Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content

43rd PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • No. 049

CONTENTS

Monday, January 25, 2021




Emblem of the House of Commons

House of Commons Debates

Volume 150
No. 049
2nd SESSION
43rd PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Monday, January 25, 2021

Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota

    The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayer


  (1105)  

[Translation]

Business of the House

[Business of the House]
    There have been discussions among the parties, and I believe that, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
     That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, until Wednesday, June 23, 2021:
(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference;
(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House are counted for the purpose of quorum;
(c) any reference in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual nature of the proceedings;
(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;
(e) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;
(f) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;
(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:
(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,
(ii) during Routine Proceedings, members who participate remotely may table documents or present petitions or reports to the House electronically, provided that the documents are transmitted to the Clerk prior to their intervention,
(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the Clerk electronically;
(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;
(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;
(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;
(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to motions relating to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and (18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,
(i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or
(ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;
provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;
(k) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred on a Wednesday governed by this order, to no later than the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, or to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

  (1110)  

(l) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);
(m) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;
(n) until such a time as a remote voting application is ready to use, recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person and by roll call for members participating by videoconference, provided that members participating by videoconference must have their camera on for the duration of the vote;

[English]

(o) in relation to the development of a remote voting application, the House administration be directed to begin the onboarding process of all members as soon as possible and conduct two comprehensive simulations with all members being invited to attend;
(p) after the two simulations outlined in paragraph (o) have been completed and after the Speaker has received a notice from the House leaders of all recognized parties in the House stating that they are satisfied that the remote voting application is ready to be used, starting the next sitting day and concluding on Wednesday, June 23, 2021, the Speaker shall so inform the House and recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means for all other members, provided that:
(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada through the House of Commons electronic voting application using the member's House-managed mobile device and the member's personal House of Commons account, and that each vote requires visual identity validation,
(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,
(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person task precedence,
(iv) any technical issues encountered by:
(A) members of recognized parties shall be brought to the attention of their respective whip, and that whip may then rise before the results are announced to indicate to the Speaker the voting intention of the identified members of their party,
(B) members not part of a recognized party shall be brought to the attention of the Speaker and the member shall immediately confirm to the Speaker how they cast their vote, before the results are announced,
(v) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,
(vi) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,
(vii) any question to be resolved by a secret ballot be excluded from this order; and
(q) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference and witnesses shall participate remotely, provided that the priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

  (1115)  

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,
(ii) except for those decided unanimously or "on division", all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,
(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,
(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,
(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,
(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filled with the clerk of each committee by email, and
r) that, following the adoption of this order, the sitting be suspended to the call of the Chair to permit members to participate by videoconference, and, when the sitting resumes, the House shall proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business for a maximum of one hour.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something.

[English]

    I first want to say that I am pleased to be here with my colleagues to work on behalf of all Canadians.

[Translation]

    I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that paragraph j) of the motion brought forward by the minister that we just agreed to adopt states the following:
j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to motions relating to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84....
    When the minister was reading it earlier she said, “relating to the project debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84”.
    I would like the minister to confirm whether we are talking about a “budget” or a “project”.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, this is on the standing order.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, let me be even more specific.
    The minister has the text in front of her. Let us look at paragraph j), which is on line 6. The minister read the word “project”, but the text we agreed to adopt uses the word “budget”. I believe the minister said “project”, but the word should have been “budget”. Could she just clarify that she meant to say “budget”?
    Mr. Speaker, “budget” is the right word.
    Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (Motion agreed to)

Suspension of Sitting 

    We will suspend for five to ten minutes to let members join the sitting virtually.

    (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:19 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed  

    (The House resumed at 11:28 a.m.)

  (1125)  

Message from the Senate

    I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Private Members' Business]

[Translation]

Criminal Code

    The House resumed from October 27, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (possession of unlawfully imported firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today as Parliament resumes its work. I hope that you had a good holiday. It is nice to see you again, Madam Speaker.
    I am very pleased to speak to gun control, an issue that has broad consensus in Quebec. I thank my colleague from Markham—Unionville for his work and for introducing this bill that seeks to amend the Criminal Code to imposes harsher sentences on those who unlawfully import firearms.
    I will begin by sharing the Bloc Québécois' criticisms of Bill C-238. I will also take this opportunity to point out that the Liberal government made commitments to prohibit all military-style assault rifles, ban semi-automatic assault rifles and give municipalities the authority to ban handguns. Those commitments have been slow to materialize.
    It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports stricter gun control, especially for handguns. The vast majority of Quebeckers agree. This bill needs to be studied in committee, but we do have some concerns, which I will come back to.
    We all want to combat violence, and more specifically gun violence. Given the dire consequences, there is no excuse for the Canadian government's complacent attitude towards gun control.
    I want to talk about a few deeply disturbing stories.
    “A troubled, hate-filled young man was able to kill six people, seriously wound five and traumatize 25 others for life, including four children, in less than two minutes, because he had easy access to firearms. This is what someone armed with a Glock pistol and five 10-round magazines can do.” That is a quote from the co-founder of the Quebec City mosque, about the massacre that happened there on January 29, 2017. Everyone remembers that tragic day in Quebec's capital city.
    What we find so very upsetting is that the weapon used was acquired legally. The legal availability of handguns has not changed even though a September 2019 Angus Reid poll showed that 72% of Quebeckers want more restrictions on access to handguns.
    There has been no progress despite the fact that seven out of 10 Canadians support a handgun ban. The federal government could have been expected to take this statistic more seriously. Moreover, there has been no progress despite Statistics Canada data showing that the number of gun homicides grew steadily from 2016 to 2019, an increase that closely tracked the dismantling of measures—

  (1130)  

    I have to interrupt the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia because the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the interpreter has indicated twice that the sound quality is not good enough for her to interpret. Maybe we could look into getting that fixed.

[Translation]

    We have to check the sound quality because the interpreter is having a hard time hearing the member. I see that the hon. member has her headphones and microphone on. Is everything plugged in?
    The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the interpreter also indicated that there are other people who are not muted, which is making it difficult for the interpreters to hear.

[Translation]

    I would like to remind all members participating virtually that they have to mute their microphone so that the interpreters can hear only the person speaking.
    The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

  (1135)  

    There has been no progress despite data from Statistics Canada showing that the number of gun homicides increased every year between 2016 and 2019 and that this surge in homicides tracks closely with the Harper government's major dismantling of control measures starting in 2012.
    In a letter sent to the Minister of Public Safety in November 2019, relatives of victims of the shootings at the Polytechnique, Dawson College, and the Quebec City mosque, as well as the father of a police officer killed in the line of duty, unanimously called on the Liberal government to implement an immediate moratorium on the sale of assault weapons and a permanent ban on the importation and manufacture of handguns.
    As members know, in August 2018, Montreal city council passed a motion calling on the federal government to ban assault weapons and handguns. The mayor of Montreal, Valérie Plante, stated at the time that approximately 30% of violent crimes committed between 2013 and 2016 involved a weapon and that two-thirds of these were handguns. Despite all these good reasons to take action to more broadly limit access to weapons, gun violence continues to be widespread on our streets. Bill C-238 specifically seeks to amend the Criminal Code to impose tougher penalties on those who illegally import firearms, with minimum sentences of three years for a first offence and five years or more for repeat offences.
    Increasing the length of minimum sentences is a good thing, but we are concerned that this will unfortunately not have a marked impact on the importation of illegal weapons. More importantly, we are concerned that it will not have a significant impact on reducing violence in our communities.
    The Conservatives' desire to address the issue of access to firearms is legitimate, but is it genuine? Unfortunately, history has shown us otherwise. My concern is that a bill like this one could be used as a justification for refusing to support broader restrictions on military-style assault weapons and handguns.
    Although organized crime groups often use imported or stolen weapons, and I strongly believe we need to address this issue, a large number of violent crimes are committed with weapons that were legally imported or obtained, as was the case with the attacks at the Quebec City mosque, Dawson College, the former Métropolis and École Polytechnique in Montreal. At the end of the day, if we want to stop such massacres from happening, we need to ban handguns and military-style assault rifles, which exist only to kill human beings and have no place in our society.
    How are they still allowed in this country? How have successive federal governments ignored calls from Quebeckers and Canadians to ban these weapons, which are designed to slaughter human beings and carry out unspeakable acts of violence? The government has made promises in the past.
    In September 2019, the Prime Minister said that assault weapons, like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifles used in many massacres in recent years, would be banned if Canadians re-elected the Liberal Party. He also said that a Liberal government would work with the provinces to empower municipalities to ban handguns.
    This is meant to be a cautious approach, but the government has yet to follow through. We have to wonder how cautious an approach can be if people continue to have access to such deadly weapons after Quebec and the rest of Canada have experienced—

  (1140)  

    I am sorry to have to interrupt the member again, but there seems to be a problem with an echo.
    When I speak French, do the members hear the interpretation well?
    The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has done everything she can. All I can do is ask her to speak more slowly for the rest of her speech in hopes that that will help the interpreters.
    I am so sorry, Madam Speaker.
    We are in the midst of a crisis, a pandemic, and countless people have been victims of the deadly combination of increased violence and greater psychological distress. If the Liberal government truly wanted to do the responsible thing about firearms, now would be the time.
    Tougher restrictions should have been implemented a long time ago. It is time to take action. Bill C-238 may not look like it would have a negative impact on efforts to control firearm usage, but it does not fix the problem. Sadly, it is not the answer we are seeking to a much bigger problem. The government cannot and must not allow itself to believe that this kind of measure counts as taking action on gun control. This measure is a sneaky and downright dishonest response to the pleas of thousands of families whose loved ones were collateral victims of shootings that have happened over the years in our communities, whether the weapons involved were legally imported or not.
    We would of course like to see this bill sent to committee for study. I hope the other opposition parties will be supportive and that the government will work with us to bring in broader, more restrictive measures, because the safety of our fellow citizens is at stake.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, I wish everyone a happy new year. It is very good to be here in the House again virtually, and I certainly hope that 2021 will be much better than 2020.
    Today I am here to speak about Bill C-238, a bill that talks about the possession of unlawfully imported firearms.
    I represent a rural riding. I grew up in a household where several of my family members were legal gun owners. They followed the rules, and I was taught gun safety as a matter of respect. I grew up eating wild meat, and hunting was a significant part of my family life.
    I have met with many legal gun owners in my riding who have talked about the frustration they feel about the rules always focusing on them rather than addressing their legitimate concerns about illegal guns and how they get into our communities. This is such an important subject.
    I have also heard from constituents across Canada who are very concerned about gun violence in their communities. We heard a couple of examples earlier today. We look at the realities of domestic violence when guns are used and the awful violence we have seen across Canada, and I believe that all Canadians really want to see this addressed.
    Today I am here to specifically discuss the bill before us, which would amend section 96 of the Criminal Code to impose a mandatory sentence of three years for possession of a firearm known to be illegally imported to Canada, increase the maximum sentence from 10 to 14 years and a few others things. This is an offence that I agree should be taken very seriously. In fact, an amendment like this to the Criminal Code would be something I could discuss and agree to. However, this bill is written in a way that will lead it to follow the same path a similar bill did in 2013, and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled it unconstitutional.
    I have worked with the House of Commons legislative team to write several pieces of legislation. This is a lot of hard work, and I know that the amazing folks here provide feedback about what will work and what may have some potential challenges for the legal system in Canada. I am very curious about why the member has brought forward legislation that is unconstitutional, when the need to bring forward laws to improve this gap is so very important. I am not interested in supporting legislation that will be defeated in the Supreme Court of Canada, cost a lot of taxpayer dollars and not support the safety of communities.
    Not too long ago, I met with a group of gun owners in my riding. It was a very informative meeting, and what I heard repeatedly were two main points: One, when we look at gun policy in Canada, we must have a renewed focus on keeping illegal guns out of our country; and two, we need more education in Canada about the strong rules we have around guns, which would allow people to better understand the rules and hopefully create a sense of increased safety. I will address both of these points today.
    I agree that keeping illegal guns out of Canada must be something we see an increased investment in. Between 2011 and 2015, we saw the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, under the previous Conservative government, cut over 1,000 positions. This is important because it has left a significant gap in the capacity of CBSA to do the work to reduce the number of guns being smuggled into Canada illegally. This concerns me greatly.
    About two years ago, a constituent invited me to come to the shooting range with him in the riding. He wanted to showcase the rules and how he followed them. I agreed so that I could learn the realities of these folks in my region.
    The first thing he told me was that I would have to come to his house to ride with him, as he could not stop his vehicle to pick me up with a gun in his vehicle. The rules in Canada meant that he had to go straight to the range. At his home, he showed me the way he stored his guns, separate from ammunition and with everything locked away. He also showed me how guns were safely transported. I learned a lot that day, and I really appreciate the time he took with me.
    He also shared that he felt very concerned about gun violence in Canada. He knew that the things that had happened across our country, that had seen people killed and had brought fear to our communities, were very concerning and needed to be addressed in a meaningful way. He also felt that the majority of gun owners follow the rules very carefully. Figuring out how to identify the ones that did not and stopping the movement of illegal guns were his main priorities.

  (1145)  

     In 2018, our leader wrote a letter to the Prime Minister challenging the government to address the root causes of gun violence in our communities, the key things that really should be addressed in a meaningful way, such as poverty, substantive housing, and addressing people before they get to a place where violence has become an everyday reality. He also asked the PM to increase supports to the CBSA to give it the capacity to stem the illegal flow of guns from the United States into our country. What have Canadians seen? At this point, the Liberals have only returned 200 positions of the 1,000 the Conservatives cut. That is simply not enough.
    I also want to say that I agree with my constituents and the idea that Canadians need to better understand the rules legal gun owners follow in this country. A few years back, I took a course required for Canadians to receive their possession and acquisition licence. Sid Nielsen, a constituent of mine, has been teaching this course for many years and has done a fantastic job.
    My classmates were a wide variety of people. I remember one in particular was a woman who had no plan to ever use a gun, but her husband owned several, and they wanted to make sure that, if anything happened to him, she could follow the rules of keeping the guns safe. I think this speaks to a really important point, which is that there are many important stories of how people are trying to be safe in Canada.
    It is time to take a stand that is meaningful. I hope this member takes the intent that I believe he meant and creates legislation that is actually constitutional, so we can start to address in a meaningful way how to stop illegal guns from coming into our country.
    I also hope to continue to push the Prime Minister to make sure that our communities are safer and provide more resources where they are needed in the front lines to stop gun violence and also to make sure that we have more CBSA agents to stem the flow of illegal guns into Canada. Gun violence is very scary. I think when Canadians across this country look at some of the terrible realities we have faced, we want to make sure that the laws are there to protect us all. Let us work on that together.

  (1150)  

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the possession of unlawfully imported firearms. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, for his thoughtful and hard work on this critical issue.
    I am extremely proud to represent the people of South Surrey—White Rock and to call this beautiful part of our great nation my home, but despite the many great things about this vibrant, wholesome community, my constituents and I share a growing concern about gang-related gun violence on our streets. Over the holidays, tragedy struck our community and nearby. On December 28, Tequel Willis was shot eight times as he exited a taxi in Surrey. Tequel was 14 years old. He was pronounced dead on the scene. He is believed to be the youngest-ever victim of gang violence in B.C.
    A day earlier, emergency services responded to a call for help in Surrey and found 19-year-old Harman Singh Dhesi with gunshot wounds. He later died in hospital. Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. In a four-day stretch earlier this month, 28-year-old Dilraj Johal from Surrey was found dead with gunshot wounds in neighbouring Richmond; Anees Mohammed, 29, was shot and killed in Steveston Community Park, which is in a riding close to mine; and Gary Kang, 24, was gunned down in his parents' Surrey home, which is actually very close to where I live. Something needs to be done to address this grim reality.
    Our hard-working Canadian border agents who process around 100 million travellers annually have seized more than 4,200 guns at the border since 2014, but despite their best efforts, which I commend them for, experts believe many smuggled guns go undetected. While it is difficult to know exactly how many firearms get through customs illegally, some estimates suggest 70% or more of crime guns in Canada are smuggled in. We also know that two in five homicides committed in Canada in 2019 were committed with a firearm, 60% of which were handguns.
    I am concerned not only because of the recent violence in my community, but also because my Lower Mainland riding shares a border with the United States. Along that border are two legal border crossings, Douglas and Pacific Highway. My community is also home to the Peace Arch Provincial Park, which runs along the border and allows visitors from both sides to visit without officially making entry into the neighbouring country. In addition to the southern border, B.C. shares a second border with Alaska, and the harbours along our Pacific coast receive international shipments every day.
    Our neighbours to the south are our closest allies, our biggest trading partner and, in many cases, our friends and family, but the fact remains that it is much easier to access guns south of the border and too many of those guns are winding up on Canadian soil. That is why I support my Conservative colleague's private member's bill to increase the penalties for the possession of unlawfully imported firearms. Bill C-238 would address the problem in two ways: by increasing mandatory sentencing and making it more difficult for persons charged to be released on bail.
    Let us first consider the mandatory sentencing. If one is prosecuted by indictment, this bill would raise the minimum sentence for possessing an unlawfully imported firearm that the person knows was obtained by the commission of a crime from one to three years, and the maximum sentence from 10 years to 14 years. Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out six objectives for sentencing. The first three are (a) denouncing unlawful conduct, (b) deterring offenders and (c) separating offenders from society. The increased sentences under Bill C-238 would accomplish all three.
    The longer sentences would make clear to all Canadians that the possession of a smuggled firearm is a serious offence that will not be tolerated, effectively denouncing the activity in the clearest of terms. The threat of an increased penalty would deter some criminals from possessing these smuggled arms. This deterrence, in effect, should also affect the supply chain. Less demand for smuggled guns should mean less smuggled guns in the first place. As for separating offenders from society, those convicted of this dangerous crime would be kept off the streets for longer, ensuring that they are unable to commit additional, potentially dangerous, crimes.
    Last October, the NDP member for St. John's East argued, as did the member for North Island—Powell River today, that the mandatory minimums in this bill are unconstitutional. Both members pointed to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in R. v. Nur.

  (1155)  

    In that case, the court struck down the minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition, but the law in that case is distinguishable from the bill at hand.
    In Nur, Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, reasoned that the three-year minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition violated section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment, because when applied not to the actual facts of that case but to reasonably foreseeable facts, the sentence would not fit the crime.
    One reasonably foreseeable scenario the court used as a hypothetical was “the licensed and responsible gun owner who stores his unloaded firearm safely with ammunition nearby, but makes a mistake as to where it can be stored.” The court explained that in this reasonably foreseeable hypothetical, the minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the crime. According to the court, the “bottom line” was that the possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition offence “foreseeably catches licensing offences that involve little or no moral fault and little or no danger to the public. For these offences three years' imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to a fit and fair sentence.”
    Clearly, the court's reasoning in Nur would not apply here. The possession of an illegal smuggled firearm that the accused knows was obtained through crime is not a mere licensing offence involving no moral fault or danger to the public. There is no reasonably foreseeable scenario in which someone, by licensing error or otherwise, accidentally violates the law against possession of a smuggled firearm that they knew was illegally obtained. To the contrary, these are guns that are bought and sold on the black market with their serial numbers shaved off, used in the commission of dangerous crimes. The mandatory minimums in the bill, I believe, are both constitutional and warranted.
    The bill would also subject those charged with possession of a smuggled firearm to reverse-onus bail. For most crimes, the onus at the bail hearing is on the prosecution to show why the accused should be detained. However, subsection 515(6) would provide that for several enumerated crimes, this onus would be reversed, and instead the accused would have to show why they should be released.
    Under the current scheme, several firearm-related offences already call for reverse-onus bail. This includes weapons trafficking and possession for purposes of weapons trafficking.
    As mentioned earlier, my community has recently experienced a spike in gun violence, with victims tragically as young as 14 years old. As a member of Parliament and mother, there is no higher moral obligation for me than the need to keep our children and communities safe. Simply put, this bill would make my community and many like it across Canada safer places to live. That is why I support Bill C-238 and urge other members to do the same.
    Madam Speaker, happy new year to you and to all my colleagues joining us virtually from around the country. It is a pleasure to see everyone and to reconnect in this format.
    I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-238, which was introduced by the member for Markham—Unionville in February of last year and would propose to amend the Criminal Code, as we have heard throughout the discussions this morning.
    First of all, I applaud the laudable objective of curbing illegal gun activity and I appreciate that the sponsor sees these measures as important for targeting organized criminal activity. Violence through firearms poses a real and significant public safety risk to many communities, including those that have experienced mass shootings. Nevertheless, I am of the view that this bill should not be supported, and I will explain why.
    The government has repeatedly acknowledged that gun violence and gun crime is an increasing problem in Canadian society that needs to be addressed with a comprehensive strategy. This was recently reiterated in the Speech from the Throne in September of 2020. That is why the mandate letters of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety have committed to the implementation of a robust set of firearms amendments, including the imposition of stronger penalties for gun smuggling. It is also why the government has already taken concrete steps to curb firearms violence, including the May 1, 2020, prohibition on military-style assault rifles with a two-year Criminal Code amnesty and a buyback program.

