Debates of Sept. 15th, 2025

Question No.58—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is concerned, immigration is a shared jurisdiction while education is the responsibility of the provinces and territories. With respect to the implementation of the intake cap on study permit applications, IRCC has allocated study permit application spaces under the cap to provinces and territories, which are in turn responsible for distributing them among designated learning institutions in their jurisdiction.

Provincial or territorial attestation letters are issued by provinces and territories, and confirm that a study permit applicant has a space within the allocation for that jurisdiction. Therefore, provinces and territories retain control over how the distribution of international students aligns with their respective immigration goals and other regional objectives. More detailed information on how a province or territory has distributed its allocation can best be obtained by contacting a provincial or territorial government.

IRCC has not placed additional conditions on how provinces and territories choose to distribute their allocations, including the extent to which spaces may be allocated according to the Classification of Instructional Programs.

Further information on the 2025 allocations can be found by referring to the notice published on January 24, 2025, titled “2025 provincial and territorial allocations under the international student cap.”

Question No.59—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

With regard to Canadian counter tariffs: (a) how much money has been collected through the Canadian counter tariffs that came into effect on March 4, 2025; (b) how much of the money collected has come from small businesses; and (c) how much of the money collected through these counter tariffs has been allocated to small business programs in total and broken down by program?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of May 30, 2025, the government has collected approximately $1.7 billion dollars in revenue from counter-tariffs imposed on imports from the U.S. This figure is net of remissions and other relief programs, such as the relieving provisions in Chapters 98 and 99 of the Customs Tariff, the Canada Border Services Agency Duties Relief Program and the Duty Drawback Program.

With regard to (b), this information is not currently available as tariff revenue collected by the Canada Border Services Agency is not disaggregated based on business size.

With regard to (c), the federal government has committed to using any revenues from Canada’s countermeasures to support Canadians and affected firms, including small businesses.

This includes $500 million in favourably priced loans and advisory services from Business Development Bank of Canada has been made available to support affected small and medium-sized businesses and help them adapt, in addition to providing more funding to Canada’s regional development agencies so they can better support businesses.

Federal support also includes broad programming such as for the Employment Insurance Work-Sharing Program, which helps employers and employees avoid layoffs during temporary decreases in normal business activities, the $5 billion Trade Impact Program through Export Development Canada, to help exporters reach new markets and by providing resources to navigate U.S. tariffs, and $1 billion in new financing through Farm Credit Canada, to help manage financial challenges and market disruptions caused by tariffs for the Canadian agriculture and food industry.

Question No.66—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

With regard to the Housing Accelerator Fund: (a) how much of the allocated $228,466,276 has been released to the City of Calgary to date; (b) what was the date and amount of (i) the first advance, (ii) each subsequent payment; (c) has this advance been fully disbursed; (d) what milestones have been achieved; and (e) how much of this funding has been allocated to create direct incentives for developers, and what kind of incentive was it?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) concerning the Housing Accelerator Fund, the total funding allocated to the City of Calgary amounts to $251,309,276. The City was allocated an additional $22,843,000 during the annual review process. Additional funding was awarded to the fastest growing communities that submitted new initiatives through the annual review process and met action plan commitments and unit targets. The City of Calgary has received $121,847,471 to date.

With regard to (b)(i), the first advance of $57,116,569 was disbursed on November 2, 2023. With regard to (b)(ii), subsequent payments were made as follows: $57,116,569 on January 9, 2025; and $7,614,333 on March 3, 2025.

With regard to (c), yes, the first advance has been fully disbursed. Currently, two disbursements remain, contingent on satisfactory progress as determined during the annual review process.

With regard to (d), detailed progress updates can be found on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation website at https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/funding-programs/all-funding-programs/housing-accelerator-fund/housing-accelerator-fund-progress.

With regard to (e), the City of Calgary has allocated approximately $124 million of the Housing Accelerator Fund funding towards incentives to support office to residential conversions, market and non-market housing and infrastructure programs.

The City of Calgary’s action plan contains several initiatives that have direct incentive components.

The Accelerate Housing Delivery in the Downtown initiative willrevise guidelines for the Downtown Calgary Development Incentive Program and provide additional funding to support the conversion of surplus office space.

The Promote Missing Middle Land Use Districts initiative will create a Stormwater Incentive Program to assist developers with the costs of utility upgrades required to support additional density.

