Debates of May 6th, 2024

Question No.2460—

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

With regard to Correctional Services Canada and the La Macaza Institution: (a) what is the last known date the ice rink at the institution was (i) operational, (ii) skated on by inmates; and (b) what is the last known date the tennis court at the institution was (i) operational, (ii) used by inmates?

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

Mr. Speaker, the boards related to the ice rink at La Macaza have been in place since 2002 and the rink area was used until 2017-18. Based on consultation with staff, there has been no skating for the past seven years. Tennis was last available in October 2023.

Access to exercise, including outdoors, is part of CSC’s legal requirements and contributes to offender rehabilitation while keeping our staff and sites safer. Approved activities are structured, monitored and supervised.

Question No.2461—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With regard to the authorization regime created by Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) how many organizations have (i) applied for, (ii) received, authorization from the Minister of Public Safety; (b) where can organizations seeking authorization apply; (c) when will the authorization regime created under the Act be fully operational; and (d) what are the names of the organizations which have received authorization to date?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a)(i) and (ii) of the question, Public Safetyand partnering departments and agencies are currently working to launch the authorization regime pursuant to sections 83.031 to 83.391 of the Criminal Code. Necessary tools, such as application forms, policy guidance and instructions for the application process will be put in place to support the effective launch and administration of this initiative.

Public Safety intends to launch this regime in spring 2024; the Minister of Public Safety has not yet granted any authorizations.

To note, in addition to the authorization regime, Bill C-41 also created a humanitarian exception pursuant to subsection 83.03(4) of the Criminal Code. This exception has been in effect since royal assent in June 2023 and provides a shield from criminal liability under 83.03 to Canadian organizations and Canadians carrying out humanitarian assistance activities under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefits to terrorist groups.

Regarding part (b), an online interface will be rolled out to the public as part of the launch of the authorization regime to receive applications and supporting documentation and where external stakeholders, for example, organizations and individuals not working in partnerships with the Government of Canada, may submit their application.

Government of Canada departments are responsible for obtaining authorizations, if needed, for any of their relevant activities, including programming. As indicated in the legislation, authorizations cover all implementing partners.

With regard to part (c), Public Safety intends to launch this regime by spring 2024 and will work towards achieving full operational capacity by late 2024.

Regarding (d), due to strict privacy considerations, as well as the personal and operational safety of applicants, the names of applicants and authorization holders will not be publicly released.

Question No.2471—

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

With regard to the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care: (a) what conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest have been declared by each of the members of the council, broken down by member; and (b) are members of the council permitted to profit as a result of their membership on the council, including through consulting businesses or other enterprises owned by members of the council, and, if not, what are the measures in place to ensure that members do not act in their own self-interest?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, members of the national advisory council on early learning and child care are subject to the ESDC policy on establishment and management of advisory bodies, which upholds the principles and values found in the Conflict of Interest Act, the values and ethics code for the public sector, the policy on people management and the directive on conflict of interest, and establishes conflict of interest compliance measures for all advisory body members. Moreover, council members are subject to the terms and conditions of their letters of agreement, affiliations and interests declarations and non-disclosure agreements.

In fulfillment of their responsibilities outlined in their letters of agreement, some council members have declared potential conflicts of interest. Following a departmental assessment of their declaration, side agreements outlining mitigation strategies were put in place to manage the risk of a conflict of interest associated with their duties performed in a capacity other than as council members.

Failure to abide by the conditions outlined in their signed side agreements may lead to members’ dismissal from the council.

Affiliations and interests declarations contain personal information and cannot be disclosed without the individual consent of the council members concerned.

Regarding part (b), council members serve in a non-affiliated capacity. Members are not permitted to profit as a result of their membership on the council, including through consulting businesses or other enterprises they may own or may be affiliated with.

As per their signed letters of agreement, members shall at all times act honestly and only in the public interest. Members must not act in any way to further their or their family members’, friends’ or colleagues’ private or personal interests, nor in the interests of any organization they may be affiliated with, including with regard to the receipt of project funding.

Furthermore, council members must not knowingly take advantage of or benefit from any information, confidential or otherwise, that is obtained in the course of undertaking their responsibilities under the agreement and as members of the council, where information is not generally available to the public. This is applicable both during the term of the member’s agreement and after its expiry.

If council members are in a situation, or anticipate that they may find themselves in a situation, where their actions could constitute an actual or perceived conflict of interest, they must inform the director general of the federal secretariat on early learning and child care at ESDC immediately in writing and complete required documentation disclosing the nature of the conflict. Members then agree to abide by any instructions provided by ESDC to address the conflict, up to and including removing themselves or being removed as a member of the council. Where a potential conflict of interest is identified, a side agreement providing an outline of the individual situation, along with a series of conditions and measures to abide by, is put in place to mitigate any risks.