  (1200)  

[Translation]

    On May 1, 2020, the government delivered on its commitment regarding military-style assault weapons by implementing a regulation banning 1,500 models of assault-style firearms that pose a significant threat to public safety and are not necessary for hunting or sport shooting.
    The government also issued an order to give law-abiding firearms owners a two-year amnesty period to protect them from criminal liability while they take steps to comply with the act. By so doing, the government was clear: It took measures to enhance public safety while reducing unnecessary risk for the public. As part of these measures, the government also sought to guarantee that law-abiding firearms owners would not be punished.
    I strongly believe that this balanced and comprehensive approach is preferable to the narrower approach proposed by the bill. The illegal firearms market in Canada is primarily supplied by smuggled firearms or firearms stolen from private residents or commercial establishments. Given its proximity to Canada, the United States is the primary source of firearms for Canada, particularly handguns smuggled into Canada. The majority of illegal firearms in the U.S. originate in the U.S., but may occasionally come from other countries, such as Canada.

[English]

    Reducing firearms smuggling into Canada is a key part in the fight to reduce access to illegal firearms in this country. Smuggled firearms that make their way into communities are a serious public safety issue and can be used to commit serious offences tied to organized crime. Bill C-238 proposes to increase the maximum penalty and the mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment for the possession of a smuggled firearm, prohibited weapon or other object. Bill C-238 would also impose a reverse onus on an accused in an application for judicial interim release, more commonly known as bail, when the accused is charged with the possession of a smuggled weapon. This means that unless the accused can demonstrate why their pretrial detention was not justified, they would remain in custody pending trial.
    While the objectives of the private member's bill are well intentioned in that they propose to address firearms crime among other things, the government does not support the bill, as it raises serious legal and policy concerns, some of which have been addressed by earlier speakers. Given the scope of the offence, I am very concerned that the increased mandatory minimum penalties would lead to significant charter scrutiny, but just as important, mandatory minimum penalties generally produce system inefficiencies and delays in the criminal justice system. They are also known to have disproportionately negative impacts on indigenous peoples, Black and other visible minority Canadians, something that should be of key concern to all parliamentarians as we confront and seek to address the systemic racism that is pernicious in the criminal justice system.
    In addition, the reverse onus would be novel in the current bail regime and would treat accused persons charged with the same offence differently, depending on how the possessed firearm was illegally obtained.
    The government has been in the process of considering these important issues for quite some time. In October of 2018, the Minister of Public Safety began a series of consultations with Canadians on the issue of handguns and assault-style firearms. The consultations included eight in-person round tables with 77 stakeholders' written submissions, and almost 135,000 Canadians responded to an online questionnaire. The summary report published on April 11, 2019, indicated that Canadians believe that a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach is needed to combat firearms violence in Canada. Of note, firearms smuggling and border security were identified as among the most prominent concerns of Canadians.

  (1205)  

[Translation]

    The government has comprehensively set out a path forward to address gun violence, including banning assault-style firearms, providing an amnesty period and a firearms buy-back program, and working with provinces and territories to give municipalities the ability to further restrict or ban handguns. The government has taken other measures, such as the establishment of reporting legislation or a type of red alert to make it easier to remove firearms from people who pose a danger to themselves or others, and measures to combat gun smuggling and trafficking.
    Recently, in the Speech from the Throne of September 23, 2020, the government reiterated its commitment to combat firearms smuggling.

[English]

    When the Minister of Public Safety announced the ban, he also announced that the government would be introducing other measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, including increasing safe storage requirements and strengthening the law around firearms smuggling and trafficking. The government has made funding of up to $327 million available over five years through the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence, combat gun-related violence and gang activities, including by supporting law enforcement in community-led projects focused on prevention.
    It is my understanding that more than $200 million is now flowing directly to the provinces and territories to target initiatives that best meet the unique needs of individual communities to advance efforts in the areas of prevention, gang exit, outreach and awareness training, as well as enhanced intelligence sharing and law enforcement capacity. With the funding allocations, jurisdictions have made investments to support new law enforcement activities, including specialized training and education initiatives and improving data collection and information sharing.

[Translation]

    As far as reducing gun violence is concerned, the government knows that a comprehensive approach must also include measures to remove from the market guns that present the biggest danger to public safety, as well as a combination of measures on the criminal use of firearms, including preventive measures and law enforcement, as well as harsher sentences.

[English]

    Although the laudable objectives of this bill may be well-intentioned, I remain of the view that a more comprehensive approach, with the benefit of parliamentary review and debate in both Houses, would be the more appropriate course of action. I urge all members, therefore, to oppose this bill.
    Madam Speaker, it is good to be back and to see all members here.
    I rise today to urge my colleagues to support my private member's bill, Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to possession of unlawfully imported firearms, a bill that would put the criminals using smuggled guns behind bars for longer and make communities safer by raising the standards on dangerous criminals being released on bail.
    This is a bill that all GTA residents need and have been calling for. The numbers do not lie. Since 2015, gun violence has grown in Toronto. In 2018, there were record high numbers of deaths. In 2019, there were record high numbers of shootings.
    The year 2020 should have been different, as COVID-19 forced people to work from home, and millions of GTA residents changed their routines. The active nightlife, festivals and events were all cancelled. Once very busy streets were now ghost towns. However, that did not stop the violence at all. In 2020, even with a worldwide pandemic, there were over 450 shootings and 40 deaths.
    Gun violence has become all too common in places that used to be considered safe. The stories of people waking up to gunshots or being called about loved ones' deaths are heartbreaking. Those people have been promised action but have not seen any results.
    I believe the Liberal government has approached this issue in the wrong way. It has focused on gun bans. For its plan to work, violent criminals would have to suddenly start following the law. We know that criminals are not getting a licence to buy firearms that would require taking a course and having a background check. Criminals are buying smuggled guns, just like they are buying smuggled drugs. A gun ban would do little, if anything, to stop them.
    The former chief of police of Toronto stated that 82% of handguns used in crimes are smuggled in from the United States. The Ontario solicitor general put the numbers at 84%. More recently, Peel Regional Police reported that 74% of the guns they seized were from south of the border.
    The problem is not just smuggled guns; it is also about how we treat criminals who are caught with these guns. The truth is that when they are arrested, they are released on bail within days. They can have a smuggled gun back in their possession within hours.
    We need to target the criminals using these guns. Criminals need to know that the use of smuggled guns is a serious offence and that they will do real time behind bars if they are caught. As I have said before, there is no excuse for criminals to have these weapons. If someone has a smuggled gun, they are a real threat to public safety. When they are arrested, neighbours do not want them to get out on bail. The former chief of police reported that criminals getting arrested and being released on bail is far too common.
     No one bill will stop the gun violence in Canada, but Bill C-238 is an excellent first step to making my riding of Markham—Unionville and all Canadians safer. I encourage every member to vote for this bill. It would keep dangerous criminals off the streets and save lives. If there are any concerns regarding Bill C-238, they can best be handled in committee.

  (1210)  

    The question is on the motion.

[Translation]

    If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
    To the order made earlier, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 27, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

[English]

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

    Madam Speaker, happy new year to all my colleagues in the House and everybody who is participating in this hybrid Parliament today.
    I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands, and I understand that I will need unanimous consent to be able to do this.

  (1215)  

    This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity I will only ask those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.
    There is unanimous consent. Accordingly, the House has heard the terms of the motion and, there being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, whom I am honoured and blessed to represent in this venerable House on Bill C-14.
    I will be speaking specifically to some of the important measures that are included in Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.
    Since the onset of COVID-19, the Government of Canada has remained steadfast in its commitment to do whatever it takes to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to help Canadian businesses weather the storm. The recently tabled fall economic statement outlined the government's actions to date and proposed new measures to support Canadians through the COVID-19 pandemic. These investments are a down payment on a growth plan of roughly three to four per cent of GDP, or between $70 billion and $100 billion over three years, to jump-start Canada's economy once the virus is under control.
    Bill C-14 is an important step in the government's plan. It would urgently move forward with measures from the fall economic statement that would provide immediate assistance to families with young children, students and businesses, and measures that would help protect the health and safety of Canadians.
    For example, the bill would ensure that Canadians whose Canada emergency response benefit claim has been delayed could receive the income support that they are eligible for after the end of this year. This bill would also amend the Food and Drugs Act to help prevent and alleviate future drug shortages by allowing the government to make regulations to require that pertinent information on potential shortages and activities related to food, drugs and other items be provided to the Minister of Health, when necessary.
    The fall economic statement also moves forward with a plan to set new national standards for long-term care, in recognition of the tragic deaths from COVID-19 that we saw in the spring, in the fall and right now. It seeks to establish a $1 billion safe long-term care fund that would help provinces and territories protect seniors and our most vulnerable. In particular, Bill C-14 would provide funding of up to $505.7 million over the coming months to support long-term care facilities, including funding to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection, outbreaks and deaths in supportive-care facilities.
    Our federal government also recognizes that the emotional and mental health effects of the pandemic on Canadians will continue as we face the second wave and public health measures continue to be in place. Indeed, half of Canadians report that their mental health has worsened during COVID-19. Bill C-14 would provide funding to improve vital access to virtual care and mental health tools. This would include important investments to bolster distress centres and provide further support for the Wellness Together Canada portal, which connects Canadians to peer-support workers, social workers, psychologists and other professionals to help address mental health and substance use issues. These investments would help ensure that Canadians have the mental health support they need when they need it the most.
    In addition to the $505.7 million for long-term care, this bill would provide funding of up to $395.6 million to support a range of initiatives to help Canadians cope during the pandemic and to continue our fight against the virus, including the following: mental health and substance use programming, innovative approaches to COVID-19 testing, virtual care and mental health tools, medical research, treatments and therapeutics, vaccine funding and development, border and travel measures, and isolation sites.
    As the members of the House know well, the spring saw many challenges, as everything shut down across the country to reduce the spread of the virus. Suddenly, kids were out of school, day cares were closed and many families with young children had to find temporary alternatives to their regular child-care arrangements. These challenges often meant higher, unanticipated costs for Canadian families with children.

  (1220)  

    Our federal government is committed to helping the many families who have been struggling with a wide range of expenses as a result, from providing care to buying tools for at-home learning, such as books and computers, and often more costly temporary child-care arrangements.
    That is why the federal government is proposing, through Bill C-14, to provide immediate relief for low- and middle-income families with young children who are entitled to the Canada child benefit or CCB. For these families, we are proposing to provide up to $1,200 in 2021 for each child under the age of six. This would represent an almost 20% increase over the existing maximum annual CCB payment and would have a meaningful impact on families in need of this support during the pandemic.
    This support would automatically be delivered to families who are entitled to the CCB, and have a net income at or below $120,000, through four tax-free payments of $300. Families entitled to the CCB who have a net income above $120,000 would receive four tax-free payments of $150, for a total benefit of $600. The first of these payments would be made within a week or two of the passage of Bill C-14, as I understand, with subsequent payments occurring in April, July and October of 2021.
    This temporary assistance would directly benefit about 1.6 million families and about 2.1 million children during a period when families are still grappling with the financial impacts they are facing as a result of this pandemic.
    We must also recognize how young people continue to suffer from economic impacts due to COVID-19. When the pandemic struck, many students had to leave school. Internships and summer jobs became scarce as Canadians did the right thing and stayed at home. The government is working to ensure that the pandemic does not derail the futures of students. We are determined to take a number of measures to help youth continue in their careers and in their schools.
    In addition to proposed measures from the fall economic statement that would provide more opportunities for young people to gain work experience, our government is also proposing support to ease the financial burden on recent graduates. This important measure, which has received praise from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, would bring $329.4 million in relief to up to 1.4 million Canadians who are looking for work or are in the early stages of their careers.
    It would also help graduates from low- and middle-income families, who tend to have higher overall debt levels, as well as recent graduates with disabilities, given that 37% of borrowers who identified as a person with disabilities participated in the repayment assistance plan of the Canada student loans program in 2017-18.
    In conclusion, it is clear that Canadians need our support to weather the storm as we continue to fight against COVID-19. That is why I implore all hon. members to join me in swiftly passing Bill C-14 to enable the government to move forward with implementing these important measures from the fall economic statement, to protect the health and safety of Canadians, to support students and recent graduates, and to help families with young children in need.
    Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred specifically to something. She said that what the government has been making over almost the last year has been “a down payment on a growth plan”.
    That is so telling. There were two choices at the beginning of this. It was about investing in Canadians and giving them the supports and tools they needed to get through this pandemic so we could come out in a better position than if we had not. The alternative was to essentially let everybody fend for themselves.
    Can the member comment as to how she thinks things would have been had the government not taken these very important steps to invest in Canadians? How much better off will we be as a result of this work?

  (1225)  

    Madam Speaker, when we are introducing these bills and big spending packages, sometimes it is easy, in the way we speak, to forget that COVID-19 is still strong in this country and we are still battling it very strongly.
    The number one thing we need to keep doing is to continue to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In fighting this pandemic, we need to ensure there is enough support for our long-term care facilities, enough support for our families, enough support for our youth, enough support within Health Canada and all the different regions, and enough support for our businesses. We are not going to be able to move forward into a strong economic recovery otherwise. If we did not spend this investment, we would not be able to move forward and restart our economy in a successful way.
    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The raise hand function on Zoom, with the updated software, does not appear to work. I have been attempting to intervene. I think a number of other members have as well. Therefore, that needs to be fixed.
    I would have liked to ask the hon. member a question.
    The hon. member is correct because I did not see any raised hands.
    The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
    Madam Speaker, I wish the hon. member a happy new year.
    The provisions in Bill C-14, as the hon. member mentioned, provide about $100 a month for lower-income families of support for children, yet we know the average costs now for programs for early childhood education run about $2,000 a month.
    My question is very simple. Why are the supports so small for families that are really struggling to make ends meet through this pandemic? Why has the government not actually put into place recommendations that have come from child care advocates across the country to invest vigorously and robustly $2 billion into helping to build the foundation for a national child care system?
    Madam Speaker, I also want to wish the hon. member a happy new year.
    I think the hon. member knows that we have spent almost $400 billion in supports to help not only Canadian families and workers, but also businesses through this pandemic. The measure that he is referring to is with regard to the additional dollars we are providing, totalling up to $1,200 for each child under the age of six, for the next year. It represents a 20% increase over the maximum annual CCB payment. This is to provide some additional support.
    If I can go through the $381 billion we have already spent and the amount of money we have set aside for child care to support families in a number of different ways, the government has shown time and time again that we will step up when we need to. We will be there for families. We will have the backs of families. If this is not enough, then we will come back with even more funding and more supports as time goes on.
    Madam Speaker, I really hope we can get the issue in Zoom resolved as soon as possible so members have the opportunity to raise their hands virtually.
    It is great to be back in the House after our recess. We have important work to continue to do on behalf of Canadians. I am very much looking forward to being part of that. It is good to see my colleagues again, in person and virtually.
    My remarks today touch primarily on three issues: long-term care, child care supports for Canadians and the supports we have seen to provincial and territorial partners throughout this pandemic as well as what we should anticipate from this government moving forward.
    First, I want to acknowledge the fact this has been a very difficult year for Canadians right across the country. Indeed, it is going to be difficult throughout the winter as well. People are making tough decisions right now about what they need to do to get through this pandemic. To understand and know that we are all in this together and that their federal government is there to support them I think is reassuring for many Canadians.
    As we get through this, I really hope we quickly see things start to get better now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, with the vaccines being distributed not just in our country but indeed throughout the world.
    I want to talk about long-term care and other supportive care facilities and how this government has been responding to that.
    We know the majority of people who had fallen quite ill and passed away as a result of COVID-19 were residents of long-term care facilities. One of the most alarming issues for me when I started to see data coming out of these facilities back in the spring, summer and into the fall was the disconnect between the different levels of long-term care facilities and how successful they were at containing the virus.
    We have discovered in Ontario that there are three different levels of long-term care facilities: those owned by municipalities, and in Ontario each municipality is required to own at least one long-term care facility; not-for-profit long-term care facilities; and for-profit facilities. Those that were owned by municipalities did a much better job of containing COVID. Those that were not-for-profit long-term care facilities did almost as good as the municipalities. Unfortunately the for-profit long-term care facilities seemed to have the most fatalities and number of outbreaks and, as a result, saw the most strain. That is not to say that all for-profit long-term care facilities are going to experience these larger problems. Many out there have done things very effectively and should be complimented on that. However, many, unfortunately, were not as successful. Therefore, we have to get to the root of why that happened and why there are gaps, in particular, in the standards of care for our most vulnerable.
    Since the beginning, this government has worked with the provinces and territories to fight the outbreaks in long-term care homes. For example, it helped provide PPE, contact tracing and direct assistance through the Canadian Red Cross. Despite the fact long-term care facilities are regulated by the provinces, the federal government acknowledged it had a lead role to play in helping the provinces get through it.
     Therefore, the government proposed investments in the fall economic statement, such as: $1 billion allocated to establish a safe long-term care fund that will help provinces and territories protect people in long-term care and support infection, prevention and control; $6 million over two years to the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement to expand its long-term care initiative; $1 million to engage with third parties to help identify resources to conduct readiness assessments in long-term care facilities and facilitate training on infection, prevention and control; and $2.4 million over three years for Health Canada to increase its capacity to be able to support and undertake policy initiatives, as was the commitment in the Speech from the Throne.

  (1230)  

    In the Speech from the Throne, the government indicated that it wanted to move toward developing national standards when it came to long-term care. This is not to say that the federal government wants to impede on the jurisdiction of provinces, but as with other legislation, like the building code, the federal government sees a role in helping to establish some of those objectives and standards that exist so they can be adopted across the country if provinces and territories see the need to adopt them. As we have seen with the national building code, most provinces have adopted it. My understanding is that only two provinces in the country, Ontario and Quebec, have their own building codes. Therefore, national standards, although not to be imposed upon provinces, can be there for provinces to use as a resource in order to establish best practices.
    The other item I will talk about, as I indicated earlier, is with respect to early childhood learning and child care. We know that this pandemic has created very difficult and challenging times for child care providers. Indeed, their jobs are much more difficult than they were before. It has made the work of over 200,000 early childhood educators and child care workers across the country uncertain. People are uncertain about their jobs and what the child care system will look like moving forward. Now is the time to make long-term, sustained investments so every Canadian family has access to affordable, high-quality child care for their children.
    In the fall economic statement, a first step laid the groundwork for a Canada-wide child care system in partnership with our provinces and territories, which ultimately take the lead on this very important issue. Also being proposed are investments in 2021-22 of $420 million for provinces and territories to attract and retain early childhood educators. There is a growing need for childhood educators. There is uncertainty. The government sees a role in providing that certainty and ensuring that Canadians who are interested in early childhood education see that there will be work for them as we come through this pandemic.

