee disciplinary actions and terminations were handled (i) internally by employee relations, (ii) by external counsel; (e) what is the breakdown of the number of discrimination cases filed against the CPPIB in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (f) which law firms were hired to represent the CPPIB and, broken down by city, what was the total amount in legal fees paid to each firm; (g) how much was paid in legal fees for (i) employee terminations, (ii) employee-initiated legal action against the CPPIB for which the CPPIB retained legal counsel; (h) what was the total severance paid out in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (i) which laws firms were hired and retained by the CPPIB in the offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (j) what were the legal fees paid annually for each of the law firms retained by the CPPIB to defend the CPPIB; (k) how many female employees were terminated through restructuring from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (I) how many female employees were terminated through voluntary resignations from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (m) how many (i) female, (ii) male, employees were promoted above the Senior Associate level; (n) what is the percentage of female departures from the Executive and Senior management pool from the CPPIB in its entirety and for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (o) what is the number of disability accommodation cases for (i) long-term, (ii) short-term, (iii) permanent, disability that were sent through Manulife; (p) how many employees who went through a Manulife accommodation remain with the CPPIB; (q) how many of the employees who remain with the CPPIB have been promoted in the last five years; (r) how many formal complaints brought by employees went through (i) a CPPIB Clearview Connects Whistleblower process, (ii) a CPPIB Conduct Review Advisor, (iii) a Legal and Compliance CPPIB, (iv) human resources; and (s) broken down by each part of (r), how many of the complainant employees remain employed by the CPPIB?

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

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the CPPIB, is neither a department nor an agency of the Crown and is therefore not subject to the same guidelines for disclosure. The CPPIB is subject to disclosure requirements as set out in the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and reports to federal and provincial finance ministers and Canadians.

Question No.2795—

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

With regard to Elections Canada (EC) and Communications Security Establishment Canada's reports on "Cyber threats to Canada's democratic process - 2023 update" and "Cyber security guidance for elections authorities (ITSM.10.020)": (a) what measures has EC taken since the last general election to safeguard the integrity of elections, candidates and campaigns against cyber threats, including (i) deepfakes, (ii) artificial intelligence, (iii) bots, (iv) other attacks on telecommunication infrastructure (such as "distributed denial of service" attacks) that aim to disrupt, interfere with or sway elections as warned against in the reports; (b) for each measure in (a), (i) what was the cost, (ii) when was it implemented, (iii) how and from whom was the measure originally proposed; and (c) are there any threats which EC does not have the capacity to fully guard against, and, if so, what are they, and has EC sought assistance from the government or any other entity to guard against such a threat, and, if so, what are the details?

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

Mr. Speakers, Elections Canada’s mandate is to administer elections and make sure Canadians can exercise their democratic rights to register, vote and be a candidate. Regarding cyber threats and cyber security, the agency has extensive coordination with security agencies and partners, including the Communications Security Establishment, and continually evolves its security infrastructure.

Safeguarding the integrity of the election requires a robust ecosystem that is much larger than only Elections Canada. The agency works during and outside of the electoral period to coordinate with other federal organizations to share information and detect and respond to any threats to the integrity of an election. This includes Communications Security Establishment Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Safety Canada, Global Affairs Canada, and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, all of which have distinct and important roles to play in protecting the integrity of the electoral process. Some threats to elections reach beyond the realm of electoral management and come in many different forms and target different stakeholders, including Elections Canada and election workers, as well as electors, political entities, and other organizations. As such, the security agencies and partners that Elections Canada coordinates with play a vital role in identifying, understanding, adapting, and mitigating or eliminating threats to the electoral process.

Elections Canada maintains a strong security position and abides by government-wide best practices, including: adhering to Government of Canada security standards; implementing security by design, making security a foundational part of every new IT system or process that we develop; ensuring all new technology solutions are designed to meet the stringent Government of Canada cyber security suite of policies and standards; and continually training employees and field staff on how to safeguard information and practice good cyber safety.

Elections Canada’s holistic approach to security means there are no specific costs to detail for the topics listed in sub question (a), as these costs are built into the various project and general IT costs that are undertaken by the agency as part of our overall security infrastructure. Elections Canada’s security approach also consistently evolves to match the threat landscape and advice from security agencies and partners.

With respect to the important issues detailed in sub question (a), and in particular threats arising out of the use of artificial intelligence and deep fakes, Elections Canada has been and continues to be active in engaging domestic and international partners to identify mitigation strategies. This includes the organization, in partnership with Elections Ontario, of a conference in January 2024 with Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial Chief Electoral Officers to discuss AI and its possible future impacts on the electoral environment and gain insights from invited experts from Canada and the US. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has also engaged with the Government and members of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) on these matters and welcomes the opportunity to further discuss them within the context of Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Lastly, it is important to note that candidates, political parties, and third parties also have a role to play in this area and can do so by understanding and adapting to the threats they face, protecting their IT infrastructure and data, ensuring the information about the electoral process that they share is accurate, and promoting digital literacy and critical thinking.

More information on Elections Canada’s work in this area, and the threats to the election that the agency has identified, can be found on our website, Election Integrity and Security – Elections Canada, at https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=int&document=index&lang=e, and in Elections Canada’s Institutional Report, prepared for the Public Inquiry on Foreign Interference, at https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep/oth/foin&document=p1&lang=e.

Question No.2799—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With regard to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its reliance on the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) for their “independent, expert advice” (source: Order Paper question Q-2554): (a) in 2020 and 2021, what specific studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines would prevent (i) all, (ii) any, transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (b) what specific studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective or would not completely prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (c) in 2020 and 2021, what specific data was provided by the manufacturers of the approved COVID-19 vaccines in Canada that demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines were effective in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2; (d) with respect to informed consent in 2021, how was the uncertainty or “unknown” evidence around “the effectiveness against virus transmission, and long-term effectiveness against infection and severe disease” communicated to the Canadian public and medical professionals administering the vaccines; (e) without certainty that the vaccine would prevent transmission, what was the rationale provided to the Office of the Prime Minister from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada or NACI in support of the following measures in relation to only unvaccinated healthy individuals presenting with no symptoms (i) PCR testing before entering the country, (ii) quarantining individuals before entering the country, (iii) showing one’s vaccine status through a vaccine passport, (iv) preventing their travelling on federally-regulated transportation; (f) who advised the Office of the Prime Minister about the uncertainty of the COVID-19 vaccines with respect to its inability to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV2 and when; (g) what was the source of the messaging used by (i) the Chief Public Health Officer, (ii) the Deputy Chief Public Health officer, (iii) the Chief Medical Officer of Health Canada, (iv) the Minister of Health, (v) the Prime Minister, (vi) other government or public health officials, to state that COVID-19 vaccination would protect others, implying it stopped viral transmission; and (h) who approved the messaging in (g)?