ESDC regularly reminds council members of their duty to proactively disclose any and all relevant affiliations and interests that might give rise to a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest in relation to their official responsibilities as members. Written communication to this effect was shared most recently with all council members on January 18, 2024.

Question No.2473—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

With regard to government definitions: what is the government's definition of a woman?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, a woman is an adult female human being. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that its policies, programs and initiatives are inclusive of all individuals, and reflect the diversity of experiences of the Canadian population.

Question No.2477—

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and late personal taxes, broken down by fiscal year from tax year 2016 to 2023, by province and territory, and by income tax bracket: (a) how many people had a balance owing and were unable to pay it by the payment due date; (b) what was the total amount of balance owing for people that were unable to pay by the payment due date; (c) how many for each tax year had daily interest charged on any unpaid amount owing because they were unable to pay by the payment due date; (d) how much was paid in compound daily interest by those unable to pay by the payment due date; (e) how many people filed their tax return after the due date and had a balance owing and were charged a late-filing penalty; (f) what was the total amount of late-filing penalties paid; (g) how many people made a request to the CRA to cancel or waive penalties or interest as they were unable to meet their tax obligations due to circumstances beyond their control; and (h) how many people for each tax year were granted relief for requests in (g)?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the abovenoted question, what follows is the response from the CRA as of March 20, 2024, that is, the date of the question.

In response to parts (a) to (f), the CRA is not able to report on live accounting information, referring to a taxpayer's current outstanding balances and other related information. Live accounting information is typically accessible on a case-by-case basis by CRA agents, but it is not accessible for reporting purposes.

In response to parts (g) and (h), data relating to RC376, the taxpayer relief request form, are similarly unavailable for reporting purposes. This form may also be accessed by CRA staff on a case-by-case basis for tax administration purposes, but its fields are not captured and stored in a database that can be used for reporting.

Accordingly, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested.

Question No.2482—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With regard to reductions in Full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the total number of FTE employees the department or agency will be eliminating; (b) what is the projected cost savings by the department as a result of eliminating FTE employees; and (c) what impact assessments has the department or agency undertaken to ensure that services Canadians rely on will not be affected by the FTE employee reductions?

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

Mr. Speaker, information regarding the refocusing government spending initiative and planned spending reallocations that will be implemented in 2024–25, 2025–26, and 2026–27, can be found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/government-expenditure-plan-main-estimates/2024-25-estimates/refocusing-government-spending.html

The refocusing government spending initiative, announced in budget 2023, was about reallocating funds and resources to the priorities that matter most to Canadians. Departments had the opportunity to identify reallocations from across their portfolios to provide flexibility to identify proposals that made the most operational sense and to ensure that important services to Canadians and other priority areas were not affected as part of the exercise.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat worked with departments to ensure that their proposals were sustainable and did not create service delivery or program integrity pressures.

Proposals were also reviewed using various analytical tools, such as the quality of life index and gender-based analysis plus.

Proposals were then reviewed by Treasury Board ministers to ensure appropriate oversight and to apply a pan-government view of all proposals.

Departments and agencies are responsible for staffing decisions based on their operational needs and budgets. Any impacts on the workforce from these reallocations are expected to be conducted mainly through the redeployment of staff to high-priority activities or attrition.

To implement the second phase of refocusing government spending, budget 2024 announced that, starting on April 1, 2025, federal public service organizations will be required to cover a portion of increased operating costs through their existing resources and that the public service population is expected to decline by approximately 5,000 full-time equivalent positions over the next four years through natural attrition. Specific details on these savings will be shared when available.

Question No.2484—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Société Radio-Canada (SRC): how many (i) non-disclosure agreements, (ii) non-disparagement agreements, and (iii) confidentiality agreements have the CBC and the SRC signed with employees and contractors for each year in the last 10 years?

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of its business and employment activities, CBC/Radio-Canada concludes a wide variety of contracts and agreements, many of which could include non-disclosure or confidentiality provisions. CBC/Radio-Canada does not track the specific number of those references. To gather the information requested, an extensive manual search and review of each contract concluded by the corporation would be required.