  (1235)  

    Finally, I want to talk about the supports for provinces and territories. Quite a bit has been said over the last year about supports. I am extremely proud to be part of a government that has been there for Canadians through supporting our provinces, but it has not ended and it will not end yet. For 2020-21, $85 billion of support has been provided to provinces and territories throughout the country, and there is more to come.
    What is being proposed with respect to the fiscal stabilization program is indexing the payment of $60 per capita, which was set out in 1987, to a total economic growth per person of $170 per person, which is nearly triple. The capital continues to grow with economic growth per person in future years. The higher cap will apply to claims for 2019-20 and onward.
    This federal government has been there for Canadians directly through programs like the CERB and various other programs throughout this pandemic. It has been there to support provinces and territories by giving them the resources they need to successfully take care of Canadians. Indeed, it is there to ensure they can help develop policy to make a better Canada, a Canada that has quality of life moving forward. As we come out of this, we need to learn from things such as what has been happening in long-term care facilities to ensure we develop policies that will improve the quality of life for everybody.

  (1240)  

     Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that for-profit care centres were a big problem. Here in my city, just down the street from me, there was a for-profit care centre that actually had to disallow public health care workers from coming in because they were only given two sets of gloves and two masks for a full month. They had no PPE.
    I would like to understand how he can blame for-profit care centres when PPE was nowhere near available.
    Madam Speaker, what I said, and I am sure the member was listening very closely to my comments, was that at least in Ontario, in the way the data is coming out, people were more likely to die as a result of COVID-19 in a for-profit facility compared with a municipally run or not-for-profit facility. Then I qualified that by saying this was not the case for all for-profit facilities, but is a trend within them.
    My intention was not to try to attack one particular sector in long-term care, but rather to identify, using data, where the problems are so we can use that information to develop good policy to improve the quality of life for Canadians.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
    He talked about seniors, families and workers, among other things. My question is on students, who are suffering during the pandemic from a mental health and financial perspective.
    The bill would suspend interest on Canadian student loans. Since Quebec administers its own loans and bursaries program, I wonder if what is being suggested here includes a compensatory transfer to Quebec on a per capita basis for post-secondary students.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, I am a member for Ontario, and in Ontario students primarily tap into OSAP, the Ontario secondary loan program, and they can also get a federal component of that. What we are referring to in this document is just the federal component of it, not the provincial part of it.
    The member raises a good question and a good point, and this is something that I think should come up in the finance committee when the fall economic statement is delivered so its members can discuss it and make sure we are giving the best opportunity for students and young people to be successful. At the end of the day, we are all depending on that and we all want to see students successful. Making sure they have the tools and resources from the government to do that is to everybody's benefit.
    Madam Speaker, I wish the member a happy new year.
    He spoke at quite some length about early childhood education and child care, but there is a problem with the bill. The government is building up the fall economic statement and saying it is moving to put into place early childhood education. We know it requires an investment of $2 billion this year to set that foundation, yet the government did not do that. At the same time, it is providing about $100 a month per child to lower-income families, but we know those families are paying $2,000 a month for early childhood education and child care.
    At a time when families are struggling and really trying to have the wherewithal to take care of a myriad of things, including keeping a roof over their heads and putting food on the table, the government, through a variety of federal institutions, provided $750 billion to Canada's big banks this year in liquidity supports.
    How does that jibe with this critical need to put in place national child care? Why is the government spending $750 billion to support Canada's banks and not providing supports to Canadian families?

  (1245)  

    Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member asked this question of my colleague as well. She indicated that there are many different supports going out to Canadians, and if we look at one in isolation, it is not going to be helpful.
    To the member's point, when it comes to child care, it is about working with our provincial and territorial partners. These have to be collaborative solutions. We are not going to do it all on our own. We need to work with them, and that is what I talked about in my speech.
    Madam Speaker, if this pandemic has taught us anything, it is to be prepared for the unexpected, to anticipate risks before they metastasize so that we can protect ourselves and secure our future.
    Today, I rise in the House of Commons to draw the attention of members to a growing risk of danger to our families, our businesses and our entire country. It is the risk of the $8.6 trillion of household, corporate and government debt that is quickly accumulating on the shoulders of Canadians. This amount equals 387% of our GDP, a record ratio that is higher than the ratios in many countries that have in the past experienced devastating debt crises.
    Before our eyes glaze over, though, I want to remind members that a debt crisis is not just something that bankers and financial analysts talk about in the Report on Business from The Globe and Mail or on BNN. Research by reputable academic institutions shows that in the case of a financial crisis, house prices can drop by a third; stock markets, meaning people's savings, can drop by half; the economy can drop by 9%; and unemployment can rise seven percentage points.
    Here is the human toll of that. The University of Calgary published a study recently showing that there is a two percentage point increase in suicides for every one percentage point increase in unemployment. Imagine the human cost of 7% unemployment. More data is now showing an inextricable link between opioid abuse and unemployment. Depression and homelessness result from these types of crises.
    What is the nature of the risk? How serious is it? How likely are we to face it? We have to look to history. In their now-legendary book This Time is Different, Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Professor Ken Rogoff wrote about what they call eight centuries of folly. They studied debt crises in 66 countries across five continents. As they write in their opening, “Each time, the experts have chimed, ‘this time is different’—claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters.” With this breakthrough study, they found definitively that experts are wrong.
    They lay out five standard leading indicators for a forthcoming financial crisis. I will go through them very quickly: first, falling economic output; second, a large debt buildup; third, rising household leverage; fourth, asset inflation; and fifth, large current account deficits. Do these five standard leading indicators apply to us?
    Let us start with the first one: falling output. Last year, in 2020, our GDP dropped 5.5%, blowing a more than $100 billion hole in our economy. That is a massive reduction in our economy, and it means that we have $100 billion less to service our debts. On the first test, from This Time is Different, we do have falling economic output. It does not matter who is to blame. It does not matter that it was COVID that caused it. What matters is the math, and the math does not lie.
    Let us move on to the second standard leading indicator: debt buildup. The amount of debt that a country can shoulder depends on the income that it produces to service that debt. According to the great Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith, “All crises have involved debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale in relation to the underlying means of payment.” That underlying means of payment, of course, is GDP, so let us look at the size of our debt and how much it has grown.
    Since the beginning of 2015, our total debt, public and private, has gone from $6.1 trillion to $8.5 trillion, a nearly 40% increase in our debt. During that time, our GDP has only grown by 13%.

  (1250)  

    In other words, our debt levels are growing almost three times as fast as our GDP, the underlying means of payment. We have now reached a level of debt to GDP of 387%, as I said earlier, but I did not tell you that it is an all-time record and nearly twice the size of the typical ratio over the last 60 years in Canada.
    Here is some more staggering information: The debt-to-GDP ratio of Greece when it had its massive sovereign debt crisis 10 years ago was 330%. In the United States, during the great financial crisis that came out of the mortgage bubble, their debt was 375% of GDP. In other words, our debt levels in Canada today are higher than they were in the United States and Greece when they massive, iconic and devastating debt crises in the recent past. Therefore, we need now to pay heed as to why we think we can avoid the same thing. The only difference between them then and us now is that interest rates are low, but they will not stay that way forever.
    What is the composition of our debt? Where does it come from? The answer is threefold: it is government, corporate and household debt.
    Let us start with government debt. This year for the first time on record, Statistics Canada shows that the gross debt of all levels of government in Canada is bigger than the GDP. It just exceeded 100%, 100.3%, to be precise, in the third quarter of 2020. That has never happened before. Our debt levels are higher than they were in the 1990s when we had our own miniature near default of the federal government. That time it was 92%, so our debt levels are higher than ever before when it comes to government.
    Before the government rises to claim that we have the lowest debt in the G7, as a share of GDP, that is just wrong. The only reason that Finance Canada calculates it that way is that uses the assets of the CPP and the QPP to deduct from our overall net debt level without using the corresponding liabilities those funds must pay. As a result, if one were to ignore that and look at our gross debt, we have higher debt levels than both Germany and, I believe, France in the G7. That means we do not have the lowest debt levels in the G7 and cannot be worry-free and fool ourselves that our sustained buildup of government debt is not a problem.
    This year has seen a spectacular and never-before-seen increase in that debt. Our fiscal deficit is $381 billion. That is almost seven times bigger than the previous all-time average and equals 17% of our GDP. Let us put that into perspective.
     In World War I, our deficit-to-GDP ratio was 8%. In the Great Depression, it was 6%. In the great global recession it was 4%. In other words, our deficit as a share of the economy and adjusted for inflation is currently twice what it was at its peak in World War I, three times what it was at its peak in the Great Depression and four times what it was in the great global recession. Only in the Second World War was it bigger, and our ancestors, when they came back from the war, immediately began repaying that debt, running the biggest surpluses ever in 1947, and then increasing the size of our economy elevenfold in the two-and-a-half decades that followed, which allowed them to pay it off quickly. Nobody is suggesting that we will come anywhere near to those kinds of surpluses or growth rates in the post-COVID era, which means that our debt situation is arguably more ominous for the country than it was even back then. Thus, on that criterion, the second standard leading indicator of a sustained buildup of debt, Canada meets that criterion as well.
    We move on to household debt levels. Canada has the highest level of household debt as a ratio of disposable income in the G7. In fact, recently, our level of household debt grew to bigger than the entire Canadian economy, again setting records. These ratios mean that our households are carrying more debt than our economy can reasonably be expected to support.

  (1255)  

    According to the president and CEO of CMHC, “Canadians are among world leaders in household debt. Pre-COVID, the ratio of ... debt to GDP for Canada was at 99 per cent.... These ratios are well in excess of the 80 per cent threshold above which the Bank of International Settlements has shown that national debt intensifies the drag on GDP growth.” In other words, an international body like the Bank for International Settlements says that countries should not go above 80%, and yet pre-COVID we were at nearly 100%. Since that time, debt levels have risen even higher.
    That is the third criterion for a forthcoming debt crisis, rising household leverage. Now we move onto the next one, which is asset inflation.
    In Canada today, the assets that Canadians own in the country are worth 17 times the size of the Canadian economy. The historic average is 12 times. In other words, our asset values are quickly outpacing our economy. That cannot go on for long, because, of course, assets can only be purchased out of the income generated in the economy. Those assets break down into two parts: financial assets and real estate assets, more or less.
    With financial assets, we look at the S&P/TSX, the broadest index in the country. Until a few years ago, the market value of that index had never exceeded the size of our economy. It was always smaller than GDP. That changed in the last 24 months, and has suddenly rocketed up to 120%, according to Rosenberg Research, a leading economic research firm. That one index is now worth 120% of GDP. That has never happened before. The companies in that index need to generate their profits from the economy, and therefore the value of the stocks on the index cannot get completely out of touch with the ability of the economy to generate income and support those stock prices.
    Then we move on to real estate, where prices are up $65,000 this year. Can members imagine that in a year when our economy has lost over $100 billion in economic output and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their paycheques and been forced into their homes that somehow we found all of this money to buy real estate? In fact, from the beginning of 2019 to mid-2020, the inflation of our assets in this country has been worth more than our entire economy. There has been $2.7 trillion of asset inflation in an economy worth just over $2 trillion. That would be like someone making more money every year from the appreciation of their house than the salary they take home from work.
    It would be nice if it could happen forever and we could simply float on a bubble up to prosperity, but we know that in the end our assets are only worth what we can afford to pay for them. Can Canadians afford the real estate they have right now? Members can ask RBC and the CMHC. The CMHC says that for a home to be affordable for a family, the family should not have to spend more than 30% of its income on housing. According to RBC, the average right now is 50%. That means that for the average person to afford the average house, 20 percentage points more from their family budgets has to go to housing. That is with record low interest rates. When rates rise, those payments will only become more expensive.
    Do we have asset inflation in Canada? We have it like we have perhaps never seen before. Asset inflation is the fourth leading indicator of a forthcoming debt crisis.
    This brings us to the final leading indicator that these Harvard economists developed through studying 800 years of history of debt crises, which is current account deficits.
    To oversimplify this for the purpose of saving us some time, current account deficits are basically the amounts someone buys in excess of what they sell. In essence, Canada buys imports and sells exports. The truth is that we buy a lot more from the rest of the world than we sell to it.

  (1300)  

    Since 2015 to the present, Canada has run current account deficits of approximately $300 billion. In other words, we bought $300 billion more from the world than we sold to it, and we borrowed to make up the difference. How else would we do it? If we buy more than we are selling, there are only two ways to do it: we drain our savings or we rack up debt. We have been doing a little of both, but most of all, we have been adding debt. The result is that we are taking on more and more obligations for our prior consumption.
    I would like to say that all of this debt has been used to invest in productive assets like factories, software, patents and other things that will generate income to pay off that debt, but the evidence shows that the overwhelming preponderance of the new debt has been going to immediate consumption. In fact, data from after the government's programs came in, programs that I believe were meritorious and had to happen, showed that much of the money leaked out of the country because, as Canadians, we were all buying or importing things from abroad more than we were producing and sending abroad. That means that last year we were again running a large trade deficit and adding to our overall debt load in the process.
    In the months of April and May 2020, Canadians borrowed an extra $80 billion from foreigners according to David Dodge, who published a recent piece on this for the Public Policy Forum. He specifically asked how long it will be possible for Canadians, for our country, to borrow from the world in order to buy from the world before the world gets tired of lending us money. The bottom line is that we have a large and consistent current account deficit, the second largest in the G7, second only to Japan's. That is an unavoidable problem that we will need to confront because the world is not going to view our economy as a charity case. The lenders of the world will expect to be paid interest on all of the debt that we carry forward.
    In fact, the only way to pay off that debt is to generate powerful incomes. Unfortunately, since 2012, Canada has exported more investment than it has brought in by a net amount of $800 billion. In other words, we are sending our investment to productive assets in other parts of the world while they are sending us debt. They get factories, software, patents or pipelines, and we get large-scale debt. That is the fifth measurement of whether or not a debt crisis will strike, and we can say definitively that with our $300 billion in current account deficits the last five years, Canada indeed meets this standard leading indicator that is necessary to trigger a debt crisis.
    There are five indicators and we check every single box. What can we do about it? The answer is that we need to unleash the power of our productive economy to clear the way for job creation.
    This is red tape week. Let us eliminate the red tape that prevents businesses from hiring. Let us approve large-scale projects like the Teck Frontier mine in Alberta, or the LNG facility in Saguenay. These are tens of billions of dollars in economic activity. Let us make this the fastest place in the world to get a construction permit. Right now we rank 34th out of 35 OECD nations on that. Let us be the fastest place to build a factory or build a pipeline or some other economic infrastructure that pays wages and can reimburse our debts and support our prosperity. Let us change the tax and regulatory rules that get in the way of first nation communities trying to develop commerce and resources on their reserves. Let us remove the penalties for low-income people to get off social assistance so that they can get back to work. Let us allow our newcomers as immigrants use their qualifications by giving them permits to work in fields they are qualified in, like the professions and the trades. Let us replace what has become a credit card economy with a paycheque economy, and in that way alone, we will secure our future.

  (1305)  

[Translation]

    Happy new year, Madam Speaker. I am happy to be back in the House.

[English]

    I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for his lesson on the economy and on debt financing. It is quite clear from the tenet of what he is proposing or certainly saying that the situation we are in is untenable. Certainly in all the investments we made in Canadians in the past year, there was a choice to be made. On this side of the House, we decided to invest in Canadians, and he is deriding us for accumulating debt.
    I want the member for Carleton to comment on the fact that we have invested too much in Canadians. Why did we accumulate debt? It was to help Canadians weather this storm and weather the worst pandemic we have faced as a nation during our lifetimes.
    The government has brought forward a lot of programs, including the CERB, the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy, the mortgage deferral payments, the support for indigenous communities, the CEBA loans, the regional relief and recovery fund, and the billions of dollars of transfers provided to the provinces to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. Which program would he have not brought forward?
    Before I return the floor to the hon. member for Carleton, I would like to talk to those members who have raised the question of the hand function that does not appear to be working in Zoom. We have asked the staff to work toward resolving the issue.
    As an interim solution, I would suggest that members who wish to ask a question during questions and comments turn on their cameras and physically raise their hands. The table officers will keep a list of those who wish to intervene.

[Translation]

    I would also ask members who do not wish to speak to turn off their cameras, to make it easier to identify those who do wish to speak. I thank hon. members for their co-operation.

[English]

    The hon. member for Carleton.
    Madam Speaker, the member asked what we would have done differently. First, we would not have gone into this crisis having already added $100 billion of debt before the very first case of COVID-19. That is the first thing. The Liberal government inherited a balanced budget and blew through $100 billion of debt before COVID-19 even arrived on the scene.
    Second, we would have ensured that the COVID crisis would not have spun out of control here in Canada the way it did, because we would have closed the border. We told the Liberals and we are on the record as saying we would have closed the border. They had military intelligence in December telling them of the risk, yet they let 60,000 people come into this country from China between December and March, causing the disease to spread quickly.
    We would have approved rapid testing more quickly so that Canadians could get back into their jobs safely. We would have procured vaccines on a priority basis, rather than leaving us at the back of the pack. All of these things would have saved a fortune.
    Finally, what would we do differently going forward? When we come out of the COVID crisis, we would unleash the engine of free market productive economic growth that produces paycheques for people, rather than shutting down the economy by blocking enterprises, as the Liberal government has done in project after project. We also reject their proposal to make all the COVID spending permanent. In this bill, they have asked for an increase in the debt limit of another $700 billion. That is irresponsible.

  (1310)  

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, the member talked about the deficit and the kind of plan he would implement.
    I would like him to comment on the aerospace industry, which we believe should be strengthened and supported. How does he see that sector, which seems to have been abandoned entirely, fitting into the economic recovery plan?
    Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party clearly supports the aerospace sector. I am a little surprised to hear the Bloc Québécois is of the same opinion, because the aerospace sector uses fuel. Airplanes run on fuel. To my knowledge, there is not a single airplane that can fly without fuel. Furthermore, petroleum products represent the lion's share of our exports.
    We support all industries. Our aerospace sector has the ability to compete globally. This would also mean that our airplanes would be fuelled by the cleanest and most ethical oil, oil from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, I would like to wish my hon. colleague a happy new year.
    He spoke a lot about debt. I want to speak with him about people who have been left behind: people with disabilities, seniors, students, and indigenous people. Although, like the member, we need to certainly watch spending, I do not think it should be on the backs of people.
    I want to ask the member about paying for the debt. The Conservative government, when it has been in power, has fought to support its corporate friends. I want to know if the member agrees with me that one of the ways we can pay for the debt is by fighting against tax havens and tax loopholes and going away from the Conservatives' tradition of helping their rich friends.
    Madam Speaker, first, that is a complete falsehood. Conservatives have spoken out against corporate welfare. We were the first party to stand in the House and insist that the wage subsidy not go to paying dividends. I warned, on the floor of this House of Commons, the then finance minister, Bill Morneau, that if he did not ban it, corporations would use the wage subsidy to pay dividends to executives and wealthy shareholders. He ignored me, and that is exactly what they did. We, on this side, were the ones who spoke out against it. We are the party that opposes corporate welfare.
    However, the member asked about these tax revenues that they want to generate by closing loopholes and shutting down, as we call them in French, the “paradis fiscaux”. Of course we agree that everybody should pay their own fair share, but I find that when these left-wing governments take office, although they always claim that rich people will pay, rich people never end up paying, and it ends it being the middle class and the working people who get the full bill.
    The current government cannot produce a single, solitary shred of evidence that it is raising any new money from the rich. Yes, the Liberals raised the rate, but there is not one annual filing from Revenue Canada that shows it generated a nickel in new revenue. The poor will end up paying for—
    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
    Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be back here in 2021. Let us hope we have a much better year than 2020.
    My colleague and friend from Carleton laid out a very well-reasoned argument about what is going on and how our government is continuing to leave Canadians behind.
    The Liberal government continues to try to pit us against working Canadians in saying we want to leave people behind. There is nothing further from the truth.
    Here is my question. Does the member see a plan by the current finance minister and government, because we know there has not been a plan put forward in over 600 days for how we are going to get Canadians back to work, how we are going to secure the future for Canadians going forward, and how we are going to get 600 people at Evraz steel in Regina back to work in the pipeline sector? That is the question I have for my hon. colleague.

