THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 3, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:14 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 25, 36 and 44 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. My name is Rosemary Moodie. I’m a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I’d like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair, Senator Osler.
Senator Osler: Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler from Manitoba.
Senator McPhedran: Independent Senator Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba.
Senator Senior: Paulette Senior, senator from Ontario.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: Welcome. I’m Bev Busson, a senator from British Columbia.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner from Nova Scotia.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Today, we are studying the subject matter of certain elements contained in Divisions 25, 36 and 44 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
As our study examines the subject matter of these elements, the report of this committee will be made to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. The final report on Bill C-15 will be made by the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to the Senate of Canada.
For our first panel, we will focus on Division 25, which brings amendments to the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act.
Joining us today for our first panel, we welcome, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Kimby Barton, Director General, Centre for Biosecurity, Regulatory, Operations and Emergency Management Branch.
Thank you for joining us today. For your opening statement, you will have five minutes, followed by questions from committee members. Ms. Barton, the floor is yours.
Kimby Barton, Director General, Centre for Biosecurity, Regulatory, Operations and Emergency Management Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada: Thank you very much.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to be a part of your study on the budget implementation act.
We welcome the opportunity to highlight some of the key proposed legislative amendments to the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act included in this bill, which will modernize Canada’s biosafety and biosecurity oversight framework and protect the health, safety and security of those living in Canada.
[Translation]
The Public Health Agency of Canada is the federal authority and regulator of individuals and facilities working with human pathogens and toxins. The agency supports both the biomanufacturing and global health security agendas by providing oversight of academia, pharmaceutical, diagnostic and public health-related containment facilities working with human pathogens and toxins through a comprehensive licensing regime, security clearance, inspection and compliance program.
[English]
The Human Pathogens and Toxins Act came fully into force in 2015, establishing an oversight framework to protect the public against the health, safety and security risks posed by human pathogens and toxins.
[Translation]
In the years since the act was first adopted, we have seen a rapidly evolving threat and security landscape. There has also been significant growth in the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. Both of these factors have introduced emerging risks identified by security and intelligence partners that were not areas of concern when the original act was drafted.
[English]
In response to these developments, the proposed legislative amendments aim to: provide the Government of Canada with the needed flexibility to respond to evolving security threats and to support emergency preparedness; provide greater clarity to regulated parties; improve security safeguards against potential threats; amend reporting thresholds to prevent under-reporting of potentially dangerous incidents; and modernize compliance and enforcement tools.
[Translation]
These changes will balance oversight, creating a unified focus across biosafety, biocontainment and biosecurity.
[English]
Canada’s approach to human pathogen and toxin oversight balances the need to protect the people of Canada against harmful pathogens and toxins while supporting Canada’s role as a world leader in scientific research and technological innovation. This will be essential to keep pace with new investments in the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector.
[Translation]
These measures will also allow us to strengthen safeguards and mitigation measures against potential incidents with human pathogens and toxins, support Canada’s international obligations under the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention, and bolster national resilience and emergency preparedness, all while continuing to enable and support Canadian researchers who are performing world-leading scientific research contributing to Canada’s prosperity and the well-being of its citizens.
[English]
I welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions you may have regarding these proposed legislative amendments.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Barton. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for the question, including the answer.
Senator Osler: Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Barton.
I understand the government consulted with academia and industry regarding the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act prior to tabling Bill C-15. What was the feedback received from those consultations, especially regarding the balance between innovation and national security? How did that feedback shape the amendments to the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act?
Ms. Barton: Thank you for the question. We conducted a number of consultations that have been ongoing since about 2020. There was a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulations in an audit that was conducted by our Office of Audit and Evaluation. In 2023, we also conducted thematic consultations on some of the principles that you see included in the act today.
The feedback that we received was as expected. There were concerns with regard to potential administrative burden, but that was offset by people who were encouraged that we were attempting to focus the most stringent requirements on the highest-risk facilities.
If you look, a number of the amendments to the act are proposed for the highest-risk biocontainment facilities, including those working with security sensitive biological agents, those that can be weaponized and those working with the risk group for agents.
There was also recognition that a number of the facilities with the more stringent requirements would be relying on assistance and information being provided by the federal government to support them in responding to the new requirements.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Hay: My question is going to go into future evolution in the sense of the following: As we modernize the act, will it keep pace with AI-enabled biological research? With that, what are the safeguards that will ensure sensitive genomic pathogen and research data generated in Canada remain protected and uphold the threat on that around the governance and sovereignty of that data within the research?
Ms. Barton: Thank you very much for the question.
In terms of evolution of data, we’ve tried to build flexibility in it. You may see that one of the proposals on the table is to remove some of the schedules from the act itself and instead have a registry of pathogens and toxins. That enables us to be much more dynamic in terms of responding to risks as they evolve as opposed to having to go through an extensive regulatory process to get new things listed. So there’s definitely focus there.
Again, while the purpose of the act is not to protect intellectual property, some of the safeguards and the requirements that we will have in place — as it relates, for instance, to cybersecurity protection for remote access from people who are trying to access sensitive information — should also address some of the concerns you have identified.
Senator Hay: The AI research generation is a new frontier?
Ms. Barton: Yes. There’s nothing specific in the act right now that mentions artificial intelligence, but there is also regulation-making authority as we move forward and start to get a better understanding of what some of the implications are in that area. That will enable us in the future to consult and make potential changes at the regulatory level, if necessary.
Senator Hay: Great. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I wonder if I might ask, Ms. Barton, if you have familiarity with the breaches of security in the high‑security biological testing facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Were you involved in that?
Ms. Barton: As a member of the Public Health Agency of Canada, I’m aware of the fact that there were breaches. Myself, I was not directly implicated in that process.
I can say that in terms of some of the amendments and the changes that we’re proposing to the act, they propose to address a number of the changes that we’ve seen in the threat landscape, as well as a number of the issues that have been identified by our security and intelligence partners as we worked with them.
You may also be aware that there’s a publicly available assessment from the Communications Security Establishment that mentions cybersecurity for high-containment facilities. There have also been pieces that we’ve seen from other security and intelligence partners with respect to insider threats and how to mitigate against insider threats.
Many of the proposed amendments we have in this legislation are aligned with a number of the other pieces we’ve seen moving forward, including Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s list of Named Research Organizations and some of the National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships.
Senator McPhedran: Putting aside this act for a moment, I think I’ve heard correctly that the others you’ve referred to are mostly recommendations coming from studies into various risk situations. Am I correct about that?
Ms. Barton: This will be one of the pieces, probably, that has the most authority. There are other elements. The list of Named Research Organizations and the list of Sensitive Technology Research Areas from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada are more about granting organizations and putting security measures in place around research collaborations.
Ours speaks more specifically to legislative and regulatory requirements that will help prevent concerns regarding cybersecurity and mitigating insider threats, for example.
Senator McPhedran: Would you say that this bill generally reflects recommendations and/or changes already made by your agency?
Ms. Barton: Yes, for sure. It’s been evolving with time, and it takes into account a number of additional considerations on top of some of the changes that have been embedded in the agency now, for example, with respect to new governance measures and new considerations around research collaborations and policies on conflicts and affiliations.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Burey: My colleagues have asked some of my questions, so I’ll go on to the next. I’m going to ask a question — no worries.
You did speak about supporting the organizations in the new requirements. Could you expand on the support within your administrative burden?
Getting a little more specific and speaking about the registry, how will the Minister of Health’s new responsibility to establish and update the registry be operationalized to ensure accuracy and timeliness?