Question No.2485—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

With regard to Parks Canada’s Detailed Impact Assessment of the ‘Management of Zebra Mussels in Clear Lake in Riding Mountain National Park’ that was opened for public comment in February 2024: (a) who did Parks Canada directly inform of the Detailed Impact Assessment, and when were each of them notified; (b) for each notice in (a), what is the name and title of the Parks Canada official who provided the notice and what method of communication was used; (c) what are the details of how Parks Canada informed the public of the Detailed Impact Assessment prior to extending the public comment period, including the (i) date of public notice, (ii) method of communication used; (d) what elected officials were informed by Parks Canada of the public comment period for the Detailed Impact Assessment prior to March 10, 2024, if any; (e) were any of the elected officials in (d) a (i) mayor, (ii) reeve, (iii) councillor, (iv) member of the Legislative Assembly, (v) member of Parliament, and, if so, what was their name and title; (f) how many public comments for the Detailed Impact Assessment did Parks Canada receive before the original March 10, 2024, deadline; (g) why was the public comment for the Detailed Impact Assessment period extended from March 10, 2024 to March 29, 2024; and (h) what First Nations were informed of the Detailed Impact Assessment prior to March 10, 2024, and when was each informed?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Parks Canada informed the following groups of the opportunity to publicly comment on the detailed impact assessment: Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce; Clear Lake Country; the office of the member of Parliament Dan Mazier;, Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve, Valerie Pankratz; Sandy Lake water protection committee, Victor Kowall and Daryl Kines; rural Municipality of Harrison Park, Ian Drul; the Province of Manitoba aquatic invasive species unit, Jeff Long and Rob Bajno; Erickson and District Chamber of Commerce, Eric Bjornson; reeves and mayors of western Manitoba communities. Notifications were provided in February and March 2024.

In response to (b), Dameon Wall, external relations manager, provided information via phone calls or emails on behalf of Parks Canada.

In response to (c), Parks Canada posted notification of the detailed impact assessment to the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry on February 9, 2024. The draft detailed impact assessment document was available on March 1 and was emailed to all who had requested it by March 3. All detailed impact assessments and basic impact assessments are posted on the registry as regular practice,and it has a searchable map at https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/exploration?search=&showMap=true. With respect to (i), date of public notice is not applicable. With respect to (ii), notification of the upcoming deadline for public comment was provided via the Parks Canada Facebook page on March 18, and to media and stakeholders via email distribution list on March 20.

In response to (d), elected officials informed by Parks Canada were Ian Drul, reeve of the rRural Municipality of Harrison Park; and the office of member of Parliament Dan Mazier.

In response to (e), with respect to (i), the answer is no. With respect to (ii), the answer is yes: Ian Drul, reeve of the rural Municipality of Harrison Park. With respect to (iii), the answer is no. With respect to (iv), the answer is no. With respect to (v), the answer is yes: the office of the member of Parliament Dan Mazier.

In response to (f), Parks Canada received three public comments for the detailed impact assessment before March 10, 2024.

In response to (g), as there is strong public interest in Parks Canada’s plans to use an approved pesticide, Parks Canada extended the public comment period to welcome input from Canadians about the potential impact of the proposed use on the environment.

In response to (h), the draft detailed impact assessment document was shared with the following first nations on March 1, 2024: Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation, Ebb and Flow First Nation, Sandy Bay First Nation, Rolling River First Nation, Gambler First Nation, Waywayseecappo First Nation, and Tootinaowaziibeeng First Nation.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Question Nos. 2459, 2462 to 2470, 2472, 2474 to 2476, 2478 to 2481, 2483 and 2486 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.2459—

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

With regard to costs related to the government's output-based pricing system (OBPS) for industrial facilities: (a) what have been the costs to implement and administer the OBPS broken down by year since 2018; (b) what have been the costs related to OBPS compliance verification; (c) how many employees or full-time equivalents are currently assigned to positions related to the OBPS; and (d) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to OBPS compliance verification?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2462—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

With regard to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and its funding of the study titled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission”: (a) to what funding opportunity stream, and what application criteria, did Fisman et al. submit their grant application and receive funding approval; (b) when CIHR conducted a peer review of this application prior to funding, (i) which researchers were assigned to conduct this review, (ii) what were their qualifications, (iii) what were their conclusions, (iv) what were their conflicts of interest; (c) how much funding did CIHR grant this study project; (d) were there any other funding agencies or entities supporting this study; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, who were the other funding agencies or entities; (f) what was the expected timeline for study completion at the time of funding; (g) what conflicts of interest were listed for the grant applicants at the time of funding; (h) was there any federal government involvement with, or communication regarding, any component of the application review process, research study, or media outreach; (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, which government bodies were involved; (j) what are the details of the media communications once the study was completed, broken down by (i) subject, (ii) type of communication, (iii) who directed the communication, (iv) date of communication; (k) after the study was published, did CIHR receive any negative feedback; (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, (i) what was that feedback, (ii) how was it addressed; (m) what is CIHR’s average timeline from the day a grant application is received to when the grant is approved; and (n) what was the timeline from the day the grant application was received to when the funding approval decision was made for the above-captioned study?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2463—

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

With regard to Farm Credit Canada (FCC): (a) what is the current number of employees or full-time equivalents (FTEs) at FCC; (b) of the current employees or FTEs, how many work out of (i) Regina, (ii) the National Capital Region, (iii) FCC offices in other cities, broken down by location, (iv) remotely; (c) on January 1, 2016, how many employees or FTEs worked out of (i) Regina, (ii) the National Capital Region, (iii) FCC offices in other cities, broken down by location, (vi) remotely; and (d) what is the breakdown of (b) and (c) by rank or classification level (executive, manager, assistant, etc.)?

(Return tabled)