  (1315)  

    That is a good question, Madam Speaker. The reality is we have to secure the future by moving to a paycheque economy from a credit card economy.
     The credit card economy that the government wants to create would permanently lock in annual spending increases forever and add another $600 billion of debt. That is what the Liberals are seeking authorization for in this bill: to raise the national debt to $1.8 trillion. That is the credit card economy. It only ends in tears.
    The paycheque economy is one in which we unleash the power of enterprise to build pipelines so that the steelworkers in the member's riding can actually get jobs making the steel that goes into that pipe and the energy sector workers can get full global prices for their oil, rather than letting the Americans continue to rip us off. It means unleashing the construction of the Teck Frontier mine, for which the permit could still be approved, or expediting the approval of the LNG, a $14-billion project in Saguenay that could put thousands of Quebeckers permanently to work exporting clean, green Canadian natural gas that will lower global emissions by displacing dirty foreign coal.
    This is the kind of free enterprise agenda that would produce paycheques, and paycheques alone will secure our future.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I wish you, my colleagues and all staff of the House of Commons a happy new year.
    I ask the House for consent to share my time with my esteemed colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
    This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.
     The House has heard the terms of the motion. There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
    The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
    Madam Speaker, Bill C-14, which we are reviewing today, appears to build on certain measures in the economic statement the government released last November. It is very troubling, however, that, like the economic statement, this bill does not address glaring needs such as increased health care transfers and financial assistance for seniors.
    There is no picture or sound, despite the fact that this unprecedented health crisis, which is turning Canadians' lives upside down, requires a strong signal from the government. “We are there for Canadians.” “We will always be there for Canadians.” These are statements we recognize and that are familiar to us, because they have been repeated so often by the Prime Minister. They are just words, however; not actions. What is missing is a concrete, tangible vision to get us through this second wave and help us address the economic recovery in the near future. What is the plan?
    In terms of health, we can only repeat that the most important, most sensitive, most useful and most constructive help we could give the provinces and territories would be a tangible and significant increase in Canada health transfers. This increase should reduce the gap between the federal government's contribution and the provinces' contribution to health care, which is growing year by year.
    In 2019, Quebec, the other provinces and the territories funded 40% of all health care expenditures, while the Canadian government funded only 22%. According to Conference Board of Canada data, based on the current growth rate, the federal contribution to health care will drop to below 20% by 2026.
    It does not take a mathematician to understand that this recurrent deficit has a considerable impact on the provinces' ability to support and strengthen their health care systems. The federal government will probably once again tell us that it is there to support the provinces and that it has injected $19 billion, but we all know that the problem is that these amounts are not recurring.
    If the government was really listening to and hearing the provinces and Quebec, it would know that they need security and predictability, not conditional piecemeal investments based on the mood of the day.
    Must I remind you that thousands of front-line workers have been fighting the pandemic every day, day after day, for 11 months?
    What do they need? They need us to recognize their work and support them in their efforts to treat people and save lives. How can we do that? By granting the federal transfers demanded by those who have the expertise and the responsibility for the organization and delivery of health care: the provincial governments.
    These workers really do not need the government to come in once again playing games and trying to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
    Today, the government announced $1 billion in assistance for the creation of a fund for long-term care facilities. The fund will come with conditions and accountability measures.
    The Quebec health care system, which is currently grappling with a pandemic, does not need the additional burden of never-ending accountability measures. Quebec does not need the federal government interfering in its jurisdiction, trying to develop a new set of national standards. There are enough standards and rules already in place.
    If someone needs to be accountable, it is the federal government, given its inability to develop financial self-sufficiency when it comes to the vaccine. We know, we see the delays. Apparently, in Quebec, there have been delays in the delivery of vaccines since last week. We will not be able to vaccinate people at the planned rate. When it comes to accountability, it is high time that the government told the truth about the vaccine delivery schedule.

  (1320)  

    I will say it again. Front-line workers in Quebec need two things: that the federal government increase its health care transfers and that it do so unconditionally.
    Businesses and workers are suffering from the pandemic, and the government needs to respond appropriately. The Bloc Québécois has often pointed out the ineffectiveness of the Canada emergency rent subsidy.
    Since last June, both the Quebec government and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have been pointing to the program’s complexity and lack of flexibility. We are therefore pleased with the adjustments to the program proposed today, even if they should have been made long ago.
    In terms of specific assistance for the hardest-hit sectors, including tourism, the hotel and restaurant industry, lodging, art, culture and communications, on November 3 I told the House about the particular difficulties these sectors were facing, and provided the figures to back it up.
    At the time, more than 56,000 workers had lost their jobs in these industries in Quebec alone. We now know that the situation has gotten worse, and the Bloc Québécois has been tirelessly asking for specific meaningful measures for these key economic sectors in Quebec.
    The bill provides$206 million for the regional relief recovery fund, or RRRF, for businesses that are unable to benefit from other federal programs. A total of 25% of that funding should go to tourism operators.
    We are pleased that the government listened to reason and responded to our many calls in that regard. However, aside from the RRRF-related announcements, we still do not have any details about what some of the other programs that were announced will look like, for example, the business credit availability program for hard-hit sectors.
    How is it that, nearly two months after announcing this program, the government still cannot tell us how this program will work? The crisis is far from over and workers and business owners need targeted support.
    Today, 181,000 small and medium-sized business owners plan to close for good. Over half of the 40,000 workers in the hotel industry are unemployed.
    Lastly, the aerospace industry and the air transport sector have clearly been left out. Let us remember that these sectors are in crisis. In September, companies in the Quebec aerospace sector had laid off more than 4,000 of the 43,000 workers in the industry, according to the Aéro Montréal cluster. The government must take its responsibilities and develop a Canadian strategy for the aerospace industry. The Bloc Québécois has called for this on several occasions. What is the government waiting for to support workers?
    In conclusion, the demands of the Bloc Québécois send a strong signal about health. Help and support for workers is a priority. We know that the transfer between the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada recovery benefit is not working. Day after day, workers face endless delays in applying for CRB support.
    We experienced it with the Quebec parental insurance plan, and now with self-employed workers. It takes six to eight weeks to get an answer, and we are told that is because of the checks that need to be done. That is unacceptable. These workers are unemployed and have no income.
    If the checks need to be done, then let us shorten the delays. Once again, we are seeing that the government was not ready to respond to this crisis.

  (1325)  

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her speech.
    She spoke about health transfers. The federal government has transferred more than $20 billion during the pandemic. That is more than the existing transfers planned between the provinces and the federal government. Of course, the additional transfers need to be financed.
    My question is very simple. How should the federal government finance this extra spending? Obviously, there are only a few ways to do that: either increase Canada's annual debt, raise taxes or cut programs.
    I would like to know what programs the hon. member would be prepared to cut.
    Madam Speaker, my answer to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, is simple: It is a matter of political choice.
    I already anticipated that we would be told that $19 billion has already been invested, with an additional $1 billion now, for long-term care standards. I would remind the member that these are one-time payments. Agreement after agreement, Canadian transfer payments, which are supposed to be permanent, predictable and recurrent, are being cut.
    We are not asking the government to cut funding anywhere else, but rather to assume its responsibilities and give the provinces and territories their fair share of the funding allocated.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, I am very concerned with aspects of this bill, specifically with the debt ceiling being raised far beyond what spending projections were. I wonder if my colleague has any comments on the borrowing authority far exceeding the projected spending levels.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, of course we should be concerned about the debt. As parliamentarians, we must always be sensitive to the budgets presented to us. It is worth noting that I was elected over a year ago and I have yet to see a budget.
    Indeed, this is a matter of some concern, but not to the point of underestimating the money the government needs to spend right now on health and to support our most vulnerable populations.

  (1330)  

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
    What is happening now is that the Liberals are handing out millions of dollars to big businesses, which pass on this money to their shareholders in the form of dividends. Because of confusion over the Canada recovery benefit, workers are now being forced to repay significant amounts of money, tens of thousands of dollars in some cases. These workers were earning about $5,000 a year, so we are talking about the poorest Canadians and Quebeckers. Sadly, the Liberals have decided to target them.
    Will my colleague join the NDP in calling on the government to stop going after these workers?
    Madam Speaker, my political party always stands up for workers and we always will.
    We supported the emergency measures when people really needed assistance. It is despicable that the government is now not prepared to implement these new programs and measures. I mentioned this in my speech.
    It is disappointing to see that the government is going after people who did not even receive CERB and are now caught up in red tape, and it is equally disappointing to see people with no job and no income who have yet to receive their Canada recovery benefit.
    Matters of tax fairness are always a priority for the Bloc.
    Madam Speaker, first, let me tell you how excited I am to be back here with you and all my colleagues to debate matters of the utmost importance in the House. I hope that everyone enjoyed these weeks off, as the coming months will bring enormous challenges.
    The House will be engaged in crucial debates for the next few weeks, and the Liberal government's rather chaotic management of the COVID-19 pandemic will surely keep us busy. The Liberal government's intentions will be closely scrutinized by the opposition parties, the public and the parliamentary press, ever alert for the blunders that have been far too common with this government. All members will have to be vigilant to prevent other strategic mistakes, such as those committed intentionally or inadvertently by the government, in an extraordinary situation that requires constant rigour and leaves next to no room for error.
    Madam Speaker, I hope you recharged your batteries and, above all, had the opportunity to spend quality time in lockdown with your family, no doubt to their great delight.
    My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I are refreshed and ready to begin the winter session of the House. I would add that the entire population of Quebec already knows that, true to our commitments of the past few months, there will be no compromising on our part when it comes to defending Quebec's interests fully and completely. As we have said over and over again, what Quebec wants, the Bloc wants. Quebec makes a choice, and the Bloc makes it happen.
    In the same way, our day-to-day commitment and what we have achieved so far in this Parliament mean that we can honestly say that the Quebec caucus—
    I apologize, but apparently your microphone is not connected or is not plugged in properly. The interpreters are having a hard time hearing you. Could you please unplug it and plug it back in?
    It seems to be working better now.
    Madam Speaker, our day-to-day commitment and what we have achieved so far in this Parliament mean that we can honestly say that the Bloc Québécois caucus is reliable and proud.
    This strong, heartfelt preamble to the main topic of my speech will help my colleagues better understand the scope of my comments and recognize the amount of time I spent poring over Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, which was tabled in the House on December 2 by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and came before the House this morning. To summarize, this bill outlines and gives details about some of the measures announced by the federal government in the speech that the minister gave when presenting her economic statement aimed at supporting Canadians and fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Members will recall how long the government waited before bringing this bill before the House for an in-depth study. In fact, in December, the government did everything it could to fast-track the study of Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, which was being systematically blocked by the socially conservative fringe of the Conservative Party. Everyone has their own battles to fight. I will not say what I think of these petty delaying tactics that put the interests and fundamental rights of hundreds of our fellow citizens in peril. Unfortunately, these people must wait for the government to legalize a situation they have considered carefully and an important decision that they want to make calmly, rather than witness an interminable, agonizing debate dragged out for crass partisan reasons.
    To return to my speech, this bill, short as it is, makes major changes to several existing laws. I hope that these changes will contribute significantly to effectively advancing the welfare of all of our constituents. The Bloc Québécois does not take this approach lightly. If the government introduces a bill that makes sense and that is in the interest of Quebeckers, we will support it. However, the government must demonstrate that the bill is neither partisan nor pandering to particular groups, which is what we have been seeing for far too long from the Liberals, even in a minority government.
    As everyone knows full well, and as the Bloc Québécois reminds the House on a daily basis, the Liberal Party has in its DNA an outrageous obsession with centralization that undermines the spirit of the Constitution that it shoved down Quebec's throat in 1982. Our NDP colleagues have always blindly followed the Liberals' lead in this matter. They act like the Liberals' lackeys, always eager to gather the crumbs that their masters leave behind in exchange for an ideological promiscuity that changes with the political winds.
    To get back to Bill C-14, the government intends to amend a wide range of existing laws, enhancing them in some cases, but in an unfair way, as the Quebec governments of the past six decades would agree.
    Regarding the best interests of Quebec taxpayers, most of the legislative amendments proposed by the Liberal government to the tax laws will have little or no effect on the current situation in Quebec. In fact, by amending the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the government is merely confirming the soundness and relevance of Quebec's student financial assistance program, which was established by Daniel Johnson Sr.'s government in the late 1960s. Premier Johnson was only continuing the work of the Lesage government, whose most imposing and important figures were undoubtedly Paul Gérin-Lajoie and René Lévesque.
    Quebec offers one of the best student loan and bursary programs in the western world. This extraordinarily progressive approach has made our researchers, engineers, thinkers and numerous creators famous the world over, all thanks to the excellence of our university network.

  (1335)  

    Take, for example, my alma mater. The Université du Québec à Rimouski is internationally recognized for its marine acoustic research and the number of world-renowned researchers it has doing cutting-edge research on ecosystems like the unique, majestic St. Lawrence River. The same goes for Université Laval, the Université de Sherbrooke, the Université de Montréal and McGill University for medical and pharmaceutical research. Quebec ingenuity continues to grow. It is because of the student funding program developed by the Quebec government that we can be proud of the major breakthroughs in the medical research that is so important to us today.
    During this devastating pandemic, I know that my counterparts in other provinces understandably envy Quebec for the prominent place that our researchers, scientists and doctors have on Canada's team.
    For decades, the Quebec government has stood up to the federal government and demanded that Ottawa respect Quebec's constitutional prerogatives. The pride of a people gives rise to the significant benefits and advantages that forge a true nation.
    If the government wants to make up for the weaknesses in its legislation concerning financial assistance for students in the rest of Canada, it should consider fair compensation for young Quebeckers who are treated well by Quebec, but not so well by the federal government. It is a simple matter of fairness.
    Speaking of fairness, I would be remiss if I failed to mention a fundamentally unfair aspect of the government's action during the pandemic. Despite the billions of dollars in financial support that were announced and given to the Prime Minister's friends and family, we know that those who have clearly been the most unfairly and personally affected by COVID-19 are seniors, that is, our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, if we are lucky.
    It is unfortunate that the government has once again failed our seniors, when they are the ones whose financial situation has seriously deteriorated because of the many protective measures put in place for them by the various levels of government. I am very concerned about the fact that, apart from a single lump-sum payment last summer, the Liberal government failed these people who came before us and literally built a society of which we can be proud. To me, that is a slap in the face to an entire generation who, it seems to me—

  (1340)  

    I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.
    The member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
    Madam Speaker, I am very familiar with Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the region the hon. member represents.
    The people there are proud, but also quite eloquent. I am thinking about Guy Caron, the former MP for that riding. He was a worthy representative of that riding in the House of Commons. Every time he rose, everyone listened. He made important contributions to the debates.
    I must say that I am disappointed that the hon. member chose to hurl a bunch of insults at all the other members of the House. That is inappropriate. I hope he will reflect on that and put more substance into his speech next time.
    The part of his speech that I found interesting had to do with student rights. As we all know, the government refused to freeze all student loan payments. Unfortunately, there was only talk of interest rates. In this crisis, the government needs to go much further.
    What are the potential repercussions of forcing students in Quebec and Canada to make student loan payments during the crisis?
    Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the inappropriate comments of my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby.
    I invite him to reflect on the fact that he sent all the municipal councils in Quebec a bill for a pan-Canadian pharmacare program, despite knowing that this is a Quebec jurisdiction. His political party has an ideological habit of encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, he decided to send this without consulting the members of Parliament who were democratically elected by the people. The member should stop lecturing us on morality and respect. We can do without a scolding from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
    Of course, as I mentioned in my speech, Quebec already has its own loan and bursary program. Why should it have to pay twice and do twice the work?
    Again, I do not think my colleague understands. We are not the ones who invented the Constitution. What we are saying today is to play by the rules. We will talk about respect later.

  (1345)  

[English]

    Madam Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague, like me, was elected in 2019. Neither I nor he, if my memory serves correct, has seen a budget by the government, yet here we have a kind of hybrid measure, with a spattering of new programming, new spending, a massive debt ceiling authority to borrow and increases.
    I am wondering if the member opposite would care to comment on the fact that it has been, as I understand, around 600 days since we have seen a budget from the current government.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot and I thank him for his question. Clearly, the $382 billion deficit is unprecedented and we are in an unprecedented situation. Does that warrant spending extraordinary amounts without any accountability? The answer is no.
    The Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear on the Liberal government's spending plan presented in late November. If the plan's objective is to get the economy back on its feet after the pandemic, it will likely not succeed. The best economists have weighed in and said that the plan to balance the budget will not work. I will reiterate my colleague's comments: There must be greater transparency and a true plan for addressing this unprecedented situation.
    Madam Speaker, I would like to wish everyone a happy new year.
    We are jumping right into issues that will have a major impact on the future of all Canadian families across the country during the pandemic. I would like to start by talking about some of the impacts we have already seen. I know that my speech will be interrupted by question period and that I will finish it after that.
    I would like to start by emphasizing how important it is for all parliamentarians to work together to mitigate this crisis, a crisis that is having a massive impact on every city and town in Canada and leaving no part of the country unscathed.

[English]

    Just this weekend, we commemorated the sad one-year anniversary of the first COVID case in Canada. Since the identification a year ago of the first COVID case, 20,000 Canadians have died as the pandemic has ravaged this country.
    I think all of us understand the importance of underscoring the incredible courage and bravery of front-line health care workers. They have gone to work often at peril of their lives, and dozens have perished during this pandemic. The impacts of COVID have been devastating, and we as parliamentarians need to underscore their courage and dedication in a time of immense tragedy, when in each and very case those health care workers were putting their lives on the line.
    We are going through a pandemic that will have repercussions for years to come. I think back to the Spanish flu epidemic and the lessons we can pull out of what was such a tragic pandemic a century ago. In so many cases and in so many countries, the financial and economic repercussions of the Spanish flu, even afer the actual pandemic itself had lessened and then ceased, were felt for over a decade afterward, so my comments today are not just about what we need to do now, but also about what we need to do over the course of the next decade. This is when the financial and economic repercussions are felt.
     We need to be bold. We need to take action in a way that not only brings Canadians through this pandemic, hopefully safely and with their health intact, but lays the foundation for rebuilding afterward in a way that ensures that the decade-long economic and financial repercussions that will hit so many Canadian families will actually be addressed by the federal government, and it will provide supports to communities right across the country.

  (1350)  

[Translation]

    Bill C-14 is certainly not a bold response to the pandemic's devastating repercussions. A closer look at what is in this bill makes it clear that the government does not know how to respond boldly to all the challenges Canadians are facing.
    When I look at the substance of this bill, I can see that it is a long way from meeting the expectations of Canadians going through this pandemic and taking a financial and economic hit. Overall, this bill offers a little help, and that is good. A little help is better than nothing, for sure.
    It is important to say that the government could dare to do more and go much further. As the leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Burnaby South, and the entire NDP caucus have already made very clear, help is needed now. We need to look at each and every element of the bill and see what is missing.
    Long-term care is getting help, help that is clearly needed. We are seeing that the epicentre of this pandemic is in Quebec's long-term care homes and in long-term care centres across the country. In these places, we are seeing thousands of deaths resulting from a lack of rules aimed at reinforcing standards of care provided there.
    Our seniors deserve better in all the services they receive. A billion is not much when we look at what the government has done since this crisis began. From the beginning, we have seen the government offer $750 billion to Canada's major banks. Government members will say that this liquidity support is not just coming from the government, but from a number of sources. The fact remains that in the few days when the pandemic hit hardest in March, the government had to act quickly, and its first act was to provide $750 billion to Canada's major banks. The government's first instinct was to say that it needed to come to the aid of Canada's banks, and it made $750 billion available to that sector.
    If all the expenditures under this bill are spent, seniors will receive just under $1 billion. The ratio is 750 to one: $1 billion for Canada's seniors, who have died by the thousands during this pandemic, but $750 billion for the banking sector, which has already made $30 billion in profits since the pandemic began. What message is the government sending by throwing so much money at Canada's big banks? Is that our priority?
    Meanwhile, this bill has only crumbs to offer, and that includes the Canada child benefit. Yes, $100 a month certainly helps, but what is really needed right away is a $2-billion investment to lay the foundation for a national child care system. The unemployment rate continues to rise, and economic difficulties have existed since before the pandemic. Canadian families already had, on average, the highest level of family debt among the most industrialized countries as a result of policies put in place by previous Conservative and Liberal governments. The government could have done better, much better, and been bold enough to do more than simply offer $100 a month to families struggling to keep their homes and put food on the table.