The Incentivize Legal Secondary Suites initiative is a new incentive that is expected to significantly expand the supply of legal, registered secondary suites and will help homeowners with safety and other upgrades.

The Build Inclusive and Equitable Affordable Housing Programs initiative will refresh the Housing Incentive Program, create a new Indigenous capital grant program and provide funding to support the sale of surplus City-owned lands to non-market housing providers.

Question No.67—

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

With regard to the government's $700 million contribution agreement with Powerco through the Net Zero Accelerator initiative: (a) how many emissions does the government expect will be reduced as a result of this contribution agreement; and (b) how many emissions did Powerco commit to directly reduce in the contribution agreement, if any?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the Net Zero Accelerator initiative has a number of objectives: decarbonizing large emitters, which is pillar1, industrial transformation, which is pillar 2, and clean technology and battery ecosystem development, which is pllar 3.

This project falls under pillar 3: Clean technology and battery ecosystem development. The objective of projects under this pillar is to capitalize on emerging clean economy opportunities and promote the development of a made-in-Canada battery ecosystem. Access to batteries will in turn support electric vehicle manufactures in Canada and help accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, or EVs, replacing internal combustion vehicles and thereby reducing emissions. Emission reductions are down stream. There are no direct emissions reductions from the project.

With respect to part (b) of the question, PowerCo is constructing a new best in class greenfield facility. There are no specific reduction targets in the contribution agreement. The Recipient committed to integrate environmental solutions and to further investigate ways to reduce emissions associated with battery manufacturing, including throughout its supply chain. One of the reasons that the company chose to invest in Canada is to have access to low carbon grid electricity, supporting environmental sustainability.

Question No.75—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario’s target in the 2023-24 Departmental Results Report, to render a decision on applications within 80 working days of the receipt of a complete application and to issue payment on eligible claim submissions within 35 working days: (a) what is the rationale for why these targets are not being met 15% of the time; and (b) how many applicants have waited longer than 80 working days for a decision to be rendered?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), regarding the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario’s target of rendering a decision on applications within 80 working days of the receipt of a complete application and to issue payment on eligible claim submissions within 35 working days, this target was not met 15% of the time due to increased demand from rural and Indigenous communities and delays in resourcing vacant positions within the Agency, both of which impacted service delivery time.

With regard to (b), 19 applicants waited longer than 80 working days for a decision to be rendered.

Question No.76—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

With regard to the departmental result indicator for the amount leveraged per dollar invested, by Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario projects, for which the target is 1.80: (a) what is the explanation for the result decreasing from 2.02 in 2021-22 to 1.61 in 2023-24; and (b) what is the rationale for not meeting the 1.80 target in 2023-24?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Mr.; Speaker, with regard to the departmental result indicator for the amount leveraged per dollar invested by Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, or FedNor, projects, this agency proactively publishes this information on GC Infobase. As such, the result explanation can be found at https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/ems-sgd/edb-bdd/index-eng.html#infographic/dept/561/results/.-.-(indicator.-.-'DR-drr23-14051).

Question No.77—

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

With regard to the five-year lease that Public Services and Procurement Canada contracted with ILG LTÉE (Pierre Guay) in August 2021, to consolidate previous leases and retrofit two existing buildings (337 and 339 Guay Road, Lacolle): (a) did the lease, which was to run from April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2027, end with the closure of Roxham Road, at midnight on March 25, 2023; (b) if the new five-year lease contracted with ILG LTÉE did not end with the closure of Roxham Road on March 25, 2023, when did it end; (c) if the new five-year lease contracted with ILG LTÉE did not end as of November 6, 2024, when will it end; (d) if the new five-year lease contracted with ILG LTÉE did not end on March 25, 2023, is it possible to obtain the total amounts paid to ILG LTÉE since that date; and (e) if the new five-year lease contracted with ILG LTÉE did not end on March 25, 2023, is it possible to obtain the total amounts that remain to be paid to ILG LTÉE until the end of the contract?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, Public Services and Procurement Canada has two leases with Importations Guay Limitée in Lacolle, Quebec, at 337 Guay Road and 339 Guay Road. The leases did not end in March 2023.

In response to parts (b) and (c) of the question, Public Services and Procurement Canada’s lease for 337 Guay Road ends March 31, 2027. Public Services and Procurement Canada’s lease for 339 Guay Road ends June 30, 2027.