Ms. Barton: In December 2024, we did actually publish the Biosecurity Addendum to the Canadian Biosafety Standard for Containment Level 4 facilities, which outlines 70 different physical and operational requirements for those facilities to enhance their security. That actually comes into force as a condition of licence in January of this upcoming year.
We will also be preparing webinars, guidance and information materials and holding sessions with the regulated parties. In the development of the biosecurity addendum, we consulted with existing Containment Level 4 facilities on some of the requirements to get a sense of their ability to meet them moving forward, but we will continue as we currently do. We have a number of guidelines and also a large number of training materials available on our PHAC Training Portal that are accessible to facilities that are looking for further information.
With respect to the registry in terms of its operationalization, it’s anticipated that the Minister of Health will delegate authority down to potentially within the program. There’s an ability then for us to follow a similar process to what we have right now for an existing registry. It is not an official registry but will become part of the official registry moving forward, which will enable our staff within the organization to make recommendations to the minister for what should be included.
We do change quite frequently. There are a number of changes, for instance, to the names of pathogens as things evolve and as scientific information becomes available. We do have the Advisory Committee on Human Pathogens and Toxins that makes recommendations to the minister in terms of what changes and what new pathogens and toxins can be included on that list.
Senator Boudreau: I have two quick questions. You touched on the first one a bit, but just to make sure, are these amendments or updates coming as a result of a particular incident that might have occurred within the industry in Canada?
Second, you talked about strengthening the oversight but also increasing the flexibility. It seems a little contradictory to me in terms of goals. Could you give us a concrete example or a scenario of how these changes can protect the public but also allow more flexibility to the industry at the same time, if there’s a scenario or an example you can share with us?
Ms. Barton: In terms of your first question, is this in response to specific scenarios? It’s really an accumulation of different scenarios we’ve seen with time. There was an example, for instance, of a publication in the United States where a group published an article about how they had hacked the airflow system in a containment facility to be able to reverse it, and then they published that information online. That really got to the concerns with respect to cyberaccess to systems and then the further publication of how people had accessed a system externally.
We’ve taken a look at information in the public domain, and we’ve also been working with partners as they’ve identified threats. That’s part of what’s been incorporated into what we’re working with here today.
In terms of trying to diminish or balance regulatory burden and provide some flexibility, again, certainly the most stringent measures within the act are really targeted to the Containment Level 4 facilities and a certain subset of Risk Group 3 facilities. Just in terms of numerics right now, there are only two Containment Level 4 facilities in Canada, so it’s not a huge number of facilities that the more stringent requirements would apply to. We already know in most instances that they’re able to largely meet those requirements that will become an obligation in January.
In terms of some of the flexibility, there are some pieces that are flexible in terms of just having a more flexible registry and more ready access to what are the pathogens and toxins being regulated by the government moving forward.
Also, we’re working on providing greater regulatory certainty for some of our regulated parties as well. In the consultations that we did back in 2019-20, there was a request for greater clarity around some of the roles of some of the key players in the space, such as biological safety officers, licence holders and licence holder representatives. We’ve tried to be clearer as well with some of those roles and provide more regulatory certainty for some of our parties.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you.
Senator Senior: I’m curious about the term “confidence-building measures.” It seems as if the amendments deal with the provision or the disclosure of information that is necessary to enable Canada to submit confidence-building measures. Could you give us an example of what that is? Whose confidence are we building?
Ms. Barton: Certainly. Under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, there are requirements, obviously, that we must not be building biological weapons. Part of the confidence‑building measures under that convention are to provide information on the facilities that are working with what we refer to as security sensitive biological agents. We share those with partners so that they’re aware of the research that we have ongoing and what type of research and what sorts of pathogens and toxins we’re working with so that there’s not a suspicion that we’re trying to militarize, for instance, our research in Canada.
Senator Senior: In terms of this act, where would it place us in comparison to our comparables?
Ms. Barton: It’s been a while since we’ve had a Joint External Evaluation by the World Health Organization. The last one we had was pre-pandemic. From a biosafety perspective, we were ranked number one internationally for biosafety and number three internationally for biosecurity. My expectation is with the measures we’re putting in place here, we would be in the same range and/or still considered very much leaders as we move forward with some of the provisions we would be putting in place.
Senator Senior: If we’re number three, who would number one and number two be?
Ms. Barton: I do not remember; my apologies. I would have to look up that information for you. It’s been a while.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
The Chair: I’d like to interject with a question here. From my perspective, I’d like to understand who we’re talking about here. There are only two Containment Level 4 facilities. We talked about that. There are a number of Risk Group 3 pathogens. They reside in hospitals, institutions, labs and so on.
You talked earlier about the administrative burden that you were trying to avoid but realized was necessary. Being familiar with hospitals myself, some of the containment things that I read about are really not that rigorous. The word that keeps cropping up as a change here is “security.” Are there new security measures that are being placed on institutions that will increase their burden?
Ms. Barton: Yes. There is the tiered security screening, for example. Again, predominantly these will be for prescribed Risk Group 3 pathogens, which is that subset that are security sensitive biological agents. There are two Containment Level 4 facilities, and there is in the neighbourhood of about 30 that are working with security sensitive biological agents.
What we’re looking at is foreign ownership, control and influence considerations for some of those facilities, again starting with and predominantly focusing on Risk Group 4 for now and then potentially looking at rolling it out for some of the other facilities later.
Tiered security screening is a new addition. For Government of Canada facilities right now, obviously anyone who enters a Government of Canada facility and is working there has a Government of Canada security clearance. As we look at private sector facilities, they don’t have that same requirement except — right now — for people who are working directly with pathogens and toxins that are considered to have weaponization potential. Right now, they require a Human Pathogens and Toxins Act security clearance. But for other people who may have access, for instance, to information about the pathogens that are in a facility or who may have remote access to the cybersystems that govern that facility in the private sector, they don’t have to have a security clearance right now. That would be a very concrete example of something that we’re looking at requiring and that will, in fact, be a condition of licence for Containment Level 4 facilities as of January. It’s something that we would look at rolling out to others later on as we start to have conversations.
Those will largely be in regulation, so they will not all come into force at the time of coming into force of the act. They will come into force later as we go through the regulatory process. That will also enable us to have some discussions and answer questions with the facilities to get a better sense of what type of burden it might create for them and the ways that we can potentially mitigate that.
Senator Busson: I’m fascinated with the part of this bill that talks about an offence that has a penalty of life imprisonment. It talks about how anyone who communicates sensitive information to a foreign entity or terrorist group is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
The term is “sensitive information.” My mind goes wild with this, especially because of my previous life in law enforcement. Could you talk about what that might entail and whether there has ever been any prosecutions under this act?
Ms. Barton: I can start with the last point first. There has only ever been one prosecution under this act, and it was a scientist who was prosecuted under a number of other acts as well.
In terms of sensitive information, we’re working to define some of the sensitive information pieces specifically through regulatory consultation as well. Some of the things we consider sensitive at the moment would be the types of pathogens in a specific facility and the location of some of the pathogens in that facility. Obviously, if somebody had information about safeguards around those pathogens which they chose to hand to a terrorist organization, that would be a significant risk moving forward. Those would be some examples that I can think of off the top of my head.
Senator Busson: You’re envisioning that definition would be quite wide in scope?
Ms. Barton: I think for the purposes of transmitting information to terrorist organizations, et cetera, it’s difficult to say right now. I think it will be informed, in part, by that consultation. Recognizing that it is life imprisonment, it’s definitely something that is not likely to be broadly applied on an ongoing basis moving forward.