  (1355)  

    The bill also mentions student loans. The government is suspending student loan interest payments. However, students trying to get through this crisis as best they can still have to repay their student loans. Even if interest rates are lower, the amount of the loans are minimal when we think of all the difficulties they are experiencing. Just compare the amount of student loan interest that has been suspended with the $750 billion in liquidity supports given to major Canadian banks.
    With respect to pharmacare, next month we will have the opportunity to vote on Bill C-213, which will establish the legal framework for pharmacare. I must say that we are seeing strong support for this bill across the country. As a Bloc Québécois member mentioned, dozens of Quebec municipalities have just expressed support for this bill, which will establish a universal pharmacare plan that all Canadians will be able to access. Unions in Quebec and across Canada are also calling for a plan that will leave no one behind.
    With the pandemic, we are talking about tens of millions of people who do not have access to a pharmacare program, either because they lost their job or because they do not have access to a protection plan through their employer. Bill C-14 could have included certain aspects that the NDP will bring forward during the vote in Parliament next month, but right now, that too is being left out.
    I know that my time is nearly up, but I would like to say that the most disappointing thing about this bill, even though some aspects are rather positive, is the government's lack of ambition at a time when Canadians are going through an unprecedented crisis.

  (1400)  

    I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. He will have seven minutes and two seconds when we resume debate.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]

[English]

Natural Resources

    Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL cancellation is a stunning blow to all Canadians. This affects far more than Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is hardly a small town in Ontario that does not have a business that manufactures for the energy industry.
    While this cancellation is lamentable, this is precisely the goal of the Paris agreement and the Liberals' net-zero bill, Bill C-12. The fact that this cancellation occurred on the same day the U.S. rejoined the Paris agreement is telling.
     Shutting down projects like Keystone will not decrease global oil demand, but will ensure Canada gets a lower price for its oil, receives less tax revenue and more Canadians remain out of work. It will ensure that we import more oil from Saudi Arabia and others that have awful environmental and human rights track records.
    I know why the Liberals and others will be supporting this bill, but I am very surprised the Conservatives and Erin O’Toole will be supporting this.
    I am voting against Bill C-12, and I hope some of my former Conservative colleagues will have the courage to stand against this assault on our energy industry.
    God bless Canada and all our natural resources.
    I know we have been away for a while and we tend to forget the rules, but I want to remind the hon. members that we cannot name another member by their name, just by the riding from which they come or their title in the House.

Tamil Heritage Month

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honour Tamil Heritage Month.
    My riding of Brampton East is home to a dynamic, talented and hard-working Tamil population. Canadians of Tamil heritage make up an important piece of our community fabric and I am thrilled that January was unanimously passed by Parliament as a month to commemorate Tamil heritage and celebrate the many achievements and contributions to our country.
    As we reflect together with the Tamil community, I know myself and many Tamil-Canadians are heartbroken and devastated by the destruction of the memorial monument at the University of Jaffna.
    I would also like to acknowledge the terrific work of the Brampton Tamil Seniors Association, as it has been working hard to reduce social isolation and improve connectivity among seniors in the Brampton community.
    This past year has presented a huge challenge to organizations such as it to find new ways to safely support the active participation of seniors in society. They have stepped up in a major way and have risen to the occasion to ensure those who are most vulnerable in our society continue to feel valued and cared for.
    I encourage all Canadians to celebrate and reflect on the richness of the Tamil culture and language. Happy Tamil Heritage Month.

York—Simcoe

    Mr. Speaker, York—Simcoe has a story to tell. Together, we have shown incredible spirit and resilience in the face of great challenges this past year. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the unsung heroes of my community.
    Teenagers Sarah and Emily Dahlgren from Bradford are two such heroes. They raised $50,000 dollars for the local food bank through hard work and by inspiring the entire community. Bob Goodlad from Keswick Flowers and Gifts was a shining light on Mother’s Day last year when he helped provide flowers to residents of a local senior’s home with the assistance of John Benyik from York EMS. The Bailey family from Bailey’s Homestead provided meals for front-line workers when they were needed most.
    Of course we recognize the food bank and shelter workers, as well as the countless small businesses owners who are giving back, even while fighting to keep their businesses alive, including the restaurant owners and farmers who are feeding the hungry. These inspiring individuals and our community are what give me hope as 2021 gets under way.

Whitby Caremongers

    Mr. Speaker, in March of last year, as the pandemic began to shut down our entire country, a group of dedicated community volunteers in Whitby banded together to ensure nobody was left behind.
     I want to congratulate and thank everyone involved in the Whitby Caremongers. From organizing multiple community-wide food drives with hundreds of volunteers, to setting up phone lines and delivering food and other essentials to seniors in isolation, to creating a gift card collection program before the holidays to make sure that children from Whitby did not go without these holidays, these incredible people have helped keep our community safe and healthy and have stepped up to the plate during a challenging time. By showing they care about each other, these outstanding volunteers, these Caremongers, have demonstrated community resilience and achieved an immeasurable impact.
    On behalf of the people of Whitby, I want to say a big heartfelt thank you to the volunteers across our community. They have shown compassion and given so much during a challenging year, and they enrich our community.

  (1405)  

[Translation]

2016 Attack in Ouagadougou

    Mr. Speaker, five years ago, on January 15, 2016, there was an attack on Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso. That traditionally peaceful country was plunged into abject violence entrenched in politics and religion. This attack reverberated all the way to Quebec, because six people from Lac-Beauport were killed. Those generous people were there as volunteers building a school to help a community continue to live in peace and have access to education, so the children can contribute to the collective well-being when they grow up.
    Gladys Chamberland, Yves Carrier, Charlelie Carrier, Maude Carrier, Louis Chabot and Suzanne Bernier, your names are etched into our memories and our hearts. We wish you were still with us. We live by your example, which showed us that gestures both big and small help make this world better through education.
    I want their families and their many friends to know that we remember them.

Marie-Paule Kirouac

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to mark the passing of a great woman from Sherbrooke on January 6. Marie-Paule Kirouac played a key role in the creation of Maison Aube-Lumière, a palliative care home for people in the advanced stages of cancer. She was also the organization's first executive director.
    Ms. Kirouac was a fighter. She never backed down from a challenge. She was an amazingly determined and caring woman who did everything she could to ensure the well-being of others. I know this because I had the privilege of working with her for 10 years while I served on the Maison Aube-Lumière's board of directors.
    She did not take no for an answer. During fundraising campaigns, no one was able to exude as much empathy or convey the importance of the Maison Aube-Lumière's mission quite like she could.
    I offer my deepest condolences to her family and friends.
    Thank you for everything, Ms. Kirouac.

[English]

Team Murphy

    Mr. Speaker, residents in our part of eastern Ontario are standing behind a friend and a leader who has always been there for us. For years, David Murphy has volunteered and raised money for numerous causes in Cornwall and area. Whether in the boxing ring, flipping burgers at a barbecue, or even shaving his head, David's energy has been inspiring. Now David needs us.
    He needs our prayers and best wishes as he battles cancer and an uncertain future. However, in typical Murphy fashion, he is not focused on himself, but rather on helping others. He is selling Team Murphy T-shirts to help cancer patients with gas cards and other expenses. His fundraising goal was about $1,500, and to date the effort has raised $5,000 and counting.
    David Murphy embodies the Canadian spirit. He is strong, caring and giving. I urge my friend David to keep fighting, and I thank him for his endless community work. We are all behind him on Team Murphy.

Conversion Therapy

    Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to stand before you to shed some positive light during these challenging times from my riding of Kingston and the Islands. I am proud to inform the House that Kingston City Council voted unanimously at its last council meeting to pass a motion banning the practice of conversion therapy, making Kingston the first city in Ontario to ban conversion therapy practices.
    Conversion therapy is a harmful practice that targets vulnerable LGBTQ2+ Canadians, which can lead to lifelong trauma. I am glad to hear that Kingston as a community has stepped up to ban these practices. I especially want to thank Councillor Bridget Doherty and Mayor Bryan Paterson for bringing this motion forward and indeed all the city councillors for taking this position.
    I look forward to working hard with my colleagues in the House at the federal level to ensure Bill C-6 gets passed as law and conversion therapy is banned right across Canada.

  (1410)  

Burns Night

    Mr. Speaker, today Canadians of Scottish heritage celebrate the memory and legacy of poet Robert Burns. Over 260 years after his birth, Burns endures because he spoke strongly to people through his words, which still resonate today. They are words of empathy, humanity and unity.
    It was my father who taught me Burns's Auld Lang Syne,To a Mouse and My Heart's in the Highlands. Then, my dad gave me his treasured book of Burns' poetry, which had been passed down from his father. The leather cover was long gone and the pages were worn and tattered, but the book remains one of my most prized possessions. The poems are a “cup o' kindness” during difficult times. After all, Burns' abiding message is one of fellowship and love for others.
    To each of my friends, I wish an uplifting virtual Burns Night supper filled with dance, pipes, poetry and song.

Natural Resources

    Mr. Speaker, “lame”, “weak” and “wimpy” are words that describe our Prime Minister's reaction to the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. On day one as U.S. president, Joe Biden dealt a crippling economic blow to this country and his own by derailing that project. The PM boasted that he was the first world leader Biden called. How did he stand up to the new president? He did not. He said he was disappointed by the cancellation, but he shrugged it off, saying that the new president was just keeping a campaign promise.
    The Prime Minister needs to stop daydreaming about his last Caribbean vacation, get back to work, get the president back on the phone and tell him that this is no way to treat a best friend, that both countries need this pipeline and that he must reverse this decision immediately.

Order of Canada

    Mr. Speaker, on December 31, a Charlottetown constituent was named to the Order of Canada.
    In his forties, he walked away from a secure government job to invest everything he had into a bankrupt cookware company. That company, best known by its brand Paderno, went on to tremendous success and provided stable year-round careers for a growing number of families in Prince Edward Island over the last 35 years.
    His involvement with Atlantic Beef Products is also a story of resurgence. The beef plant was a major drain on government coffers when this constituent became chairman of the board. After building a strong team and then a strong brand, Atlantic Beef flourished. It is profitable and is providing meaningful employment to Islanders.
    His commitment to his community was on display when he led the capital fundraising campaign for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which raised $23 million in 2010. This would not have been possible without the support of my mom, Joan, and I could not be more proud of my dad, Jim Casey, on his appointment to the Order of Canada.
    I send my congratulations to my dad.

[Translation]

Small and Medium-sized Businesses

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's small and medium-sized businesses are feeling the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hospitality, culture and arts sectors have had to cut a massive number of jobs. For men and women across the country, dreams of owning a business and creating a legacy have been dashed.
    Small and medium-sized businesses in Canada need a solid recovery plan.
    The Conservatives are known for their expertise in economics. The previous Conservative government skilfully navigated the 2008 economic crisis, emerging stronger than all other G7 countries. Canadians deserve the best. The Conservatives continue to work with the government to build the Canada of the future.
    Future measures to support small and medium-sized businesses must focus on helping these businesses, and Canadian jobs, survive long term.

[English]

Canada-U.S. Relations

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's Conservatives would like to congratulate President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris on their inauguration. Canada and the United States enjoy a unique relationship, unlike any in the world. We share a geography, similar values, common interests and family ties. We share the largest trading relationship in the world and note that the first call the President made to a foreign head of government was to Canada.

[Translation]

     We have a shared future. Our successes and failures hinge on our co-operation on matters such as trade, investments and diplomacy.

  (1415)  

[English]

    The Canada-U.S. relationship has never been more important as we focus on vaccine distribution and securing North America's economic recovery. Canada's Conservatives look forward to working with the new Biden administration.

[Translation]

COVID-19 Emergency Response

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim to want to help workers, but that is not the case.
    Because of the Liberals' gross incompetence, thousands of people were told that they were entitled to the CERB. The truth is that the government changed the rules halfway through the game. Today, the government is asking those people to pay back the money they received, money that they have already spent on groceries or rent. The Liberals could not care less about that because they are completely out of touch with reality.
    Honest workers have been misled by the Liberals. Rather than supporting these workers in this time of crisis, the Liberals are bleeding them dry. If there is one thing that we have come to expect from the Liberals, it is their lack of courage. In this case, the courageous thing to do would be for the Liberals to tax the wealthiest Canadians to fix their mistake and restore some semblance of tax fairness in this country.
    The courageous thing to do would be for the Liberals to admit their mistakes and fix them but not at the expense of the most vulnerable. The courageous thing to do would be for the Liberals to focus on people's real priorities, namely, the pandemic, vaccines, and our health care system and public services, rather than on plans to build billion-dollar pipelines.

[English]

Health

    Mr. Speaker, Manitoba has just emerged from 11 weeks of code red restrictions that had all Manitobans staying at home and staying apart during the holidays. The ongoing lockdowns have put 5,600 Manitoba businesses at risk of permanently disappearing and many have already closed, impacting thousands of workers who had good-paying, stable jobs.
    These last three months, and frankly the last year, have been extremely difficult for my constituents. They deserve a federal government that has their backs and secures vaccines for Canadians so we can get our economy back on track and return to our normal lives. However, this week Manitoba will receive zero doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and all new vaccination appointments have been halted as a result.
    Despite this critical situation, the Prime Minister took his time in calling the CEO of Pfizer. Meanwhile, other world leaders were calling and securing vaccines for their countries and will receive their vaccine shipments while Canada is left behind. Canadians deserve a real plan to secure vaccines now.

[Translation]

Government Appointments

    Mr. Speaker, the Governor General had to resign as a result of her abusive behaviour.
    As far as we Quebeckers are concerned, she should not be replaced. Instead, the position should be abolished. The Crown symbolizes the monarchy, which has no place in a democratic society.
    The situation the Prime Minister now finds himself in also reflects his own sloppiness. Ms. Payette's problems with staff relations are nothing new. Obviously, the Prime Minister simply failed to do any checks in advance. He wanted to put on a good show. He got his good show, but it is going to cost us $150,000 a year for the rest of her life.
    The same can be said of vaccinations. He made a big show of it when the first doses arrived, but he did nothing to ensure a steady supply. It is the same story with borders: He lectures everyone, but does nothing to actually stop people from travelling. The Prime Minister would rather put on a show than do his job. Quebeckers are sick of paying for his debacles.

[English]

Sudbury Women's Centre

    Mr. Speaker, the Sudbury Women's Centre is celebrating its 40th anniversary with a 40 years, 40 days, $40,000 fundraiser from January 27 until March 8, which is International Women's Day. Since August 1981, the centre has been working to provide a safe place for women to seek help and refuge when, at times, there is nowhere else to turn.
    The pandemic remains a major challenge for survivors of gender-based and domestic violence and the organizations that serve them. Since last April, the centre has been assisting clients with basic needs like food and hygiene items through delivery and curbside pickup. It offers peer support over the phone, and still delivers such programs as Self-Compassion and Collective Kitchen. The centre enables women to reclaim their self-worth and drive.

[Translation]

    On average, more than 9,000 women use it each year. Before the pandemic, an average of 150 to 250 women visited the centre each week.

[English]

    I want to thank the workers and volunteers of the centre for their continued leadership in our community.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

  (1420)  

[English]

Natural Resources

    Mr. Speaker, last fall Conservatives asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do to protect the thousands of jobs related to the Keystone XL pipeline. The Prime Minister's answer was that he called President Biden. Those workers deserved better than one phone call leading to pink slips.
    Why did the Prime Minister bet the jobs of thousands of Canadians on a single phone call to the President?
    Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case.
    From the very beginning we have been there to support oil and gas workers across the country, including in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is why seven years ago, when I was a mere leader of the third party in the House of Commons, I went down to Washington to advocate for the Keystone XL pipeline to a room full of American Democrats, to talk about the interconnectedness of our energy security but also to advocate for more leadership on climate change.
    Over the past five years, we have demonstrated that investing in oil and gas and fighting climate change can go together—
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for confirming he has had no success with the U.S. relationship for seven years.
    The government's response since the Americans decided to kill Keystone has been complete surrender. Canadians are being told it was a campaign promise the Liberals did not want to interfere with. The Liberals are now telling Canadians just to move on.
    Is this the kind of mail-it-in effort from the Prime Minister we are going to get when hundreds of thousands of Canadians are worried about their economic future?
    Mr. Speaker, how quickly the Leader of the Opposition forgets that the past four years were characterized by this government consistently standing up for Canadians right across the country, whether by protecting supply management, whether by protecting the cultural exemption, whether by protecting our steel and aluminum workers, whether by moving forward on defending Canadian interests against the previous administration or by working hand in hand on both fighting climate change and creating new jobs with this current administration.
    We will stay focused on sticking up for Canadians every step of the way.

Health

    Mr. Speaker, in just a few days he has already lost thousands of jobs in both Canada and the U.S. from inaction.
    We also know, on vaccines, that the government was talking to Pfizer last fall about logistics. It has known for months there were going to be problems with production. It did not plan for it. This week, there will be no deliveries of the Pfizer vaccine. Next week, our order has been cut by 86%, which is more than any other country.
    Why are Canadians always paying for the Prime Minister's failure to act quickly?
    Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, we knew there would be challenges with the global supply chains around vaccines as they were developed, which is why we set out and succeeded in signing more contracts with more different companies for more doses per Canadian than any other country in the world. We know that momentary delays are happening on Pfizer, but we will be receiving hundreds of thousands of doses later in February and we are still on track to vaccinate over three million Canadians by the end of Q1, and everyone who wants it by September.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, across Canada, 18% of vaccine deliveries have been reduced. This week, there have been no vaccine deliveries, no distribution plan and delivery delays. This is increasing the concerns of Canadians. The Prime Minister must act now.
    When will the Liberal government take action to get more vaccines?
    Mr. Speaker, we continue to talk with all the different vaccine companies because we have been able to sign contracts with more vaccine companies to get more potential doses per Canadian than any other country.
    We are disappointed by Pfizer's interruption, but we continue to receive deliveries from Moderna. We continue to work with the other companies to get vaccines to Canada more quickly.
    I can reassure Canadians. Our goal remains to have at least three million Canadians vaccinated by the end of March and everyone—

  (1425)  

    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Speaker, we need more doses. This week, in the middle of a pandemic, Canada will not be getting a single dose.
    There is a significant delay in Canada's vaccine supply. At long-term care homes and seniors' residences, vaccinations are on pause. This is a crucial time for all Canadians. This week, there will not be a single vaccine.
    Why are we still behind on vaccines and other measures during this pandemic?
    Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is looking to score political points, but he must not sow fear among Canadians. He must not deliberately mislead Canadians.
    We will still receive doses from Moderna. There will, indeed, be a temporary interruption in deliveries from Pfizer, but we are working very closely with the company to ensure that we receive more doses in a few weeks when their factory is once again operational. We will be able to vaccinate everyone by September. We are on track to meet our objectives for the end of March.
    Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the Prime Minister say that members must not mislead people. Perhaps he should listen to his own advice.
    The media is reporting that Quebec has had to postpone vaccinations for parents and grandparents in Quebec because of delays in shipments from Pfizer, which were already in short supply, on top of the delays that had been announced in mid-January.
    I want to hear it from his own mouth. How many vaccines will we receive from Pfizer this week?
    Mr. Speaker, as we told the provinces a few weeks ago, the Pfizer deliveries were interrupted because the company is retooling its Belgian plant. Pfizer will be sending us hundreds of thousands of doses in a few weeks, but deliveries are on hold for now. However, the good news is that, because we negotiated agreements with several companies, we are still getting doses from Moderna. We are working with Pfizer and other manufacturers to get as many doses as we can as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Speaker, the answer is zero deliveries.
    I would like to hear him tell Quebec seniors that these delays are a good thing.
    On January 21, Global News reminded us that Pfizer had asked the finance committee for improvements to the corporate tax regime, tax incentives for the industry and changes to drug pricing procedures in Canada.
    Is the Prime Minister at all concerned about the fact that, even as Pfizer is delaying and cancelling deliveries, it is asking Canada's finance department for more favourable treatment?
    Mr. Speaker, the good news is that we negotiated several contracts with different companies just in case there were interruptions with any of them. That is the good news. Our plan heading into negotiations was solid.
    Unfortunately, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is once again hinting at conspiracy theories behind various issues. We are working with all the vaccine manufacturers to deliver as many vaccines as possible across Canada. We have a plan to vaccinate everyone by September, and we will keep that promise.
    Mr. Speaker, we have lost more than 19,000 people to COVID-19, including front-line workers and seniors. Families are mourning the loss of their loved ones.
    Why is the Prime Minister advocating for an election instead of putting all his efforts into protecting the public and making sure that everyone is vaccinated?
    Mr. Speaker, it is the leader of the NDP who is talking about elections.
    We are focused on delivering vaccines to Canadians and helping seniors across the country. That is why we are working with the provinces on standards for long-term care and working with the Red Cross and the Canadian Armed Forces to help our seniors. We will continue to focus on what Canadians want, which is to provide the help Canadians need.
    We made a promise to be there for everyone, for as long as necessary, and we are going to keep that promise.