As for parts (d) and (e) of the question, total amounts paid and remaining to be paid for these leases is commercially sensitive information that Public Services and Procurement Canada does not have the authority to release unilaterally under sections 18 and 20 of the Access to Information Act.

Question No.81—

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

With regard to Canada Pension Plan payments: (a) has the government conducted any analysis of (i) how much it would cost to allow individuals, who continue to pay into, and don't start collecting, Canada Pension Plan payments until an age later than 65, such as 70, to defer those payments and receive larger payment when they do start collecting Canada Pension Plan payments, (ii) any proposal similar to that outlined in (a)(i); and (b) if the answer to (a)(i) or (a)(ii) is affirmative, what are the details, including the findings and projections associated with the analysis?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Mr. Speaker, individuals are able to continue to contribute and defer the start of their Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, retirement pension in exchange for a higher monthly pension based on age of claim-related adjustments and this has been the case since 1987 when flexible retirement provisions were introduced to the CPP.

Under flexible retirement, while the standard age of eligibility for the retirement pension under the CPP is 65, individuals can choose to start collecting a permanently reduced pension as early as age 60, or to delay the start of their pension and receive an increased amount up to age 70.

These upward or downward adjustments to the pension amounts, referred to as actuarial adjustments, were put in place to ensure that, on average, the CPP’s aggregate financial health is not impacted by individual decisions of contributors as to when to start collecting the CPP retirement pension and, by extension, to ensure that no individual’s decision affects the benefits or contributions of other Canadians. The actuarial adjustment factors reflect the fact that those who start collecting their pension earlier will, on average, have made fewer contributions to the CPP and will also generally receive benefits for a longer period than those who begin receiving it later.

This means that, on average and in aggregate, there is no additional cost to the CPP for individuals who choose to defer their pension, nor is there a cost savings when individuals begin collecting their retirement pensions early.

From 1987 to 2011, the CPP’s actuarial adjustment factors were set at 0.5% per month the pension was started before, or after, age 65, up to a maximum adjustment of 30% to a claimant’s monthly retirement pension benefit. Individuals who collected their CPP retirement pension upon reaching age 60, as soon as they were eligible, had their pensions reduced by 30%, while pensions of those who waited until age 70 or later was increased 30%.

The actuarial adjustments factors were updated following the 2007-2009 Triennial Review of the CPP, after the Chief Actuary of Canada indicated that the old factors were no longer neutral as a result of a number of factors, including increases in life expectancies and the changing of the CPP’s financial model following the 1998 reforms that restored the Plan’s long term financial health. These updates were phased in over a number of years, from 2011 to 2016. Since that time, the adjustment factor for early retirement has been 0.6% per month, to a maximum reduction of 36% for those who begin their pension immediately at age 60. The adjustment factor for deferral is 0.7% per month of delay, to a maximum increase of 42% for those who begin their pension at age 70.

Further, to ensure that the adjustment factors remain neutral to the CPP’s finances, the 1998 CPP reforms also introduced a legislated requirement, in subsection 115 (1.11) of the Canada Pension Plan, that actuarial adjustment factors were to be reviewed on a periodic basis by the Office of the Chief Actuary. The legislation requires the Chief Actuary to re-calculate the actuarial adjustment factors and specify them at least once every nine years, coinciding with the standard Triennial Review of the CPP timelines. The review may be done more frequently if deemed necessary by the Chief Actuary.

The 27th CPP Actuarial Report at 31 December 2015, which was tabled in the House of Commons on 27 September 2016, confirmed that the current actuarial adjustment factors remain actuarially neutral. The full details of the analysis that led to that determination can be found in the Actuarial Study Canada Pension Plan Actuarial Adjustment Factors as specified in the 27th Actuarial Report on the Canada Pension as at 31 December 2015 – Actuarial Study No. 18, available at the following link: https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/bsif-osfi/IN5-1-18-2017-eng.pdf.

The Actuarial Report (32nd) on the Canada Pension Plan at 31 December 2024, which is expected to be tabled in House of Commons in the fall of 2025, will confirm if the current factors remain appropriate and specify whether new factors are needed, based on most recent available projections of the Chief Actuary.