Senator Busson: Hopefully, it will be more deterrent.
Ms. Barton: That’s exactly it.
Senator Muggli: My question relates to the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, or VIDO, in Saskatoon which, for colleagues, is Canada’s premier vaccine research and manufacturing hub. They have a lot of international partnerships and research. There is funding from many sources. Sometimes they have to work very quickly and share data.
I’m wondering how the government has looked at these amendments through the lens of how a place like VIDO actually operates.
First, I’m curious if you have consulted with them and what steps you’re taking to make sure the new rules related to security clearances, sensitive information, involvement of foreign partners and registry changes do not unintentionally slow down their work in vaccine development and emergency response?
Ms. Barton: Thank you very much for the question. We are very well aware of VIDO, which is the short version of the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization. They were consulted on the biosecurity addendum — the additional fiscal and operational requirements we have coming into force in January. They were part of that because, as you are probably aware, they have received some funding to potentially be a Containment Level 4 facility moving forward.
In terms of the impact of foreign ownership, control and influence and some of the other measures, that is part of the reason why some of those provisions are in regulation as well, because that enables us so that we’ll be able to have very intensive consultations with some of those parties. We’ll be able to get a sense from them of what would have a very negative impact potentially on their ability to conduct their research and innovation moving forward.
These are provisions that are in existence in other acts as well. What we’re trying to do is lift and shift them into this act and make sure, to the degree possible, we are not having those negative consequences you’re referring to. Certainly, the intent is not to disincentivize innovation in Canada but very much to support it.
We’re very well aware of the challenges we had throughout the pandemic with supply chain and supply chain integrity. We’re trying here to facilitate to the degree that we can, while also putting in place those safeguards and measures to protect the information that facilities like VIDO are working with so that they are not subject to risk themselves as individual researchers but also the loss potentially of information to hostile state actors or non-state actors.
Senator Muggli: So it’s a protective factor, you could say. Do you think it will act to disincentivize innovation?
Ms. Barton: For the requirements we’ve put in place, hopefully not. It is certainly not our intention to disincentivize innovation. We’re hoping that by providing regulatory certainty for investment in Canada as companies or facilities come in, they will recognize we have important safeguards in place. Those safeguards are there to benefit them and protect them, both on an individual safety level — where we don’t want people adjusting things like airflow in labs — and also protecting the research that they’re investing in such that it’s not stolen and used elsewhere, for instance, and/or used maliciously against them.
Senator Muggli: And did VIDO support these amendments in your consultations?
Ms. Barton: VIDO was consulted on the biosecurity addendum. They indicated to us in the consultations and discussions that, at this stage, they think they were already capable of meeting most of them in advance of a licensing decision.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: We understand that we are in a rapidly changing environment. Given what you heard during the consultations, will these amendments provide enough flexibility to react practically in real time to changes in this area?
Ms. Barton: Thank you for the question.
[English]
Certainly, there are flexibilities we are building into the act that will enable us to move more rapidly. I mentioned the registry for instance, being able to adjust and change the status of the risk group of a pathogen. That’s actually quite important because if we consider that a pathogen’s risk has enhanced, that now means there are additional measures around it. Being able to change the level of a pathogen more rapidly rather than having to go through the existing regulatory process will enable us to respond much more quickly.
There are other authorities in the act that exist today and will continue to exist. For instance, there is the ability to have orders in place so that there can be shorter-term ministerial orders that enable us to respond if there is a change.
There are other considerations that we have in the act, for instance, around things like exigent circumstances. If somebody needs to get into a facility, be it a peace officer or emergency health personnel, we have the ability to put exemptions in place to enable things like that.
We have thought very carefully about future-looking and the ways we can embed adjustments or the ability to adjust as we see things evolving.
Senator Petitclerc: If I understand well, we’re not just being reactive but also proactive?
Ms. Barton: Yes, that’s certainly what we’re trying to build in.
Senator Arnold: Thank you very much for being here with us today. I’m curious about smaller labs and institutions. In New Brunswick, our Atlantic Cancer Research Institute is already pretty challenged when it comes to expenses. Will there be any role for the government to help implement some of these changes?
Ms. Barton: I can’t speak to whether there are funding opportunities directly, because my group is not involved in that. We are putting out training and information to try to assist to the degree possible. Many of the smaller facilities are not Risk Group 3 facilities working with security sensitive biological agents or the Risk Group 4 pathogens where the more stringent requirements are targeted.
A lot of the changes here are likely to have much less impact on some of the smaller facilities because they tend to be the ones working with Risk Group 2 pathogens. They’re some of the academic institutions and labs where many of these requirements don’t apply. But they may provide a road map for those facilities moving forward. They can look to the act to see what the government is concerned about for the higher-risk facilities, so they might also consider putting them in place to protect themselves and their proprietary information or secure information moving forward.
Senator Arnold: It sounds like this is a flexible process and you’re going to keep an eye on things as they evolve. Do you have any signposts along the way or any ways of measuring the effectiveness of these changes?
Ms. Barton: We do have a number of different things that are reported to us. We have one of the only mandatory laboratory incident notifications in the world. For instance, if you start to see increased reporting, it’s a bit of a difficult measure because sometimes more advertising leads to more reporting, so it needs to be caveated, but there will be measures like that.
Are we seeing reporting of more security incidents? Are we seeing reporting of more safety incidents? Are there issues in terms of breaches in facilities? Are facilities approaching us to say, “This is really not working and it’s burdensome”?
As an example, the definitions of biological safety officer, licence holder and licence holder representative were updated in the act, and that was actually in response to regulated parties who said there was a lack of clarity for them in the existing framework, and they asked us to provide more clarity of definitions moving forward. So there are certainly opportunities like that as well.
The Chair: We’re moving into the second round. Three minutes is your allowed time.
Senator Hay: I will talk fast. I think it’s a quick question, and it might be out of scope. When I think about the amendments here that are addressing certain types of vulnerabilities for the act, I’m also curious about where this might fit: A human pathogen, for example, is COVID-19. And we had SARS in the mid-2000s, with all kinds of activity to ensure that we were more prepared for the next time. Then we had COVID-19 and a significant amount of activity, first of all, to survive it — and it is a Risk Group 3 human pathogen, I believe.
Part of your portfolio is emergency management. I’m curious about the emergency preparedness that has resulted from those two human pathogens that were unleashed — is this a gap, perhaps, in the modernization? Is this a spot where we should be looking at further amendments? I realize this is probably out of scope; however, I would suspect that the people of Canada might ask this when they think about this act.
Ms. Barton: It’s out of scope in the sense of it doesn’t directly respond to emergency preparedness from the perspective of things like direct pandemic plans being prepared. It responds to emergency preparedness in the context of it hopefully helps protect the integrity of our supply chain by protecting the facilities and information, so it’s the vaccine manufacturing organizations. As an example, prior to the pandemic, we used to see 1 to 2 constructions and renovations for facilities per year, and since 2020 we’ve got 38 that we’re working with.
Our ability to license, inspect and oversee those facilities contributes to the supply chain integrity, which contributes obviously to our emergency management and preparedness. In that way, we’re linked to it. But my team and this particular act are not directly linked to, for instance, the development or the renewal of Canada’s pandemic preparedness plan.
Senator Hay: Thank you for that clarity. I appreciate it.
Senator McPhedran: I want to thank you for your really concise answers. It’s very welcome and appreciated.
Your agency was consulted quite extensively before this bill was introduced. Would that be a fair understanding?
Ms. Barton: Sorry. We the agency were consulted or we did consult?