  (1430)  

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we have lost over 19,000 Canadians to COVID-19, and that is a staggering number. However, it is not just a number: These are real people, like Yassin Dabeh, a 19-year-old Syrian refugee who fled war to end up losing his life to COVID-19 while working in a long-term care centre, a for-profit long-term care centre.
    Why is the Prime Minister spending time preparing for an election when he should be spending all of his time protecting Canadians by making sure that everyone has access to a vaccine?
    Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians that we would have their backs, whatever it took, as long as it takes to get through this pandemic, and that is what we are focused on.
    I will allow the leader of the NDP to talk about elections all he wants, but our focus is on delivering for Canadians and supporting Canadians through the tragedies and the incredible heroics we are seeing on display right across the country from our front-line workers. There are far too many tragedies, but we know that Canadians are continuing to be there for each other, and this government will continue to be there for them.
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to check the Prime Minister's math. He said that every adult would be vaccinated by September, which is 32 weeks away, and all the leading COVID-19 vaccines require two doses. There are approximately 30 million adults in Canada and under 2% have received a single dose so far. This means that Canada, on average, needs to be administering roughly two million doses per week to meet this goal. This week's total is zero.
    How the hell did this happen, and what are the Liberals doing to fix it?
    I know that everyone has been away for a while and parliamentary language is something that we tend to forget, and so I just want to remind everyone that certain words do rank as unparliamentary. However, I know it was slip-up and do not think it was planned.
    Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we share the urgency of Canadians to obtain vaccines as soon as possible. With more than 1.1 million vaccines distributed across this country to date, we are on track to have three million Canadians vaccinated by the end of March, and all Canadians who wish to be vaccinated will have access to a vaccine before the end of September 2021.
    We are on track with our strategy. This is a temporary interruption, and we will make sure we deliver for Canadians, because nothing is more important.
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate Romania, Poland, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic, France and other countries for receiving doses from Pfizer this week, as their governments negotiated more favourable terms with drug companies than Canada's procurement minister. We know why the procurement minister will not release the details of these contracts: It is because she executed a terrible deal.
    What are the Liberals doing to fix their deadly screw-ups and get us vaccines?
    Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we secured, under seven APAs, the largest number of doses per capita of any country in the world. We also made sure not to put all our eggs in one basket so that in case there are interruptions in the supply chain, we will be able to draw on other companies' deliveries.
    To that end, we will be receiving over 300,000 doses from both Pfizer and Moderna next week alone. We will have six million doses in this country before the end of March. Then, going on through the rest of the year, we will see millions and millions more vaccines—
    The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
    Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this week Canada is receiving the lowest per capita amount of vaccines, because we are receiving zero. Zero is zero; it is not something that is there. I do not know why the procurement minister does not understand that. We do not have the same favourable terms as other countries do, and that is her fault. It is the Prime Minister's fault.
    Not having a plan is not going to cut it. What is the government going to do to get us vaccines now?
    Mr. Speaker, it is inaccurate to say that we do not have a plan. On the contrary, we have secured more vaccines per capita than any other country in the world. We will see 20 million vaccines coming in from Pfizer and Moderna alone in Q2. We will see 70 million vaccines coming in from these companies prior to the end of September.
    That is the plan, and we are on track.

  (1435)  

[Translation]

     Mr. Speaker, Maccabi Healthcare Services, an Israeli health care provider, reported a 60% reduction in COVID-19 infections three weeks after the first vaccine was administered. Here in Canada, our economy is suffocating and people are in lockdown and suffering pointlessly just because this Prime Minister screwed up negotiations with vaccine manufacturers. No fewer than 20 countries, including England, Ireland and Denmark, are way ahead of Canada in per capita vaccine administration.
    Why is the Prime Minister refusing to tell Canadians the truth?
    Mr. Speaker, the retooling is temporary. Canada is in a good position. Retooling is not causing us to lose a single dose. Canada received vaccines in December before many other countries, and we are on track to vaccinate at least three million people by the end of March. Let us not forget that some countries, such as Japan, New Zealand, Australia and South Korea, have not even started vaccinating at all yet.
    Mr. Speaker, the minister is providing examples of countries that are doing worse than Canada, but why not look at those that are doing better? We currently rank 24th in the world among large countries in terms of vaccinations per capita. We have been saying all along that the contracts have been mismanaged, and now the facts are clear.
    
    When will the Prime Minister come clean to Canadians and admit that he did a poor job of negotiating the contracts?
    Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with the contracts.
    We feel the same sense of urgency as Canadians to secure these essential vaccines as quickly as possible. More than 1.1 million vaccines have been distributed across the country so far. Canada ranks among the top five G20 countries in COVID-19 vaccinations.
    Our government is responsible for this file and we will not stop until the job is done.
    Mr. Speaker, we may rank fifth in the G20, but we rank 24th when compared to countries like the Seychelles, which is ahead of Canada. That is not normal.
    We have been pointing out problems with the contracts since November and December. These problems are now playing out, as we learn that no vaccines will be distributed in Canada this week. That is not normal for a country that claims to have the best vaccine portfolio in the world. We want the facts, and that means getting vaccines.
    Will the minister confirm whether someone somewhere is leading this government and will get us vaccines as quickly as possible?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying this:

[Translation]

    This is a completely temporary situation, as we are working hard to ensure that every Canadian who wants a vaccine gets one.
    Canada remains well positioned, since we rank in the top five of G20 countries when it comes to per capita vaccination. We plan to vaccinate three million people by the end of March and at least 13 million people by the end of the second quarter, and we are on the right track.

Air Transportation

    Mr. Speaker, the government is reluctant to stop people from travelling from Quebec and Canada to other countries, even though, for almost a year now, many preventive measures have been proposed and could even have been implemented, had it not been for the government's stubbornness.
    The government also promised to force companies that receive assistance to reimburse airline tickets. Airlines, even foreign ones, have received the Canada emergency wage subsidy. They have received assistance.
    Will the government at least force the airlines to refund the cost of tickets for people who have cancelled their pleasure trips?

  (1440)  

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we are aware of how frustrating the situation is for Canadians. We are very much supportive of our airline industry and sector. Discussions are ongoing with the airline sector to prepare a support package, but members can rest assured that no support package will happen without refunds for passengers and support for our regional routes.

[Translation]

Health

    Mr. Speaker, the government is twiddling its thumbs while people are losing their jobs and thousands of people are not getting their refunds. Now it is in the hands of the courts. In an initial ruling today, the courts indicated that the companies must refund the flights.
    The Prime Minister spends his time lecturing Quebec during his press conferences in front of his residence. What is he doing to stop tourists from travelling south? He is doing nothing. What is he doing to ensure that they quarantine when they return? He is doing nothing. What is he doing to prevent foreign variants from entering the country? He is doing absolutely nothing.
    It is January 25, and for the tourist arriving at the airport today it is business as usual. When will the Prime Minister take action?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we are very much aware of the situation. We are considering all options. Let me remind my colleague that since March 2020, we have advised all Canadians to avoid unnecessary or non-essential international travel. We have put extra measures in place. We have banned foreigners from travelling to Canada for non-essential purposes. We have also implemented pre-departure testing to ensure that all arrivals to Canada are tested for COVID before arrival.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the government is still busy tackling the issues that came up over the holidays. A month later, Ottawa has yet to do a single thing to prevent non-essential travel or to monitor quarantines.
    A month after the U.K. alerted the world about a new variant of COVID-19, Ottawa is doing nothing to control the borders and Ontario was hit by a massive outbreak at a long-term care facility.
    Everyone is calling on the federal government to restrict travel and oversee the quarantines.
    When will they take action? What are they waiting for?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, at every step of the way, we have used science and evidence to advise our country on how best to respond to COVID-19 from those very early days when we were undertaking screening at the border, increasing measures to ban foreign nationals and asking Canadians to forgo non-essential travel. We have some of the strictest measures in the world, including a 14-day quarantine that is enforced and is enforceable by all provinces, territories and local police officers. We need to work together in enforcement as Canadians, provinces and territories to make sure that people adhere to quarantine, and in fact Canadians largely are. We will continue that work and, as my colleagues have said—
    The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
    Mr. Speaker, protecting our seniors and those who care for them must be a priority. An efficient and timely vaccine rollout for long-term care residents and staff is critical to preventing the deadly outbreaks that we are seeing across the country, but our premiers are now reporting that they have run out of vaccines.
    With a drop in supply and with uncertainty about the schedule moving forward, strong federal leadership is needed, but once again thePrime Minister is missing in action. When will sufficient doses be available to protect our seniors in long-term care?
    Mr. Speaker, I share the concern about our long-term care residents. My own father is 90 years old and is also waiting for a vaccine. I am working with my department and the Government of Canada extremely hard every single day to ensure that all Canadians will have access to a vaccine as soon as possible.
     That is why we are assured that we will receive over 300,000 vaccines next week, and those will be distributed to the provinces and territories. From there, the vaccines are going to ramp up, and we will see millions and millions of vaccines rolling into this country in the next quarter.
    Why? It is because this government—

  (1445)  

    The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
    Mr. Speaker, at the height of an unfolding tragedy at the Roberta Place long-term care centre in my riding, our local health unit has effectively run out of vaccines. The shortage is so serious that seniors, their families, PSWs and front-line health care workers have been told that there is no timeline for when to expect their first doses or vital second doses. We have run out of vaccines at the most critical point in this crisis.
    Minister, what do I tell families who are calling me, some in tears, about when they should expect their vaccines, when they know other countries are still getting their vaccines and Canada is not?
    Once again, I just want to remind hon. members to place their questions through the Chair and not directly to the person they are asking.
    Mr. Speaker, again, I share the concern about long-term care residents and all people in this country.
    We have administered fewer vaccines in this country than we have received, so there are still vaccines that are being utilized, and we will indeed see vaccines ramping up by the hundreds of thousands in this quarter and by the millions for the rest of the year. We are on track to have vaccines for all Canadians before the end of September, because we will stop at nothing to ensure that all Canadians have access to a vaccine this year. That is our promise and that is what we are working on.
    Mr. Speaker, residents of The Elden of Bradford in York—Simcoe were supposed to be getting their vaccines last week, but their vaccination clinics were cancelled, and residents are now being told that they will have to wait until the end of February because of Canada’s shortage of the Pfizer vaccine. With outbreaks in long-term care homes on the rise again, these delays are unacceptable and deadly. Not enough is being done to protect our most vulnerable.
    Why is the Prime Minister failing to show leadership to ensure that Canada has the vaccines needed to protect our citizens?
    Mr. Speaker, Ontario has reported about 100,000 doses that have not been utilized as of yet. Therefore, the claim that the province has run out is simply inaccurate.
    That does not take away from the importance of continuing to receive vaccines into this country, and we will continue to do that. There will be 300,000-plus next week, building up over the first trimester, and then going on into the rest of the year. This is our goal. We have the largest number of doses per capita of any country in the world, and that strategy is still on track for this country.
    Mr. Speaker, a scathing internal audit has exposed disarray and chaos at the Public Health Agency of Canada. The audit notes limited public health expertise at senior levels and a lack of emergency response capacity, and it even revealed that incorrect information was being fed to Canada's chief public health officer. Today, as Canada's vaccine deliveries shift from week to week, it appears that many of these problems remain unresolved.
    How does the minister explain this appalling state of affairs, and can she assure Canadians that these serious gaps are being addressed?
    Mr. Speaker, at every step of the way, Canada's response has been based on science and evidence. I want to thank Dr. Tam for her excellent leadership during this time. I will also thank the Public Health Agency of Canada employees who have worked so hard on behalf of Canadians all across this country. We will continue to spare nothing to ensure the agency has what it needs to continue to deliver for Canadians.
    Mr. Speaker, prior to Christmas, cases of trench fever were found in my riding. This is a disease of extreme poverty. That is abhorrent, and it is a result of the long-standing lack of investment. Our front-line organizations have the ability to address the needs of our community but often lack the resources to respond and provide care for individuals in need. We need help now.
    Will the government commit to making additional investments in front-line organizations in my riding of Winnipeg Centre so that individuals can stay safe from this current health crisis?

  (1450)  

    Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we have worked closely with provinces and territories on our COVID-19 response, including the challenges that many organizations are facing in caring for some of the most vulnerable. I continue to have those conversations with health ministers, including the minister from the member's province.
     We will continue to ensure that the provinces have what they need as they face this crisis and all the circumstances it causes along with it.
    Mr. Speaker, today marks one year since the first COVID-19 case was identified in Canada. Since then, the virus has drastically changed our ways of life, as we have all taken unprecedented measures to stop the spread of the virus.
     Since the start of the pandemic, the federal government has been there to support the provinces and territories to combat the virus, especially in the harder hit provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
    Could the Minister of Health update the House on what steps our government has taken to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and keep Canadians safe?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough—Agincourt for her incredibly hard work to protect the people in her riding.
    Together, as a nation, we have worked to keep Canadians safe by securing millions of items of PPE, COVID tests and vaccines for provinces, territories and indigenous communities. We funded the Canadian Red Cross to provide rapid help in hot spots, including in long-term care homes across the country. Our military has helped to ensure that seniors stay safe in some of the hardest hit homes in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. We funded hundreds of millions of dollars in research to support our scientists to better understand how to fight this virus.
    I thank our health care heroes, essential workers and every Canadian for working so hard and sacrificing so much to save lives and protect each other.

[Translation]

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's official opposition recognized that the Chinese government was committing a genocide against the Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims. Two consecutive U.S. administrations have recognized this genocide, which new secretaries Anthony Blinken and Janet Yellen recently confirmed.
    What is the Government of Canada's position?
    Mr. Speaker, Canada takes these allegations of genocide very seriously. From the outset, Canada declared that the international community had to work together to investigate the serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. The mounting evidence of a systematic campaign of repression cannot be ignored. Canada will continue to work with its partners and exert pressure for an independent international organization to conduct an investigation so that impartial experts can directly observe and report on the situation.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely no realistic chance that independent investigators would be allowed into East Turkestan. That is merely a delay tactic.
     Donald Trump and Joe Biden do not agree on much, but both their administrations have now recognized that Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China are being subject to ongoing genocide
     There is no time for more delays or more investigations. These determinations are very clear from our allies and partners. When will the government join the Biden administration and recognize this genocide?
    Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that Canada takes allegations of genocide very seriously. From the beginning, Canada has said that the international community has to work together in order to investigate the egregious human rights abuses taking place in Xinjiang. Mounting evidence of a systematic campaign of repression cannot be ignored.
    Canada will continue to collaborate with its partners and push for an investigation by an international independent body so that impartial experts can observe and report on the situation first-hand.

Government Appointments

    Mr. Speaker, the government ignored the viceregal appointments committee so it could hand-pick the Governor General. It had, as John Ivison of the National Post quoted sources, a candidate “too spectacular to say no to.” It turns out that the only thing spectacular was the damage the Prime Minister caused with this decision.
    Will the Prime Minister commit to consulting the opposition in using the viceregal appointments committee, so that this country's next Governor General does not end up in the same spectacle as the last one?

  (1455)  

    Mr. Speaker, last week, after receiving a report with respect to workplace conditions at Rideau Hall, the Prime Minister accepted the resignation of the Governor General. In the interim, as my colleague knows, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Wagner, can ensure all of the constitutional continuity in this role.
    The government has made no decisions with respect to the selection or the recommendation of a successor for Her Majesty and will have more to say about that in due course.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, Canada has a shortage of vaccines, its economy is floundering and we no longer have a Governor General. One person is responsible for this situation and that is the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who decided not to use the committee that we, the Conservatives, created. This committee could have identified the problems, but no, the Prime Minister decided that he knew what was best for everyone and he made a personal decision without consulting anyone, which has led to the current situation.
    Why did the Prime Minister not do the bare minimum?
    As he is well aware, the Prime Minister accepted the Governor General's resignation last week. The chief justice of the Supreme Court will carry out the constitutional duties of the position in the meantime. The government has not yet made any decisions about the process or measures that must be taken to recommend the best person to Her Majesty the Queen. We will provide more details in due course a few weeks from now.

Health

    Mr. Speaker, Quebec mobilized its health care resources to organize a massive vaccination campaign, the largest in history. However, not one dose was delivered this week. Not one. Quebec did everything in its power to vaccinate people, but Ottawa once again failed in its responsibility to procure vaccines for Quebeckers.
    Can the Prime Minister give formal assurances today that Quebec will receive doses of the Pfizer vaccine next week?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something I said earlier. The temporary reduction with the Pfizer deliveries will not impact our overall deliveries for the quarter. Indeed, we will see 300,000-plus doses arriving, starting next week. This will go toward meeting our quarterly goal, which we are on track to meet, of six million doses from Pfizer and Moderna into the country, and those will be distributed to all provinces and territories, including Quebec.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the federal government is unable to confirm today that it will receive doses of the Pfizer vaccine next week. A government with foresight seeks solutions to help its people, does it not?
    We know that there are delays in procuring the Pfizer vaccine as a result of work being done on the plant in Belgium. However, Pfizer has another plant in Michigan. The Prime Minister spoke to U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday.
    Did he at least take the initiative to ask him to intervene with Pfizer so that Canada can get vaccines from Michigan?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I want to say that I am in constant contact with our international partners. I have been in touch with our ambassador since the beginning of the vaccination process. We are open. We have taken advantage of every opportunity for Canadians.

[English]

Natural Resources

    Mr. Speaker, in building the most environmentally friendly pipeline in the world, some first nations were looking to solve intergenerational poverty in their communities. They were anticipating improvements to education, housing, health care and social programs. It meant real jobs, real growth, real progress and, most important, real hope.
    Could the Minister of Indigenous Services tell the House what he has done to advocate for these communities that lost their opportunity to advance toward self-determination when Keystone XL pipeline was cancelled?