Statistics on the number of new CPP retirement pensions established by age, gender and by calendar year are published annually. Results observed from 1987 to 2024 for claims observed by age are available at the following link: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ea075020-b9f4-43c4-8d04-075132cbbc7d/resource/c76328d2-d3f1-4daf-b101-719e5d081a26.

Question No.97—

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

With regard to the finding of the "National Cyber Threat Assessment 2025-2026" that vendor concentration in technology services increases cyber vulnerability: (a) what is the government's current assessment of its own level of dependence on dominant technology service providers, across all departments and agencies; (b) has the government conducted any specific studies or analyses, since January 1, 2023, to quantify its dependency on individual dominant technology service providers, and, if so, what are the details and findings of each such study or analysis; and (c) has the government formally identified specific dominant technology service providers whose compromise could lead to cascading disruptions of essential government services or endanger national security, and, if so, what are the names of these identified dominant service providers?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting responses to the questions concerning the finding of the "National Cyber Threat Assessment 2025-2026" that vendor concentration in technology services increases cyber vulnerability.

With regard to (a), Shared Services Canada has not conducted a formal quantitative assessment on individual dominant technology services providers. However, the Government of Canada has taken steps to reduce its reliance on any single provider through implementation of diversification strategies as part of the development of enterprise services, and ensuring that products from multiple vendors are incorporated into procurements for Shared Services Canada services, including cyber security products, cloud hosting, desktop and mobile services, server and storage, and networking. Continued work on this Information Technologies Diversification Strategy is led by Shared Services Canada, with support and collaboration from the Office of the Chief Information Officer of Canada, in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, in an effort to reduce vendor concentration in these strategic areas.

With regard to (b), Shared Services Canada has not conducted specific studies or analyses to quantify dependency on individual dominant technology service providers since January 1, 2023.

With regard to (c), for national security reasons, the Government of Canada cannot publicly disclose the names of specific dominant service providers. However, it actively monitors and manages cybersecurity risks through a range of tools and measures.

Question No.100—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

With regard to the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen: (a) who in the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office is responsible for ensuring that the Prime Minister abides by the terms of the screen; (b) on what date was the screen implemented; (c) on what day did the Prime Minister notify the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that the screen was in force; (d) what specific measures are in place to ensure that any actions taken by the Prime Minister do not directly benefit Brookfield Corporation, Brookfield Asset Management, or any other Brookfield entity; and (e) other than Brookfield, which other corporate entities are covered by measures contained in the screen?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question about who in the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office is responsible for ensuring that the Prime Minister abides by the terms of the screen, the Prime Minister’s conflict of interest screen is administered by the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and by the Clerk of the Privy Council. The administrators ensure that the Prime Minister is not made aware of, and does not participate in, a decision or matter for which the screen applies.

In response to part (b) regarding the date on which the screen was implemented, the Prime Minister placed all of his financial assets, other than personal real estate, into a blind trust, which was submitted to the Commissioner on March 9. His team delivered a full and robust conflict-of-interest management plan on that same timeline. It has been implemented since that time.

The Prime Minister’s finalized screen was dated July 10 and publicly disseminated on July 11, 2025.

In response to part (c) of the question on what day the Prime Minister notified the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that the screen was in force, in collaboration with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, a preliminary screen was put in place shortly following the Prime Minister being initially sworn into office in March, and then further refined. The Prime Minister’s finalized screen was dated July 10, 2025, and publicly disseminated on Friday, July 11, 2025.

Point (d) of the question asks what specific measures are in place to ensure that any actions taken by the Prime Minister do not directly benefit Brookfield Corporation, Brookfield Asset Management, or any other Brookfield entity. To support the Clerk in his role as one of the administrators, the Privy Council Office, in consultation with the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, has developed a process for identifying matters that could be subject to the screen. Where appropriate, the screen administrators may directly consult the Commissioner, and if the screen administrators and the Commissioner agree, the screen must be applied.

All products subject to the screen will be marked as such and not provided to the Prime Minister.Where the screen applies, the matter will be referred to another minister.

Where the screen is applied to a matter for discussion/decision by Cabinet or Cabinet committees chaired by the Prime Minister, the Vice-Chair will assume the role of Chair for any matters covered by the screen. Recusal under the Conflict of Interest Act requires the Prime Minister to remove himself physically or virtually from the meeting or discussion where the matter is being decided.