Senator McPhedran: The agency was consulted by the government in the drafting of this legislation. At some point, you made recommendations or suggestions for what should be in a bill of this kind?
Ms. Barton: Yes, absolutely.
Senator McPhedran: Is there anything that your agency urged be done in the legislation that we won’t find in this bill?
Ms. Barton: Right now, what’s included in the legislation is very much based on the analysis and recommendations that came from the Public Health Agency of Canada. It’s very much been a very active participation and, in fact, leadership by the agency in developing and proposing many of these amendments in collaboration with our research partners.
Senator McPhedran: For the menu that you did convey to the drafters of the bill, is there any primary recommendation that we cannot see in this bill which did not make it into this bill?
Ms. Barton: Right now, it is very inclusive of what our recommendations were that were put forward.
Senator Senior: I agree with Senator McPhedran in terms of really appreciating the clarity of your responses. I note that with this act, the minister will have more flexibility to be able to introduce regulations as needed, so that would be the proactive piece that the minister will have, which is a good thing. I’m wondering about the ability to — let me just change my question.
Has there been any incident or occurrence that triggered this to come forward at this time?
Ms. Barton: There has been an evolution, I would say, with time. We have done a series of consultations, and then we have been working with our partners. I wouldn’t say there is a specific incident so much as we got feedback from the preliminary consultations which were supposed to be completed in 2020 but were not for obvious reasons — and that was really focused on the effectiveness and efficiency of the act and the regulations. Then that rolled into thematic consultations where we looked at different, more biosecurity-focused pieces.
Sorry, I have forgotten the question.
Senator Senior: Anything that triggered it to come forward?
Ms. Barton: It’s that combination of different things we have seen happening. There are two key drivers, I would say. One is the significant investment in the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. I referenced those 38 new constructions and renovations. There is an increase in risk from the perspective of just the number of facilities that are particularly seeking to work with the higher-risk pathogens, combined with that evolving threat landscape of becoming more aware of considerations related to cybersecurity, insider threats and the potential for foreign interference. It’s evolving and continues to evolve. Those have been two of the major drivers as to why this is coming forward right now.
Senator Senior: Thank you. That’s very helpful.
Senator Osler: Thank you for the answers. I think you’ve encapsulated a lot of what I am planning to ask, but for clarity, can you give us an idea of how compliant the labs have been with the safety regulation and framework, and can you provide an idea of the number of incidents, both exposure and non‑exposure, over the last 10 years?
Ms. Barton: Starting with the last question, I don’t have the exposure and non-exposure data at hand. I know I asked for data on laboratory-acquired infections, and over the past eight or nine years, the maximum per year is about three laboratory-acquired infections, so they’re quite low. It is generally a very compliant population.
Many of the non-compliances we tend to see are either oversights or, you know, a lack of familiarity with the regulation, and they tend to fall within the scope of things like not having appropriate standard operating procedures or not having updated standard operating procedures.
I mentioned the only prosecution that we have had; there has only been the single one. So it’s generally been a very compliant group.
The reason why you see there are enhancements and there are also increasing, for instance, fines and penalties is it’s a deterrence because there is increased recognition of the risks in that evolving threat landscape that I mentioned.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Senators, this brings us to the end of our first panel. I would like to thank Ms. Barton for your wonderful concise, succinct answers and for giving us some insight today in your testimony.
Our second panel today will examine Division 36, which amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act; and Division 44, which enacts the National School Food Program act.
Joining us in person today for this panel, we welcome, from Employment and Social Development Canada, Jonathan Wallace, Director General, Canada Student Financial Assistance Program; Jacqueline Thorne, Director General, National School Food Program; and Misha Celentano, Manager, National School Food Program.
Thank you all for joining us today. For your opening statements, you will have five minutes, followed by questions from committee members. We will start with Ms. Thorne.
Ms. Thorne, the floor is yours.
Jacqueline Thorne, Director General, National School Food Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Jacqueline Thorne, and I am the Director General of the National School Food Program at Employment and Social Development Canada.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
[Translation]
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the proposed bill to make the national school food program permanent.
[English]
School food programs provide immediate and long-term benefits for children and their families that can save families with two children in school around $800 per year.
[Translation]
Until last year, Canada was the only G7 country without a nationwide school food program.
[English]
The National School Food Program was announced in Budget 2024 with an investment of $1 billion over five years to support provinces, territories and Indigenous partners to enhance and expand access to school food programs across Canada.
The program is delivered by three federal departments: Employment and Social Development Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. As of March 2025, the Government of Canada signed bilateral agreements with all provinces and territories on the program and is also working directly with Indigenous partners on the rollout of distinctions-based funding for First Nations on-reserve as well as First Nations, Inuit and Métis modern treaty and self-government agreement holders.
[Translation]
The program aims to provide up to 400,000 children each year with access to nutritious food at school.
[English]
Budget 2025 proposed to introduce legislation and provide $216.6 million per year, starting in 2029-30, to make the program permanent.
The National School Food Program act will set out the Government of Canada’s long-term vision for the program, guided by the National School Food Policy. It will also cement the government’s commitment to maintain long-term funding for the program and to continue working with provinces, territories and Indigenous partners to implement the program across Canada.
With that, I conclude my opening remarks. I am happy to take questions from the committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Thorne. Mr. Wallace, the floor is yours.
Jonathan Wallace, Director General, Canada Student Financial Assistance Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good evening. I am Jonathan Wallace, Director General of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program at Employment and Social Development Canada. It’s nice to be with all of you this evening.
Through the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program, the government provides interest-free loans and non-repayable grants to students to help them access post-secondary education, as well as loan repayment and forgiveness options.
Through Budget 2025, the government proposes to strengthen the integrity of the program. Division 36 of Part 5 of Bill C-15 proposes two legislative amendments to help achieve this.
[Translation]
The first amendment would deny federal student financial assistance to students attending private, for-profit international institutions.
This measure is aimed at encouraging students to pursue post‑secondary education at institutions that provide the best educational outcomes and the best value for money for both students and the Government of Canada.
It is also intended to address concerns regarding the lack of domestic oversight, profit-driven motives and predatory recruitment tactics observed at some of these institutions.
[English]
The second amendment would enable the Minister of Employment and Social Development to choose whether to align with provincial decisions regarding the suspension or denial of provincial student financial assistance by also suspending or denying federal student financial assistance in certain circumstances.
This could be done if the minister is satisfied that providing this assistance could facilitate the commission of an offence, constitute a risk to the integrity of the program or expose students or the Crown to financial risk. It could apply to classes or types of students, educational institutions or programs of study.
This measure would better position the government to more proactively address integrity concerns and limit financial risk to students and the Crown.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for the question, including the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or witnesses.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. My first question is to Ms. Thorne regarding the National School Food Program. As you said, in Budget 2024, the government committed $1 billion from 2025-29 and then $216.6 million annually starting in 2029.
Does the program have parameters around what percentage of the total program budget is allocated to food costs versus the percentage allocated to program administration costs to ensure that the majority of the budget goes toward food?
Given that many schools don’t have kitchen facilities, how will the government address this infrastructure deficit so that all children will be able to benefit from the program?
Ms. Thorne: Thank you for the question. In the bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories, there’s broad flexibility for them to spend school food programming dollars based on their needs and priorities in their jurisdictions. These can include food, like you said. It can include, for example, equipment, food preparation areas and kitchens. It includes logistics and travel to get food to a particular location. It also includes expanding programming into remote areas, for example. They pretty much have the flexibility to be able to spend on what it is that they need. There is no specific breakdown for budget on food.