  (1500)  

    Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said directly to the President on Friday, we are disappointed in this decision. First and foremost, our concern is with the thousands of workers, indigenous and non-indigenous, and their families that are impacted by this decision.
     I spoke to the Alberta energy minister the morning of the inauguration. The message to her, Albertans as well as to the minister of energy for Saskatchewan was that we would be there to support these workers. We are proud of the work they do. We will need their hard work and ingenuity to lower emissions and keep our oil and gas sector strong and prosperous for years to come.
    Mr. Speaker, about 1,000 people in my constituency lost their jobs on Wednesday last week.
    After half a decade of pain in the energy sector, there was finally a glimmer of optimism when work on Keystone XL began. Canada's world-class energy industry has been attacked long enough by the government. My constituents are suffering, and all Canadians are paying the price.
    Can somebody, can anybody, in the government not just give up, but commit to reach across the border to our allies and stand up for the future of these workers and their families?
    Mr. Speaker, we are not happy about this decision.
    We made a strong argument for this project at every level and in every way we could, from Ambassador Hillman to the Prime Minister. I spoke, weekly, with Minister Savage and the former member for Edmonton—Leduc, James Rajotte throughout the fall.
    The governments of Canada and Alberta stood shoulder to shoulder in Washington, virtually, to make the case together. We made the case for Canada and the President of the U.S. has made a decision to honour his campaign commitment.
    Mr. Speaker, the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline is devastating for workers across Canada and especially here in Alberta.
    This is the second time that a U.S. president has tried to kill this project, and the second time that the Prime Minister has pretended to be disappointed. The left pretends that cancelling this project is about the environment. Meanwhile Russia, Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela cheer the decision.
    The job losses that come with this decision are not pretend jobs. Instead of playing pretend, why does the Prime Minister not actually stand up for Alberta, stand up for Canada and remind the U.S. President who their friends actually are?
    Mr. Speaker, the Harper Conservatives had years to get Keystone XL done, and what was their strategy? Nothing. There was no strategy except throwing public insults, negotiating in the media, and doing nothing to support the thousands of energy workers, except beating their own chests.
    We will not take any lessons from that side of the House on getting projects built or supporting energy workers. We need to focus now on the best strategy to get the best outcomes for workers and for the continued competitiveness and prosperity of our oil and gas industry.

Human Rights

    Mr. Speaker, as International Holocaust Remembrance Day falls this week, Jewish communities across Canada are alarmed by rising anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
    The recent desecration of Montreal's Shaar Hashomayim Synagogue was horrifying, but sadly not surprising to the Jewish community or other faith communities often targeted by hate.
    Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what the government is doing to fight anti-Semitism in Canada and around the world and to honour the memory of the six million murdered in the Holocaust?
    Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member for York Centre's question, and condemn in the strongest possible terms the despicable anti-Semitic attack that occurred at Shaar Hashomayim in my community.
    Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial have absolutely no place in our society. This is why Canada has appointed the Hon. Irwin Cotler as Canada's special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism to lead this work. I am confident that, as special envoy, Mr. Cotler will help advance Canada's efforts to promote Holocaust education, awareness and remembrance and take meaningful action to combat anti-Semitism at home and abroad.

Small Business

    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has warned that one in six businesses is thinking about shutting down permanently. Calgary Forest Lawn is home to the famous International Avenue, where many new Canadians are living their dream of owning their own small business. They are extremely disappointed at the government's lack of an adequate vaccine plan, causing further financial and mental stress. If we hope to have a functioning economy again, we need our small businesses to succeed.
    Will the minister commit to providing an actual plan instead of a mouthful of platitudes, or will this be another botched job like the vaccine plan?

  (1505)  

    Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the comment that this is a botched vaccine plan. Indeed, we have the highest number of doses per capita of any country in the world. We were one of the first countries to begin vaccinating its citizens, and we have been told by both Pfizer and Moderna at the bargaining table that we were one of the first countries in line with them as suppliers.
    This is a temporary reduction in Pfizer's vaccine shipments. We are on track to have three million Canadians vaccinated by the end of the first quarter, and we will have all Canadians with access to a vaccine prior to the end of September—
    The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
    Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks I have met with a number of new small businesses that had the misfortune to open just prior to the pandemic. They include Ohana Deli Market in Sun Peaks. In every case, the owner put their heart, soul and, in some cases, their life savings into their dreams. These businesses have fallen through the cracks and the government refuses to offer them a lifeline.
    Can the minister reassure these entrepreneurs she is working on a solution and that they will not be left behind?
    Mr. Speaker, it is really important in the massive support programs that we have put in place for Canadian businesses, such as the wage subsidy and rent subsidy, to also ensure the integrity of those programs. That is something we take very seriously. With new businesses, there are challenges in doing that. Having said that, I take this question very seriously. It is something I hear about too and I am concerned with, and it is something we are looking at closely.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the economic recovery is about to take a nosedive. The vaccination campaign, which is the only way out of the crisis, has just hit a wall.
    According to CFIB, 180,000 businesses could close down and 2.4 million additional jobs could be lost, mostly in the arts, culture, tourism and food service industries.
    What measures is the government proposing to help business owners hang on for another eight to 10 months, if the majority of the country is not vaccinated by September 2021?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
    I completely agree that my priority as Minister of Finance is to support our businesses, especially our small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have introduced extraordinary programs to support them, programs like the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency rent subsidy and additional measures for businesses targeted by new lockdown measures.
    As for tourism, we announced additional supports in November. We will continue—
    The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

Canadian Heritage

    Mr. Speaker, communities across Canada are extremely concerned about the rise of Islamophobia, online hate speech and other forms of prejudice that have only intensified throughout the pandemic. We have all seen that words can lead to violence.
    As parliamentarians, we recognize that we all have a duty to lead by example. We must engage in respectful dialogue and remain open to debating ideas to hear the views of Canadians in order to work towards a society where everyone is free to thrive with dignity.
    Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House what our government is doing to combat the promotion of hatred and violence online?
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi for the question.
    Hate speech has no place in our society. Our government will continue to take ambitious, meaningful measures to combat online radicalization and the violence that may ensue. We recently announced funding for YMCA Canada's “Block Hate” initiative to combat cyberviolence and online hate speech.
    This project will examine hate speech trends across Canada and work with experts to develop online tools and training for Canadians.

  (1510)  

[English]

Air Transportation

    Mr. Speaker, it is shocking and unacceptable that nearly a year into this pandemic, tens of thousands of Canadians have still not received refunds for flights that were cancelled by the airlines. Now the Prime Minister is telling Canadians to cancel any travel plans they may have booked for this spring.
    Canadians want to do the right thing and stay home, especially in light of these new strains of the virus. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that Canadians who do as he is asking and cancel their flights will receive full refunds?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the conversation he and I had last week. I wanted to reach out to him and all of my critics to ensure that they know that I am willing to work with them on issues that matter to Canadians.
    As I said earlier, we are very much aware of the frustrations many Canadians have because of the lack of refunds. We as a government have already committed $1.1 billion to support key players, such as airport authorities and regional airlines. Discussions are ongoing with the airlines to ensure that Canadians get their refunds and that regional routes are retained.

Housing

    Mr. Speaker, the world's ultra wealthy use Canadian real estate to launder money and evade taxes. At the same time, corporations, numbered companies, hedge funds and real estate investment trusts are squeezing huge profits from residential properties. As a result, rents are skyrocketing, affordable housing is disappearing and more Canadians are experiencing homelessness. Will the government introduce strong regulations to stop the predatory activities that are distorting Canada's housing market and making homes unaffordable?
    Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that our government is absolutely seized with. That is why, in the fall economic statement in November, I announced our plan to introduce a tax-based measure to target specifically the unproductive use of domestic housing in Canada owned by non-residents and non-Canadians. It is something we are definitely focused on.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
    There has been discussion among the parties and if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
    That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, a bill standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, entitled An act to amend the Canada Recovery Benefits act and Customs act, be deemed to have been introduced and read a first time, deemed read a second time and referred to committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.
    This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity I will only ask those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.
    Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
    Some hon. members: Nay.

Terrorist Designation of Proud Boys

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
    We have consulted with the other parties and sincerely hope that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
    That the House call upon the government to use all available tools to address the proliferation of white supremacist and hate groups, starting with immediately designating the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity.
    This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity I will only ask those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.
    Accordingly—
    Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question before it is put to a vote?

  (1515)  

    What is that?
    Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would be amenable to adding the other white supremacist group, Soldiers of Odin, to the motion.
    I will have to check with the table to see exactly what the rules are on that.
    I will continue with the original motion and get it done, and if the hon. member wants to continue the discussion after, maybe she can come back to the House along with the hon. member and propose a further motion.
    Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the original motion will please say nay.
    It is agreed.
    The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
    There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

    (Motion agreed to)


ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

[Translation]

Committees of the House

Health  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-210, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to organ and tissue donors. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[English]

Procedure and House Affairs  

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House and I should like to move concurrence in the eighth report at this time.

  (1520)  

    This being a hybrid sitting, for the sake of clarity I will ask all those opposed to the request to express their disagreement. Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
    The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

    (Motion agreed to)

Government Response to Petitions

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 253 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Petitions

Human Rights  

    Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary Subcommittee on International Human Rights, along with two U.S. presidential administrations, have concluded Beijing is committing crimes of genocide against Uighurs in China. Evidence makes it clear that the Chinese government's treatment of the Uighurs meets the criteria for genocide as outlined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
    I therefore table a petition from concerned Canadians calling on the federal government to find its voice by recognizing that Uighurs in China have been and are being subjected to genocide and using the powers of the Magnitsky act to sanction Chinese Communist Party officials responsible for the heinous crimes being committed against the Uighur people.
    Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today in the House of Commons formally recognizing that Uighurs in China have been and are being subject to genocide. We talked about this earlier in question period, and I want to salute the two members from the Conservative Party who brought this up yesterday in a news conference. All Canadians should be ashamed of the government for not standing by Uighurs in China.
    Mr. Speaker, it is urgent for the Government of Canada to listen to these petitioners, do the right thing and recognize the clear evidence that there is an ongoing genocide in East Turkestan in China.
    The petitioners call upon the government to recognize the genocide; affirm that the government has a responsibility to protect under the genocide convention and that these are commitments the government has made; stop the delay tactics by calling for on-the-ground investigations that will never happen; and indeed impose Magnitsky sanctions to hold those responsible for these heinous crimes accountable.
    I commend this petition to the consideration of all members.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise virtually to also table a petition related to the genocidal persecution of Uighurs in China. The petitioners note the reported forced sterilizations, concentration camps, forced labour, forced organ harvesting and a number of other extremely odious and horrific acts of genocide.
    The petitioners call upon the government to undertake two specific items: first, to recognize that genocide has been and is currently under way in China; and second, to undertake action, specifically the use of the Magnitsky act to sanction those responsible.

  (1525)  

Questions on the Order Paper

    Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 209, 210, 215, 216, 219, 224, 226, 228, 229, 231, 235, 236, 238, 242, 250, 254, 257, 260, 261, 269, 272, 274, 278 to 280, 283, 290, 291, 298, 299, 309, 311, 332 and 344.

[Text]