If the Prime Minister recuses himself from a discussion, he must make a public declaration of the recusal to the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner within 60 days after the day on which the recusal took place.

Part (e) of the question asks which other corporate entities, other than Brookfield, are covered by measures contained in the screen. The finalized screen applies to a list of companies detailed in Annex A of the screen.

Question No.102—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

With regard to Community Futures Program funding awarded to Community Futures Ontario: (a) what percentages and amounts of funds in the contribution agreements were allocated to Community Futures Development Corporations in Northern Ontario, for each of the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years; (b) what are the projections for the percentages and amounts of funds in the 2025-26 contribution agreement that will be allocated to Community Futures Development Corporations in Northern Ontario; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by federal riding?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Community Futures Ontario, as an eligible applicant, receives funding from the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario to administer services to Community Future Development Corporations in Northern Ontario; no funds are directly re-allocated by Community Futures Ontario to individual Community Future Development Corporations in Northern Ontario.

With regard to (b), since no Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario Community Futures Program funds are further allocated to Community Future Development Corporations in Northern Ontario through Community Futures Ontario, there are no projections to report.

Lastly, with regard to (c), since no Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario Community Futures Program funds are further allocated to Community Future Development Corporations in Northern Ontario through Community Futures Ontario, there is no breakdown of funds by federal riding to report.

Question No.103—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

With regard to the federal government’s purchase of the Quebec Bridge: (a) did the federal government carry out one or more expert assessments on the lifespan of the Quebec Bridge; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, how long ago were they performed; and (c) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what was the assessed remaining lifespan of the Quebec Bridge, in years?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the federal government’s purchase of the Québec Bridge, and particularly with respect to part (a) of the question, Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, supported by Parsons-Tetra Tech, submitted a life cycle analysis of the Québec Bridge covering the 75 years following its acquisition by the Government of Canada.

With respect to part (b) of the question, this analysis was submitted to the government in September 2024.

Lastly, with respect to part (c) of the question, the life cycle analysis of the Québec Bridge, provided in September 2024, focused only on a 75-year period and did not assess the bridge's lifespan beyond that timeframe. The analysis concluded that, under a scenario of continued maintenance, the infrastructure could be kept in good condition and remain in service during the 75 years following its acquisition.

Question No.110—

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in the 2024-25 fiscal year: (a) how much was spent administering the student visa program, in total and broken down by type of expense; (b) how many employees were assigned to the program (i) in total, (ii) for processing applications, (iii) for ensuring the compliance of those already granted a visa; (c) how many student visas were active; and (d) how many student visas were revoked, broken down by reason of revocation?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, regarding (a), the 20242025 expenditures are currently unavailable and will only be accessible once the public accounts have been tabled in the House of Commons, which is expected in the fall.

Program expenditures will be made public following the tabling of the Departmental Results Report, which is also expected in the fall.

With regard to (b), the full-time equivalent assigned by program will also be made public following the tabling of the Departmental Results Report.

With regard to (c), the start and end date of a permit determines the time period for which it is active. To ensure permits that either expired during the 2024-2025 fiscal year or were issued within that timeframe but remain valid beyond March 31, 2025, are not excluded, and to avoid double-counting individuals who held more than one valid study permit, IRCC is reporting the total number of unique individuals who held a valid study permit on any date over the course of the time period. At any point in time between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, there were approximately 1,317,680 persons who held a study permit, including extensions. Note that a permit may be valid for the duration of study and is not necessarily issued in the same year that it expires. As a result, this data includes instances where the permit was issued prior to this fiscal year.

With regard to (d), with few exceptions, foreign nationals travelling to Canada require either a Temporary Resident Visa, or TRV, or Electronic Travel Authorization, or eTA, prior to seeking entry to Canada. While the study permit, or SP, is approved in these instances prior to seeking entry, it is not confirmed, or issued, until arrival at the port of entry by CBSA. For extension applications where the client is already studying in Canada, the approval and confirmation/issuance take place at the same time.

Between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, IRCC revoked approximately 16,760 SPs, including extensions in person. Note that an eTA or TRV issued as part of a SP application that was revoked may not be affected by the SP revocation and are not included with this data. Additionally, this data does not include unique counts, which may mean that the number of individuals affected by a revocation could be lower.

Data for the reasons for revocation is not systemically tracked.