Senator Osler: Are there any parameters within the program that would align with Canada’s Food Guide in terms of the food that’s produced to ensure that it is fresh and healthy?
Ms. Thorne: Yes, actually. The National School Food Program is guided by the National School Food Policy. One of those principles is around inclusivity, so it’s inclusive of cultures as well as engaging the broader community and students on food. It is also health promoting in that it is consistent with recommendations made in Canada’s Food Guide as well.
Senator Osler: Can you comment on how many schools don’t have kitchen facilities? So this infrastructure deficit is covered?
Ms. Thorne: Yes, exactly. For schools that don’t have, for example, fridges to store yogourt and milk or don’t have equipment like toasters or griddles to make pancakes or what have you, they are allowed to allocate a portion of their funding toward those costs. It’s the same thing: They’re allowed to renovate kitchens and also construct prep areas, for example, if they don’t have that in their current environment.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for your work. I applaud this. I want to focus on the National School Food Program, making it permanent. I believe you’ve spoken to this, so this might just simply be a repeat, but I think it’s important enough to do so.
The consultation on this appears quite good. Maybe just speak to that a little bit. Being a national program, one might worry about equity and rural and urban and remote areas. Even in urban environments, that does not mean that it’s equitable. I would love to hear about the consultation there. You did address the flexibility in here for communities to deploy as need be for infrastructure and food. Maybe talk about how you’re going to really address equity in high-need areas.
Ms. Thorne: Sure. As you mentioned, senator, in 2022-23, around the issue of consultation, there was broad consultation undertaken with Canadians, provinces and territories and Indigenous partners, which showed strong support for a national school food program, after which Budget 2024 announced $1 billion for a five-year program.
In January and February of this year, we undertook an online consultation with a diverse group of respondents, almost 300 of them, to look at views on school food data and research, including areas that we could prioritize for the future. Both of those reports are available online, if the committee wishes to have a look at those.
Engagement is key, obviously, to strong, evidence-based programming, including with the National School Food Program. We also have established relationships with the Breakfast Club of Canada and the Coalition for Healthy School Food, which are key partners for Employment and Social Development Canada.
Part of the bilateral agreements that we have with provinces and territories and in the action plans that they must provide to the federal government includes a section on collaboration and engagement with official language minority communities and with Indigenous partners as well. What else can I add to that? I think that’s kind of it for now. I had one more thing, but it escaped me. If I think of it, I’ll add it.
Senator Hay: Thank you. That was very helpful.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to all of you for coming in person for this conversation.
I actually want to pick up on the general point made by Senator Hay and ask you specifically: What is the strategy and what is the approach to reaching remote and rural communities and, in particular, communities where a majority of those in the community are of Indigenous origin?
Ms. Thorne: Thank you for that question. As I had mentioned earlier, both Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada have responsibility for national school food programming. The funding flows to Indigenous governments through existing agreements, so it’s to First Nations on-reserve as well as to modern treaty and self‑government agreement holders.
We do have bilateral agreements, of course, with the three territories where we do see high populations of Indigenous children attending public schools there. And, of course, the provinces and territories abide by the policy and objectives of the National School Food Policy, which talks about children being able to access programs through a stigma-free and barrier-free environment, which includes remote communities, and some of the school food programming can go to creating programs in those communities where they currently don’t exist.
Senator McPhedran: In what ways does this bill help you with fulfilling your mission?
Ms. Thorne: It sets out and cements that long-term vision that the Government of Canada has around access for all children to nutritious meals at school. It also sets out a funding commitment from the Government of Canada for the implementation and ongoing maintenance of the program, and it further supports the collaboration of the federal government with provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners to expand and enhance programming across the country.
Senator McPhedran: For the fulfillment of your mission, can you please tell us about your quality control and your follow-up? Are you checking if hungry children are actually receiving the food they need through this program?
Ms. Thorne: Part of the bilateral agreements that we’ve signed with provinces and territories includes annual reporting. Provinces are expected to report on activities, expenditures, anticipated results and common indicators, which they set targets for.
We just finished signing the last of the agreements in March. The program hasn’t been in place that long. That was the end of the last fiscal year, so this will be the first full fiscal year where we look forward to getting data that will help us tell that story.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you all for being here. I’m excited to see you again, Ms. Thorne. We have to stop meeting at committee meetings, but it’s great to see you always, and I applaud the government for making this program permanent.
I was reading the National School Food Program act, and I noticed that the clause on funding — I think that’s clause 6 — only specifies that federal investments must be guided by the principles outlined in paragraph 5(b). Why not also include paragraph 5(a), which emphasizes strengthening connections with local food systems, the environment and culture, especially given the new Buy Canadian Policy announced by the Prime Minister under which the Government of Canada will implement measures requiring local content in federal procurement to ensure Canadian businesses and agricultural workers benefit from federal funding.
I understand that there are jurisdictional issues, but I was surprised to see that paragraph 5(a) wasn’t included as part of the parameters. I’ll allow you the time to answer.
Ms. Thorne: Could you repeat the question quickly for me?
Senator Burey: Yes. The funding part of it only specifies that federal investments must be guided by the principles outlined in paragraph 5(b). And in paragraph 5(b), that’s accessibility, health promotion, inclusivity, flexibility, sustainability and accountability, which must be measured and evaluated over time. That’s Senator McPhedran’s point, but I’m wondering why paragraph 5(a) was not included in the funding, because that goes to the heart of the circle of the Canadian economy and strengthening the Buy Canadian Policy, especially for local procurement of food. I’m just curious as to why it wasn’t included.
Ms. Thorne: In terms of strengthening connections with local food systems, that would be covered under the flexibility principle in paragraph 5(b), which is one of the six principles of the National School Food Policy, so funding can be used toward local school food systems. Is that your question?
Senator Burey: Why did you not specify it? You said it’s only for paragraph 5(b). I’m wondering if this is a way not to fund prescriptively more local food production or agriculture in local areas.
Ms. Thorne: I don’t believe that was the intent.
Ms. Celentano, do you have anything to add?
Misha Celentano, Manager, National School Food Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: No, that would not have been the intent. Like Ms. Thorne mentioned, for the principles listed, they’re built into the principles, and those are the principles of the National School Food Policy.
Senator Burey: So then paragraph 5(a) is contained in paragraph 5(b) is what you’re saying to me?
Ms. Thorne: Yes.
Senator Burey: All right. Thank you.
Senator Muggli: It’s nice to see you again, Ms. Thorne. My question is for you.
I want to build on the data piece. As you know, at our Agriculture and Forestry Committee, we’re doing a study on food security. Officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada were pretty candid about the weaknesses in our food security data, including gaps in sampling, regional details and timeliness and some serious problems with coordination of data.
I’m very supportive of the program and happy to see long‑term funding. I’m wondering whether the agreements with the provinces, territories and Indigenous governing bodies have been tied to any common outcome measures. Is there an evaluation framework built that the provinces, territories and Indigenous governing bodies have agreed to? If so, what is it?
Ms. Thorne: I can only speak for the provinces and territories because the other funding agreements are at Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
Part of our reporting is that provinces and territories provide us some common indicators on the number of children. In the first year of the program, we asked for the number of children. That was the baseline, so we knew how many children there were in a particular jurisdiction. Then we asked them to provide us with programs and the number of children accessing programs by program type. That will give us an idea year over year whether the number grows and how those programs are evolving.
Senator Muggli: I’m wondering about outcome measures. Are children getting healthier? Are they doing better in school? Have there been any requirements built into a framework where the programs must provide data related to outcomes?
Ms. Thorne: Those are the common indicators that we have. We are doing — and I think I had mentioned it last time — some work with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research on collecting data through research grants on priority topics for data and researchers.
We know that through the online survey we did in January and February, which I mentioned earlier, there was a consensus that there was a general lack of data in the school food space in a bunch of areas. That is something that we look forward to learning more about once we get some of that research completed by those researchers.
We’ve also included some questions in the Canadian Income Survey, and we are also working with the Public Health Agency of Canada, Queen’s University and Brock University, which is collaborating with the World Health Organization on another survey that will collect some information around children’s healthy well-being.
Senator Muggli: Just to be clear, there’s no requirement for the groups that have been funded that they provide outcome measure information?
Ms. Thorne: No, it’s just the indicators that I had mentioned.
The Chair: If I can seek further clarification on this point, I’m hearing that there are going to be different groups responsible for collecting their own indicators. I’m wondering if, as a program, you have a mechanism to review outcomes, success and performance collectively in one place by one group.
Ms. Thorne: Yes. We actually have evaluation within our own department as well, and that is a typical evaluation that you would see during a program cycle. We will be undertaking evaluation as well.
Provinces and territories are also encouraged to share any kind of evaluation findings that they may undertake themselves.
The Chair: So this is a voluntary sharing?
Ms. Thorne: There is some wording in the bilateral agreements, which are all public and published online, that speaks to the sharing of evaluation findings. I can provide something in writing to that effect, if you’d like, to provide some more detail. I’m happy to do that.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for your answers.
My question has to do with the national school food program. This new program comes with a number of international commitments, including the Convention on Human Rights, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Call to Action and the Official Languages Act. However, we don’t see any direct reference to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Will this new proposal explicitly take into account the very specific needs of children and youth with disabilities? The reality in schools is that when young children with disabilities have special needs, particularly in terms of equipment, food or other, the responsibility to meet those needs falls on the families. It’s the families’ responsibility. That’s why I’m asking if this bill will address the question of responsibility when it comes to taking into consideration the specific needs of children with disabilities.
[English]
Ms. Thorne: Thank you for the question. There is no specific reference to taking into account the needs of children with disabilities. However, the bilateral agreements are guided by the National School Food Policy, one of which is accessibility for children to be able to access programming in a barrier-free environment.
Senator Petitclerc: There’s nothing explicit. I’m trying to really understand the mechanism and the structure. The funding goes to a group and then it goes to a school, but they don’t have to actually make it?
Ms. Thorne: Thank you for your question. In terms of how the funding works, Employment and Social Development Canada does not have direct relationships with providers, school boards or school districts. We don’t have those relationships on the ground, respecting the jurisdiction of provinces and territories. We are a funder, and we provide funding to provinces and territories. They then work with their school districts, their school boards and their education bodies which then have the autonomy, in most cases, to make decisions about where the highest needs are.
Employment and Social Development Canada, as a department, is not involved in those direct decisions. That rests with the provinces and territories and their education partners.
Senator Senior: I don’t want to leave Mr. Wallace out, so I do have a question for him. Maybe I can just ask of you, Ms. Thorne: You may have said this and I missed it, but how often will this legislation be reviewed? And would there be an opportunity to make adjustments and amendments similar to what Senator Petitclerc is referring to?
Ms. Thorne: I don’t have the answer to that question. Do you have anything, Ms. Celentano?
Ms. Celentano: No.
Senator Senior: You can provide that.
Ms. Thorne: Why don’t we provide that in writing. Thank you.
Senator Senior: I must admit, Mr. Wallace, I never knew about this program existing, so it’s very eyebrow-raising to read about it. I’m wondering how much this will save Canadians in terms of taxpayers.
And when you refer to private and for-profit institutions, can you give us an example of what some of those would be internationally? And my other question is: How much will this save Canadians?
Mr. Wallace: Thank you for the question. In the last year for which data is available, the Government of Canada provided approximately $28.6 million to around 2,000 students to go to around 220 private, for-profit international institutions. With this measure, it is not expected that the government would save that amount of money.
What we’re trying to do is encourage students to pursue studies at educational institutions that have better outcomes for students at more reasonable costs. The expectation is those students will still go to school, but they will go elsewhere.
In the budget plan, we didn’t actually forecast any savings. I expect there could be some marginal savings, but it’s really about redirecting how funds are used toward better outcomes.
In terms of your second question, there are a number of schools that would be impacted. DeVry University is one in the United States that is private and for-profit, as an example. It’s important to note that public and not-for-profit institutions won’t be impacted. For example, Harvard University students will still be eligible to receive funding to go there. There’s also Gallaudet University in the U.S., which is a university focused on deaf and hard of hearing students. Students would still be able to receive funding to go there.
Senator Senior: The $28.6 million does not include the Harvards or the Oxfords?
Mr. Wallace: That’s correct; it’s only the private, for-profit schools outside of Canada for which we currently fund students.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being here. I, like Senator Senior, had no idea this was going on. You mentioned the deaf and hard of hearing students. Can you give us some other examples of private schools where Canadians would go?
Mr. Wallace: Give me one moment. I do have a list.
Senator Arnold: Assuming it’s stuff that’s not available in Canada, correct? Is that true?
Mr. Wallace: On that point, not necessarily. A program does not have to not be available in Canada for a student to receive funding to go outside of the country. There’s a personal decision sort of factor as well. Many programs are available within Canada, but often there are limited spots in Canada, and someone may choose to go outside of the country for access. They may want another experience. They may want to study in a different language. There are many reasons for which a student decides to go outside of Canada.
I have a list, and it’s in no particular order, so apologies. There’s National American University, Waldorf University, Grand Canyon University, MTI College, the Los Angeles Film School, the Charleston School of Law, Atlantis University, Columbia Southern University and Saint Michael College of Allied Health. I can go on.
Senator Arnold: That’s fine. I was just simply curious about it.
And to Ms. Thorne, thank you. I’m so happy there is so much anticipation. I have been on the ground with those Rotary clubs and Kiwanis clubs making lunches and breakfasts for children in inner-city schools. It makes a big difference in a lot of children’s lives.
You mentioned stigma-free and barrier-free programs — is that a parameter you’re putting on this?
Ms. Thorne: That’s one of the six principles of the National School Food Policy, and that guides the National School Food Program and the bilateral agreements that we have with provinces and territories.
Senator Arnold: What does that look like?
Ms. Thorne: For example, any child is able to go and grab a snack off the snack table, if that’s the way it’s set up. There’s no stigma associated with it. What some schools have, for example, is a pay-what-you-can lunch program, if I can use that. Envelopes are given to children to bring home, and then they bring them back to the teacher. Whether there is a donation for the cost of the meal or whether it’s empty, it’s in an envelope sealed, so nobody has any idea who is accessing lunch and who is paying and who is not.
Senator Arnold: And since this is permanent, you mentioned we were the only G7 country that did not have a program like this. Is the goal to get to where it’s universally acceptable that children eat their breakfast and lunch at school?
Ms. Thorne: I think that’s a long-term goal. It is going to take a while to get there. All provinces and territories are at a different starting point. Some are providing breakfast and snacks. Some are providing a hot breakfast two days a week and a cold breakfast the rest of the days. Some provide lunch and some don’t. It’s different wherever you go.
I think by having some kind of a national program with coordination, we’ll be able to tell that story. Right now, we just don’t have the data. Like I said, we’re at a very nascent stage, and we are trying to move the needle little bit by little bit.
Senator Cuzner: I appreciate the commitment to long-term funding as well. It will be over $200 million annually commencing in 2029. What is the rationale for the four-year delay on that level of commitment?
Ms. Thorne: Current programming is for five years. That will take us until that particular point, and then it would be ongoing funding after that.
Senator Cuzner: If I could, Mr. Wallace, this is a general question first. What is the percentage of repayment success with Canada Student Loans?
Mr. Wallace: In the last 20 years, we have made great strides in reducing the default rate. That is how we measure repayment success. I think it was in the 30% range in the early 2000s; in the last year for which data is available, it is at 8%.
Senator Cuzner: That is incredible.
Mr. Wallace: It’s gone down steadily since the early 2000s and now it’s plateaued.
Senator Cuzner: Regarding the initiative of making sure that a student has to make $30,000 a year before repayment, this came in when?
Mr. Wallace: You’re referring to the Repayment Assistance Plan?
Senator Cuzner: Yes.
Mr. Wallace: That was introduced in 2009, and the government has made enhancements to it a couple of times, most recently in 2022.
Senator Cuzner: Is that exercised by many of the student loan recipients?
Mr. Wallace: In the last year for which data is available, I believe it was 286,000 students who leveraged that program. Just for perspective, there are about 1.5 million students in repayment right now.
Senator Cuzner: Is there a significant cost in administering a provision like that?
Mr. Wallace: There is a cost in administering it, but the cost is not as high as you may think. Part of that is because the government has now eliminated the accrual of interest. The way the Repayment Assistance Plan works is for a typical student who may need it early on in repayment right out of completing or leaving school, for the first 10 years they must reapply every six months, and if they are still in need, we do what is known as payment deferral, so the government isn’t actually paying down the loan; it’s deferring payment. Sorry, it’s the first five years — my apologies.
If they are still in need after the first five years, then the government will gradually start paying down the principal. The real costs to government in administering that benefit are for those who have persistent need and persistent low income.
Generally speaking, most students use the Repayment Assistance Plan for a short amount of time early in repayment when they’re getting their job prospects aligned, and generally there aren’t a lot of costs associated with it.
Senator Osler: My question is for Mr. Wallace. Right now, Canada has a skilled labour workforce shortage, particularly in health care, skilled trades, engineering and the education sector.
I wonder if increasingly, students may be attending some of the international private institutions because they offer some specialized and in-demand training in those sectors. Do you have sector-specific data to support limiting financial assistance primarily to students attending public and not-for-profit institutions? Could some of these changes potentially exacerbate Canada’s labour shortage?
Mr. Wallace: Thank you for the question. It’s a big question. We do know there are labour and skill shortages in a variety of areas. At the same time, Canada’s post-secondary education system is quite robust, and there are a lot of programs that are offered within Canada in order to fill those gaps.
With respect to the international private, for-profit schools, there are students in a range of programs internationally. The one area that comes to mind that may relate to your question is in the health care space. We do know that there are a number of students who train to become health care professionals internationally, such as those studying medicine in the Caribbean in particular. There are a number of private, for-profit medical schools in the Caribbean.
We have looked at that. Tuition is incredibly high. I think St. George’s University tuition for medical school is around US$76,000, which is astronomical. I believe the University of Toronto is C$30,000 by comparison, so the tuition is a lot higher.
The Canada Student Financial Assistance Program has maximums. It only provides a certain amount per year for a student who is non-disabled and has no children. The max is around $14,000 to $15,000. So it’s not even close to covering the amount required to go to that particular school.
In addition, we know that if students graduate from that program, they don’t have preferential access to Canadian residency spots, so they are treated like other international medical graduates. We know that the rate at which those graduates are able to access residency spots in Canada is low. And I’m sure you know all about that.
Senator Osler: I wasn’t thinking about the physicians. I was thinking more along the lines of health care workers like some of the technologists who run CT scanners and MRI scanners because there is a shortage in Canada of those types of health care workers.
I think I’m hearing that for those international private, for‑profit institutions, you have a list but not necessarily data on what types of programs they offer. Are they offering programs in sectors where we know we have shortages?
Mr. Wallace: Many schools offer many programs, so it can get very complicated quickly. We do have some of that data, absolutely, for the students whom we fund.
In terms of some of the programs that you gave examples of, we do know there are spots in Canada that are available. We’re trying to provide an incentive for students to study where they will have better educational outcomes and better job prospects but also at a lower cost.
Senator McPhedran: I have a lot of questions related to this division, but I’m struggling with Division 36 amending the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. I have a number of preliminary questions to build to the core of my concern.
First of all, am I correct in concluding that Bill C-15 obliges the minister to deny financial assistance to all qualifying students studying outside of Canada at designated educational institutions that are privately owned, run for profit and offer post‑secondary‑level courses, which we’ve just been discussing. Who determines who is on that list?
Mr. Wallace: Thank you for the question. You’re correct; that is the proposal. I will note that later on in the proposed legislation, there is a transitional provision for existing students, but I can speak to that later if there is interest.
Essentially, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program would make that determination. What we’ve done is we look at various sources of information. For example, the United States has a good repository that allows us to determine whether an institution is private and for-profit.
Senator McPhedran: Forgive me, but I’m going to try to hone in on my question. Who gives that list to the minister? Within the federal system, where does the list of questionable institutions with questionable funding come from? What department or agency gives that list?
Mr. Wallace: It’s Employment and Social Development Canada, and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program is part of that department.
Senator McPhedran: I’m trying to better understand the target group. It strikes me that it’s foreign international students.
Mr. Wallace: No. Just to clarify, the program is only available to Canadians and permanent residents. It’s not for students who are not citizens or permanent residents. It’s also available to protected persons under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Senator McPhedran: If I had more time, I would go to proposed section 6.5 and ask specific questions about whether facilitating could actually lead to suppression of freedom of expression under the Charter, but I don’t have time.
The Chair: Would you like Mr. Wallace to answer that question in writing?
Senator McPhedran: It’s proposed paragraph 6.5(a) that I am looking at:
. . . facilitate the commission by the qualifying students or designated educational institutions of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament . . . .
So it’s “facilitate”?
The Chair: We don’t have time for an answer now, so a reply in writing would be appreciated, Mr. Wallace.
Senator Hay: I want to get back to outcome measures, if I may, Ms. Thorne. You talked about reducing stigma — that was the dialogue here — and with kindness. It was about students bringing in sealed envelopes. I’m just channelling if I were that young person who had the empty sealed envelope. That in itself I found uncomfortable for a young person and their mental health and well-being.
I do want to hone in on outcome measures. That’s an important thing here. How do we know that we’ve reduced stigma? As Senator Muggli asked, how do we know their marks will be better? How is their well-being? How is their mental health?
Second is the accountability on the spend of dollars. I know you’re a funder, but a funder should also ask for accountability from the provinces and territories on how they spend. Does it get through and get spent? How do you know if they are spending it to buy a refrigerator so that a community in Sioux Lookout can store their milk?
Ms. Thorne: Thank you for that. As I had mentioned earlier, the provinces and territories are required to give us annual reporting, which also includes audited financial statements, so we can see where the investments were made.
Senator Hay: When you say you’re just a funder, the review of the program isn’t up to you. This question was asked: When is it reviewed? You said you are a funder, so you don’t necessarily review the program. I guess what I’m hearing is that’s different than the accountability from the provinces and territories?
Ms. Thorne: The question, if I’m not mistaken, was around the review of legislation. But, yes, we are responsible for the review of annual reports and audited financial statements, and when approved, that triggers payment.
Senator Hay: Reports from each province and territory?
Ms. Thorne: Exactly.
Senator Hay: Thank you for that. I appreciate it.
Senator Muggli: My question is for Mr. Wallace. What is the history of this policy? Why do we do this? How long have we done this? And would there be an impact of stopping this program on students with sports scholarships outside of the country?
Mr. Wallace: Thank you for the questions. The Canada Student Financial Assistance Program, formerly the Canada Student Loans Program, has been around since 1964. The decision on whether to provide funding is based on an assessment of financial need. Students have long been able to go overseas or outside of the country to access post-secondary education and benefit from student financial assistance if they have financial need. That’s been around for quite some time.
With respect to your question about sports scholarships, it’s separate. If a student is entitled to a sports scholarship to study outside of the country, any changes to this program would not impact that.
If that student were receiving a scholarship and also previously eligible for student financial assistance, going forward the student would no longer be eligible for that portion. That would be the one nuance, but it wouldn’t impact their scholarship at all.
Senator Muggli: If a Saskatchewan student gets a hockey scholarship at a school in North Dakota, they will still be able to access funding from this program?
Mr. Wallace: They will still be able to access the scholarship.
Senator Muggli: But they won’t be able to apply for additional funding?
Mr. Wallace: That’s correct.
Senator Muggli: But they can now?
Mr. Wallace: Well, they can apply, but, generally, those scholarships are fairly generous. That would most likely render them ineligible for funding through this program because their resources would be assessed as being too high.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Senior: I want to ask a question similar to Senator Muggli’s question in terms of what got us here.
You mentioned the lack of domestic oversight, Mr. Wallace. I want to understand how we got here and why this change is being made. Also, is it open to graduate students? That is an additional question.
For Ms. Thorne, I am curious about how you assess the needs of a province or territory. When I think of, let’s say, Nunavut and the expense of food, for example, how do you assess the need? It certainly can’t be one size fits all.
Mr. Wallace: I can begin. The Canada Student Financial Assistance Program supports students studying not just at the undergraduate level but also the graduate level and the college diploma level. This change would impact students studying internationally at any level, to be clear.
What got us here? We’ve been doing a lot of analysis on the program in recent years. In part, there was a commitment in Budget 2024 to review the designated institution status of private educational institutions. As part of that work, we looked at who we were funding and what for. We did observe concerns with private, for-profit international institutions.
In particular, some recruitment practices have been shown to be predatory in nature. We do have concerns about the costs, which I’ve already mentioned. We do have concerns about the outcomes of students attending some of these schools.
I did talk about the lack of domestic oversight. Taken together, it was decided that in order to reduce the risk to students and then also to the Crown, the government would no longer fund students to go to these institutions.
We do have evidence. There are studies that document these concerns that I’ve raised. I would note as well that the federal government provides funding to students. Provinces also provide funding. Generally, it is a 60-40 split. Ontario does not provide funding for any students to go outside of Canada. This is a practice that is already in place at the provincial level in Ontario.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Ms. Thorne: To your questions around how we look at the need and the expenses for need, part of the bilateral agreements that we have with each province and territory stipulates that they must provide two action plans. We have a current three-year agreement. In year one, they gave us an action plan. For years two and three, they are required to give us action plans as well.
The action plan outlines an overview of school food programming that currently exists in a particular jurisdiction. It also outlines what those activities are going to be or are intended for. They also speak to planned expenditures and expected results and how they will implement that with the funding that is provided.
As I think I mentioned earlier, there is a section of the action plan which includes collaboration with Indigenous partners as well as official language minority communities. I know from having discussions with provinces and territories that they also consult and engage heavily with their school districts and education bodies, et cetera.
Senator Burey: Mr. Wallace, I’m going to ask you a question. You have a lot of data. Thank you very much. I am impressed.
Could you share what data the federal government has on the demographics of the students expected to be affected by this measure, particularly GBA Plus and that kind of stuff, which is often done? Who will be affected?
Mr. Wallace: That’s a good question. I may have to follow up to give you precise data on that because I can get it for you.
I can say that with respect to the program as a whole, around 60% of our clients are women. It stands to reason that there would be a similar proportion of students impacted by this measure. In addition, around 11% of our students have a disability, so it stands to reason that a similar proportion could apply here.
If you’re interested, I can provide more information.
Senator Burey: More demographics such as ethnicity, race and that sort of thing — you wouldn’t have that is what you’re saying to me?
Mr. Wallace: No.
Senator Burey: You alluded to trying to give these students access to more information about schools that may be a better fit.
Mr. Wallace: Yes. The idea is to encourage them to pursue their studies at schools that would provide them with better educational outcomes at a more reasonable cost. This would be sort of a deterrent to go to those types of private schools —
Senator Burey: So it’s basically a deterrent. It’s not going to be proactive to give them any information about it — I got your answer. I’m going to ask Ms. Thorne so that I don’t run out of time. If you could find that, it would be good to give us that analysis.
Again, I wanted to applaud the National School Food Program. I know it’s baby steps, and we’re just continuing to go on. I think the program stated that it was targeting at least 400,000 students. Can you give us any information — I know it’s new. Is that the answer?
Ms. Thorne: It’s very new. As I think I had mentioned earlier, the provinces and territories are required to give us annual reporting. We’re starting to receive those annual reports, and that will continue into the new year. Any that we have or any analysis is not complete yet.
Senator Burey: So that reporting is coming. What do you project to be the number of students that you’ll add each year?
Ms. Thorne: The program aims to reach up to 400,000 children. Of course, that may be different. Like we say, it aims to reach up to 400,000 children. It depends. That number was based on the cost of a breakfast, if all children got a breakfast in, say, the first year of the program. We know that provinces and territories have the flexibility to be able to determine the needs in their jurisdictions and their communities. Some may provide breakfast while others may provide lunch. Depending on what the food offerings are, those costs could be a little bit higher. Those numbers may fluctuate in terms of reach, but the aim is up to 400,000 children.
The Chair: I have a quick question. I understand you’re getting reporting from institutions and from provinces. Are you taking reports from families — from the people who receive the food programs?
The standards across this country about what are nutritional foods and what is offered can be quite different. Are we trying to understand from the perspective of the child and the family that’s receiving this help regarding the adequacy of what is being offered?
Ms. Thorne: We are not getting feedback directly from families, certainly not to the federal government. We are doing some work in the area of data and research and looking at what some of those gaps are. As I said, that work is very new as well, so I’m hoping over the next year or two, we’ll be able to tell a better story of what some of those gaps and challenges are, and then we can identify some of those priority areas for the future of the program.
The Chair: I’m hoping that I got it right because I don’t want to speak out of turn, but I do think I heard you say that you will be asking for feedback from territories and Indigenous communities and governments to participate and to add to your evaluation of the program, but this will be voluntary.
Ms. Thorne: What I had alluded to was that in the bilateral agreements — which are all public and online, and you can read about the action plans as well — we also say that they can provide us with any evaluation or studies that they do themselves as well, but, yes, you’re right.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, there is one thing that I need to say because we’ve had a lot of offers for information. We are planning to try to wrap up this study tomorrow. So I’m asking Ms. Thorne and Mr. Wallace, out of the kindness and largeness of your heart, if you could share with us the information you have promised by the end of the day or early tomorrow morning, please.
Ms. Thorne: I think we can do that.
The Chair: This brings us to the end of this meeting. I’d like to thank both of you for your time and for being with us today.
Senators, for our next meeting tomorrow, we will be considering our report. I would strongly suggest that you send in any observations you may have in advance to the clerk in both official languages so that we are prepared to adopt the draft report as quickly as possible, with the support of Mr. Wallace’s data and Ms. Thorne’s data. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)