Question No. 209--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
    With regard to air travel complaints sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) since February 1, 2020, and broken down by month and subject: (a) how many air travel complaints were received; (b) what is the status of the complaints in (a) (e.g. resolved, investigation ongoing, no action taken yet, etc.); (c) what is the CTA service standard relating to resolving air travel complaints; and (d) what specific action, if any, did the CTA take to ensure that the processing and investigation of complaints would continue during the pandemic?
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to air travel complaints sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency, CTA, since February 1, 2020, broken down by month and subject, the answers for part (a) are as follows: February: 4776, March: 3625, April: 2349, May: 1396, June: 1128, July: 1199, August: 897, September: 943, October: 1029, and November: 260, as of November 10. The total is 17,602
    The CTA is currently processing the complaints received for the period referenced. A detailed breakdown of the subject of each complaint is not available.
    The CTA reports on the subject of complaints received in its annual report. The 2019-20 annual report can be found at: www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/annual-report-2019-2020#sec10
    With regard to part (b), of the complaints referenced in part (a), the CTA has processed over approximately 6,000 complaints since February 1, 2020.
    With regard to part (c), the answers are as follows. With regard to facilitation, of all air travel facilitations closed, 80% are completed within 30 calendar days/20 business days from the communication of the initial position of both parties to the conclusion of facilitation.
    With regard to mediation, of all air travel complaint mediations closed, 100% are completed within 30 calendar days/20 business days or within such longer period as requested by both parties.
    With regard to adjudication, 80% of all air travel complaint adjudications are processed within 120 calendar days/85 business days from the opening of pleadings to the issuance of a decision, net of any pleadings filed beyond the standard answer/reply period, as established in the dispute adjudication rules.
    With regard to part (d), between March 25 and June 30, 2020, the CTA temporarily paused interactions with airlines related to dispute resolution activities, to permit them to focus on immediate and urgent operational demands like repatriating Canadians stranded abroad. However, during this period, CTA staff continued to triage and process complaints, communicate with passengers and address issues raised where possible.
    Notwithstanding the pause and the sudden and sustained shift to remote work, the CTA has maintained productivity levels comparable to last year’s. It has processed over 6,000 complaints since the beginning of the pandemic, including over 3,100 complaints pertaining to flight disruptions.
    The CTA anticipates that resolution of complaints filed in the period after the APPR came fully into force and before the pandemic disrupted global air travel will be facilitated by the major inquiry it launched in February 2020, which focuses on alleged failures by airlines to respect their communications-related obligations under the APPR. The report of an inquiry officer assigned to gather evidence on those allegations was recently published.
Question No. 210--
Mr. Martin Shields:
    With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what specific support measures, if any, is VAC taking to ensure that branches of the Royal Canadian Legion are able to cover their operational costs and financially survive the pandemic; and (b) does VAC have any statistics or projections on the financial impact of the pandemic in relation to Legion branches, including how many branches may not survive without assistance from VAC and, if so, what are the statistics or projections?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan has helped to protect millions of jobs, provide emergency support to families and keep businesses afloat throughout the pandemic.
    Through Bill C-4, an act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, the Government of Canada is providing $20 million to support veterans organizations facing hardship due to COVID-19. All funds were to be provided to veterans organizations by December 31, 2020.
    The Government of Canada is helping organizations that serve veterans access the money they need to replace critical charitable and other revenue lost because of COVID-19. The veterans organizations emergency support fund, VOESF, will give them the resources needed to continue to operate and support the veterans community.
    The $20-million veterans organizations emergency support fund was announced in November 2020, as part of the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan. It was created to support veterans organizations experiencing financial challenges due to COVID-19. The $20-million VOESF will help the recipients cover operational costs like rent, utilities, administration and wages, and will allow them to continue to deliver important services for veterans and their families throughout the global pandemic.
    Organizations that access these funds will be able to continue their work with veterans and their families during a time when it is needed most.
    On December 17, 2020, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that $2.8 million from the VOESF will go to 38 veterans organizations across Canada. These organizations are in addition to the four announced when the VOESF was launched in November 2020: Royal Canadian Legion, ANAVETS, True Patriot Love and VETS Canada.
    Through the VOESF, the government was able to help a total of 42 organizations that serve over 280,000 veterans.
    These organizations play a critical role in supporting the well-being of veterans and their families across the country. They carry out a range of services, such as mental health support, social and community support, commemoration efforts, animal therapy, healing through physical activity, healing through nature and counselling.
    On December 21, 2020, the Royal Canadian Legion announced the Legion branches that will receive support through the VOESF. The Legion, the largest veterans organization in Canada, received $14 million from the Government of Canada to distribute to its branches across the country. This funding will help Legion branches with operational expenses such as rent, insurance, utilities and administrative costs so they can focus on providing important programs, services and support to veterans and their families, and continue their strong community presence. To date, 701 branches of the Legion have been supported through the VOESF and more funds will be disbursed in the coming weeks by the Legion’s Dominion command.
    The Legion’s branches are some of the government’s most important partners in supporting veterans, and in making sure that Canadians remember the sacrifices they have made. The Government of Canada has provided them with the funding they need to make it through the pandemic and continues to work together with the Legion on behalf of veterans and their families.
Question No. 215--
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
    With regard to the application process for Senate appointments since October 28, 2019: (a) how many applications were received for Senate appointments; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were unsolicited applications and how many were nominated; and (c) of the nominated candidates, how many were nominated by (i) government employees, (ii) parliamentary staff, (iii) ministers or members of Parliament within the governing party?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the number of applications and nominations received for Senate appointments will be disclosed by the independent advisory board for Senate appointments in its next report to the Prime Minister.
    The process to nominate an individual for a Senate appointment involves submitting a form via the advisory board’s website with the name of the person or organization and email of the nominator; the name, email and province/territory of residence of the nominee; and a description of why the person would be well suited for the role.
    The advisory board does not collect or track the title or place of work of the nominator, and it keeps the nominator’s information confidential. All individuals need to apply, whether they were nominated or not, by submitting an application package through the advisory board’s website.
Question No. 216--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
    With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada limiting its research activities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what research activities were reduced; (b) what research activities continued unimpeded; (c) what research activities remain suspended; and (d) what is the specific plan regarding when each of the research activities, which remain operating at less than full capacity, will resume operating at full capacity?
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), at the beginning of the COVID-19 shutdown, most of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s, AAFC, research and development centres remained open in a limited capacity to take care of non-research, critical services such as care of livestock and collections, insects and germplasm, and the maintenance of specialized equipment and biocontainment facilities; and activities to ensure long-term stewardship of land and protect long-term studies, maintain plant germplasm, field equipment and infrastructure, maintain bee colonies and hives, and provide critical material to the sector, e.g., breeder seed.
    In May and June, many field-based research projects that were time-sensitive to the planting season resumed, including registration/co-op trials, early generation variety plots to support genetic development, agronomic trials, integrated pest management research and agri-environment research.
    AAFC started re-entry back into its research facilities in the middle of August. As of October 13, 2020, all 20 AAFC research centres have resumed a number of laboratory, greenhouse and barn research activities.
    With regard to part (b), projects and activities that could be conducted virtually have continued throughout the pandemic.
    With regard to part (c), many of AAFC’s research projects are reduced in capacity activity-wise due to COVID-19, but the extent to which these reductions will be evident at the end of fiscal has yet to be determined, as circumstances are still evolving.
    With regard to part (d), specific plans to resume full operations of research activities have not been established at this time. AAFC continues to monitor the situation and is ready to adapt its approach as appropriate. The health and safety of AAFC employees continues to be the number one priority in all decision-making matters, and the department will be closely monitoring the situation across the country and continuing to adhere to guidance from local and provincial authorities.
Question No. 219--
Mr. Randy Hoback:
    With regard to the decision by the government to have Nuctech security equipment installed in Canadian embassies and consulates and the subsequent contract awarded to Deloitte to review purchasing practices for security equipment: (a) what is the complete list of Canadian embassies, consulates, or other missions abroad that have installed the X-ray scanners from Nuctech; (b) what is the total value of all contracts Nuctech has had with Global Affairs Canada (GAC) since November 4, 2015; (c) what is the value of the contract awarded to Deloitte to review the purchasing practices for security equipment; (d) what is the scope of the Deloitte review; (e) when will the review be completed, and will the results be made public; and (f) did the government receive any written guarantees from Nuctech that any information obtained, either directly or indirectly, from the company’s dealings with GAC or the government, would not be provided to the Chinese government and, if so, what are the details of any such guarantees?
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and part (b), Global Affairs Canada has not purchased any X-ray scanners from Nuctech.
    With regard to part (c), information on contracts worth more than $10,000 for the time period requested is available under proactive disclosure on the Open Government site at: https://open.canada.ca.
    With regard to part (d), Deloitte was mandated to conduct a review of Global Affairs Canada’s procurement process for security equipment, including a review of the go-forward options for the use of the recently established standing offers for security equipment and a review of the procurement options to support the future acquisition of mission equipment, including a review of the appropriateness of creating a new national security exception for security equipment.
    With regard to part (e), the final versions of the review in French and English were received on November 19, 2020, and were provided to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 27, 2020. They are available at: www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/OGGO/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10994670
    With regard to part (f), Global Affairs Canada has not purchased equipment from Nuctech, therefore no guarantees have been sought.
Question No. 224--
Mr. Dave Epp:
    With regard to rent increase notices issued to clients renting space in government-owned buildings during the pandemic: (a) how many rent increase notices have been issued since March 1, 2020; (b) what was the average increase in (i) percentage, (ii) dollar amount; (c) as of March 1, 2020, what was the vacancy rate in government-owned buildings for (i) retail space, (ii) other clients; and (d) what is the current vacancy rate in government-owned buildings for (i) retail space, (ii) other clients?
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, here is the information with regard to rent increase notices issued to clients renting space in government-owned buildings during the pandemic. With regard to part (a), from March 1, 2020 to November 5, 2020, in Public Services and Procurement Canada-owned buildings, 42 rent increases have been issued to tenants that do not require rent relief, are currently not participating in the rent deferral program or the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, CECRA, and are currently paying full monthly rent. There are 60 notices of rent increases as per the lease provisions that have not been issued to tenants that are currently participating in the rent deferral program or the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, CECRA.
    With regard to part (b), the average increase was 1.82% and $1,839.66. The amount increase ranged from $-905.72 to $24,650.78.
    With regard to part (c), the vacancy rate in government-owned buildings as of March 1, 2020, was as follows: as of March 31, 2020, the marketable vacancy retail space was 5,600m2, which represented 6.7% of PSPC’s complete retail space of 83,000m2 within its portfolio.
    For other clients, this is not applicable.
    With regard to part (d), the current vacancy rate in government-owned buildings as of November 5, 2020, is as follows: as of November 1, 2020, the marketable vacant retail space is 6,300m2, which represents 7.5% of PSPC’s complete retail space of 83,800m2 within its portfolio. It should be noted that the increase in vacancy, compared to March 31, 2020, is due to leases that have ended since that time; and there was an additional 800m2 of new retail space added since March 31, 2020.
    For other clients, this is not applicable.
Question No. 226--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
    With regard to the Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations: (a) how many applications has the government received for funding; (b) what is the total amount dispersed by the fund since its official formation; (c) how many applications were from the constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa; (d) how many applications were received from applicants in the province of Manitoba; (e) how many of the applications in (d) were successful; and (f) what are the details of all funding provided through the fund, including (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) organization type, (v) federal riding?
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canadian Heritage, or PCH, the answer to part (a) of the question is 6,143. The answer to part (b) is $390,697,000. With regard to part (c), PCH’s financial system does not capture information by federal riding. The answer to part (d) is 234. This number does not include applications from the athlete assistance program as these are disclosed on an annual basis. The answer to part (e) is 231. This number does not include successful applications from the athlete assistance program. With regard to part (f), information pertaining to grants and contributions is publicly available on the Open Canada website at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/.
    With regard to the Canada Council for the Arts, the answer to part (a) of the question is 7,083. The answer to part (b) is $62,685,608, and the answer to part (c) is three. With regard to part (d), the answer is 184. The answer to part (e) is 98. With regard to part (f), disclosure of grant and prize recipients can be found at https://canadacouncil.ca/about/public-accountability/proactive-disclosure/grant-recipients.
    With regard to Telefilm Canada, the answer to part (a) of the question is 665, and the answer to part (b) is $29,450,367. With regard to part (c), Telefilm Canada’s operational system does not capture information by federal riding. The answer to part (d) is 22, and the answer to part (e) is 18. With regard to part (f), information pertaining to grants and contributions can be found at https://telefilm.ca/en/transparency/proactive-disclosure/grant-contribution/reports-by-quarter.
Question No. 228--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
    With regard to statistics related to federal correctional inmates since 1980: (a) how many inmates were sentenced to serve two or more life sentences; (b) of the inmates in (a), how many were granted parole, conditional release, or compassionate release; and (c) of the inmates in (b), how many reoffended while on parole, conditional release or compassionate release?
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the Correctional Service of Canada is unable to provide a response to this question, as doing so would involve the extraction and analysis of a significant amount of information, which cannot be completed within the given time frame.
Question No. 229--
Ms. Leona Alleslev:
    With regard to information on services provided by Canada Post since October 2017 and broken down by province or territory and by month for each part of the question: (a) what was the volume of lettermail; (b) how many letters received postmarks the day they were mailed; (c) what are the Canada Post lettermail delivery time performance standards; (d) what were the average, median and mean delivery times for the lettermail; (e) what volume and percentage of the lettermail were delivered exceeding the performance standards; (f) how is the loss of lettermail determined and reported; (g) what volume and percentage of lettermail was lost; (h) what is the audit process to evaluate the security, effectiveness and timeliness of the end-to-end lettermail pickup to delivery process; and (i) how many audits were conducted?
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, for the volume of letter mail, refer to the attached annex. It was not possible to provide a breakdown of the data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.
    With regard to part (b), unless a piece of mail is tracked, Canada Post Corporation, CPC, cannot determine what is not delivered. CPC would know the volume of mail through its machines but not how much “should have” gone through the machine, i.e., inducted but not processed. Similarly, CPC would not know what was processed but not delivered.
    Regarding part (c), according to the Canadian Postal Service Charter, the delivery time performance standards are two business days within a community, three business days within province and four business days between provinces.
    With regard to part (d), from October 2017 to November 2020, CPC’s on-time delivery performance within the above-mentioned two, three and four business day standards was 95.4% in 2017, 93% in 2018 and 95.3% in 2019. The 2020 delivery performance is not yet available. CPC is unable to provide a breakdown of this data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.
    Regarding part (e) of the question, the volume and percentage of letter mail delivered beyond or past CPC standards was 4.6% in 2017, 7% in 2018 and 4.7% in 2019. The 2020 performance is not yet available. CPC is unable to provide a breakdown of this data by province and territory and month by month within the allotted time.
    With regard to parts (f) and (g) of the question, please refer to the answer for part (b).
    Regarding part (h), security of the mail is accomplished through a number of security controls. It starts from the security of mailboxes, which were designed with security in mind and are the result of years of evolution and enhancements, from the metal used to construct the boxes to the design of the locks to secure the inducted products through the course of post. These are tested with the assistance of many key stakeholders and suppliers, engineers, as well as internal knowledge of the security environment. The mail is then brought to depots where ongoing threat, risk and vulnerability assessments are conducted. The security assessment is called a facility security index, or FSI, which is a holistic security assessment based on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police threat risk assessment approach. The process assesses not only the physical security and controls at the facility but also compliance to these controls and to security processes. As a result, an extensive report is provided to management with action plans and a follow-up audit that will be conducted for any significant deficiencies, along with proper communication plans on recommended corrective and preventive measures.
    With regard to part (i) of the question, at the beginning of 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 11 FSI reviews were conducted. As these are normally focused on larger urban outlets, where there is a higher risk of COVID exposure in conducting these audits, once the pandemic began attention instead shifted to conducting rural reviews at smaller rural corporate outlets. As such audits take less time to complete than FSIs, with FSIs taking typically a week and rural reviews being completed within a day, more reviews could be conducted, with more than 226 completed so far. In comparison, 39 FSI reviews were completed throughout 2019, 25 in 2018, and 50 in 2017, which was when the process was implemented.
Question No. 231--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
    With regard to the government’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by its departments and, specifically for the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) what are the current greenhouse gas reduction targets for DND; (b) what is DND's current status with meeting those targets; (c) have the greenhouse gas impacts of replacing the CF-18 fighter jets been taken into account in the department’s gas reduction targets and plans; (d) have greenhouse gas impacts been incorporated into the bidding and selection process for new fighter jets; and (e) what action is the government taking to ensure the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the new fighter jets are mitigated in their operation and maintenance?
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, National Defence is taking concrete steps to reduce its carbon footprint in its real property and its fleets. This includes greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures such as energy performance contracts at defence installations across the country, clean energy purchases and improved energy management.
    National Defence’s continued investments to upgrade and replace critical National Defence infrastructure and fleets will contribute to the government’s efforts to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
    With regard to part (a) of the question, when “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, Canada’s defence policy, was released in 2017, National Defence’s goal was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030. More recently, National Defence, in its 2020-23 defence energy and environment strategy, has adopted a more ambitious target that aligns with the Government of Canada’s greening government strategy. This is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its real property and commercial light-duty fleets, where feasible, by 40% from 2005 levels by 2025, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
    Separate from its real property and commercial light-duty fleets, National Defence is also committed to bringing emissions from its national safety and security operations fleets to net zero by 2050, in accordance with the Government of Canada’s updated greening government strategy. For the national safety and security fleet, which is comprised of Canadian Armed Forces aircraft, marine vessels and tactical land vehicles, the 2050 target will consider the use of environmentally friendly technologies and low-carbon fuels when available, affordable and operationally feasible.
    With regard to part (b), National Defence’s 2016-19 defence energy and environment strategy committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030. As of March 31, 2020, National Defence has reduced its emissions from its real property and commercial light-duty vehicles fleets by 31% below 2005 levels and is on track to reach the 40% reduction target by 2025, a full five years ahead of the original schedule.
    Greenhouse gas emissions from National Defence’s national safety and security fleet operations, however, are 11% above 2005 levels as of March 31, 2020. These emissions are tied to Canadian Armed Forces activities required to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. These emissions will vary over time, as the number of times that the CAF is deployed will impact the amount of emissions that are emitted.
    National Defence is committed to ensuring its activities are conducted in a sustainable manner without compromising the safety and security of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
    As outlined in the 2020-23 defence energy and environment strategy, National Defence is committed to exploring the use of alternative energy options in national safety and security-related fleet operations. Canada is leading the path in this area as one of the few countries making a commitment to manage its military fleet in a sustainable manner.
    Regarding parts (c) and (d) of the question, through Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”¸ National Defence commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions while remaining operationally effective. The defence energy and environment strategy commits the department to make every effort to consider environmental and energy implications of its purchase decisions, operations and asset management.
    Under this strategy, all new military equipment procured is required to consider energy efficiency to reduce overall operating costs and environmental impacts.
    As part of the future fighter capability project’s life-cycle cost evaluation process, aircraft that have lower fuel consumption are favoured, which affects the greenhouse gas emissions of the aircraft. It is anticipated that newer propulsion systems technology in future fighter aircraft may result in reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the new aircraft fleet.
    National Defence is also investigating the use of alternative fuels with a reduced carbon footprint for its fleets.
    With regard to part (e), as the future fighter aircraft will be replacing an existing capability, the overall impacts on greenhouse gas emissions are anticipated to be similar to those generated by the existing CF-18 fleet. However, operational emissions may be reduced as a result of newer propulsion systems technology in the future fighter aircraft. The level of emissions will also depend upon how often these aircraft are used.
    National Defence is also working to reduce the emissions for maintenance activities by improving maintenance practices and facilities. The Bagotville and Cold Lake facilities that will house the future fighter aircraft will be designed and constructed to increase energy efficiency wherever possible.
    National Defence is committed to demonstrating leadership in environmental and energy sustainability and will continue to strive to meet its obligation to manage its assets and operations efficiently.
Question No. 235--
Mr. Dan Albas:
    With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-35, which stated that the government provided "up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector firms" during the pandemic: (a) which firms received the funding; (b) how much did each firm receive; and (c) on what date did each firm receive its payment from the government?
Mr. Paul Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, following the announcement by the Minister of Natural Resources on July 10, 2020, Natural Resources Canada consulted stakeholders and finalized the implementation plan for this initiative. This program will provide up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector operations to offset costs associated with the implementation of COVID-19 health and safety measures.
    With regard to part (b), contribution agreements with participating provinces and territories have advanced, with most expected to be completed in early January. Provinces and territories were allocated base-level funding, supplemented by a top-up increment that is based on a combination of each jurisdiction’s share of total forest sector employment and each jurisdiction’s share of total trees planted. Once agreements are in place, participating jurisdictions will compile and submit claims for reimbursement to the federal government. Once claims are validated and paid, this will enable provinces and territories to reimburse eligible small and medium-sized forest sector businesses, likely starting in early 2021.
    With regard to part (c), eligible costs will have been incurred by companies between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Payments will be made on a retroactive basis and participating jurisdictions will report which firms received support. As this program is ongoing, there is insufficient information available to answer this question.
Question No. 236--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
    With regard to the government's commitment to modernize the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD): (a) how much funding has been committed toward modernizing NORAD; and (b) what is the breakdown of the funding commitment by year for each of the next five years?
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, as outlined in Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, National Defence is committed to continental defence and to the protection of North America. This includes commitments to ensure that the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, is modernized to meet existing and future threats and challenges.
    In response to part (a), National Defence is currently examining a wide range of capability requirements and potential investment opportunities with regard to NORAD modernization. This includes examining the best way to fulfill the direction in the Minister of National Defence’s mandate letter regarding the renewal of the North Warning System.
    Delivering on these commitments will build on the significant investments in core continental defence capabilities already included in “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. These include the commitments to acquire six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, 88 future fighter aircraft, remotely piloted systems for enhanced surveillance capabilities, and improved space capabilities for Arctic surveillance and communications.
    In response to part (b), Funding and timelines specifically earmarked for the modernization of NORAD have yet to be determined. These decisions will take into consideration the full range of threats and challenges facing Canada and North America and will be informed through consultations with the new administration in the United States.
    Investments will be informed by, and build on, the multi-year, $133-million programmed investment by Defence Research and Development Canada’s all-domain situational awareness, ADSA, S&T program, which is now close to completion. This S&T program explored enhanced domain awareness of air, maritime surface, and maritime subsurface approaches to Canada and North America, with a focus on the Arctic. The highly successful ADSA S&T program made significant progress in several key areas, including over-the-horizon radar, which could support a future system of systems against evolving threats. The knowledge gained from the ADSA S&T program will inform scientific advice for the modernization and augmentation of the North Warning System capability as part of such a system of systems.
Question No. 238--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
    With regard to the government’s response to the request or pending request from the mayor of Vancouver to decriminalize a number of illegal drugs, including cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth, within the city: (a) will the government allow cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth to be decriminalized within the city; and (b) does the Prime Minister still hold the position that “[w]e’re not looking at full decriminalization at all”, which he stated in an interview with Global News that aired on September 24, 2019?
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s approach to substance use issues has been comprehensive and collaborative, guided by our federal drug strategy—the Canadian drugs and substances strategy (CDSS), introduced in late 2016. The CDSS takes a public health-focused approach and lays out our framework for evidence-based actions to reduce the harms associated with substance use in Canada. It includes four key pillars—prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and enforcement.
    Since 2016, the Government of Canada has taken urgent action to address the overdose crisis through significant federal investments of over $600 million, as well as legislative and regulatory action. This includes working with provinces and territories to improve access to harm reduction services such as supervised consumption sites, increase access to pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to the illegal contaminated supply, i.e., a safer supply, raise awareness of the risks of opioids, and remove barriers to treatment, including stigma. More recently, to build on funding provided in budget 2018 and budget 2019, the government provided an additional $66 million over two years, starting in 2020-21, to support community-based organizations responding to substance use issues, including to help them provide front-line services in a COVID-19 context.
    The Government of Canada recognizes that in many regions of the country the COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating long-standing challenges regarding substance use and the overdose crisis, with some communities now reporting record high numbers of overdose deaths, hospitalizations, and emergency medical service calls. To help address these challenges, the Government of Canada has taken actions to implement important measures to enable the health system to better meet the needs of people with substance use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, we have issued class exemptions to pharmacists and eased restrictions on the transportation of controlled substances to make it easier for people to access the medications they need during the COVID-19 pandemic while following public health advice, such as physical distancing. We have also made it easier for overdose prevention sites to be established rapidly in temporary community shelters and other locations. In addition, through Health Canada’s substance use and addictions program, the Government of Canada is providing funding to support 11 projects in providing a flexible safer supply of pharmaceutical-grade medications for people with opioid use disorder in British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick. These investments will help provide pathways to care and treatment.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the ongoing overdose crisis. We have lost too many Canadians to overdose, and all levels of government must redouble our efforts to save lives. For example, the federal government has been working with the Government of British Columbia and Mayor Stewart on options that respond to their local and regional needs, guided by the recommendations of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. We are reviewing the City of Vancouver’s request to address criminal penalties for simple possession of small amounts of controlled substances, and the Government of Canada will continue work to get Canadians who use substances the support they need.
    The Government of Canada will continue to encourage the formation of partnerships between law enforcement and health and social services to help divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and towards appropriate health services and social supports. For example, in May 2017, the Government of Canada passed the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act. This act provides some legal protection for individuals who seek emergency help during an overdose. The Government of Canada in also funding a three-year project in Peterborough, Ontario, to develop a multi-sector response, with a team dedicated to caring for people at risk of experiencing overdoses, in order to direct people away from the justice system and into care. Further, on August 18, 2020, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada issued guidance to prosecutors directing that alternatives to prosecution should be considered for simple possession offences, except when there are serious mitigating circumstances. This policy is available at https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p5/ch13.html.
    The overdose crisis is a complex public health issue, but the Government of Canada is committed to working closely with provinces, territories, and key stakeholders to address substance use issues and to ensure that people who use drugs have the support they need.
Question No. 242--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
    With regard to directives given by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission since January 1, 2016: what directives have been given and what was the date of each directive?
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has the power to issue directives to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, exclusively under subsection 23(3) of the Broadcasting Act. Moreover, directives under subsection 23(3) pertain exclusively to conditions imposed by the CRTC to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the corporation, in consideration of those conditions. The minister has not issued any directive under that section since January 1, 2016.
    However, the Governor in Council, GiC, may issue directions to the CRTC under subsections 7(1), 26(1) and 27(1) of the act. The GiC may also request the CRTC to “hold hearings or make reports on any matter within the jurisdiction of the [CRTC]” under subsection 15(1) of the act.
    Since January 1, 2016, the GiC requested one report under subsection 15(1) of the act. The request, dated September 22, 2017, P.C. 2017-1195, was to report to the GiC no later than June 1, 2018 in regard to the following matters: a) the distribution model or models of programming that are likely to exist in the future; b) how and through whom Canadians will access that programming; c) the extent to which these models will ensure a vibrant domestic market that is capable of supporting the continued creation, production and distribution of Canadian programming, in both official languages, including original entertainment and information programming.
    Since 2016, the GiC has issued one direction to the CRTC under subsection 27(1). The directive, dated April 3, 2020, P.C. 2020-231, was in respect of the implementation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA.
    Other than the aforementioned two matters, the GiC has not issued any directions to the CRTC during the time frame in question, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage has not issued any directives to the CRTC during the same period.
Question No. 250--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
    With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-6, regarding loans made under the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA): (a) what specific types of businesses are classified as "other services", and what are examples of such businesses; (b) what specific types of businesses are classified as "public administration", and what are examples of such businesses; and (c) did any of the CEBA loans classified as "public administration" go toward any province, territory, municipality, or other level of government and, if so, what are the details of any such loans, including (i) amount, (ii) recipient?
Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, Export Development Canada, EDC, is proud to be part of the Government of Canada’s response to COVID-19. EDC collaborated in the design of the Canada emergency business account, CEBA, and works to deliver the program by providing support to Canadian financial institutions through funding, validation checks and administration. EDC will continue with current stimulus initiatives, as well as work to identify new opportunities, along with our government partners, to meet the evolving needs of Canadian companies.
    In response to (a), Canada emergency business account or CEBA data, as it relates to industry, is reported in the Standard Industrial Classification, SIC, or the North American Industry Classification System, NAICS, when available and provided by the financial institutions. “Other services” as reported in Order Paper question Q-6 includes the following SIC and NAICS classifications.
    SIC code R, “Other Service Industries” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=53446&CVD=53447&CPV=R&CST=01011980&CLV=1&MLV=4, includes the following subsectors: amusement and recreational service industries, personal and household service industries, membership organization industries, other service industries.
    NAICS code 71, “Arts, Entertainment & Recreation” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=307532&CVD=307533&CPV=71&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: performing arts, spectator sports and related industries; heritage institutions; amusement, gambling and recreation industries.
    NAICS code 81, “Other services (except public administration)” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1181553&CVD=1181554&CPV=81&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: repair and maintenance; personal and laundry services; religious, grant-making, civic and professional and similar organizations; private households.
    Details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.
    In response to (b), CEBA data as it relates to industry is reported in SIC or NAICS, when available and provided by the financial institutions. “Public administration” as reported in Order Paper question Q-6 includes the following SIC and NAICS classifications.
    SIC code N, “Government Service Industries” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=53446&CVD=53447&CPV=N&CST=01011980&CLV=1&MLV=4, includes the following subsectors: federal government service industries, provincial and territorial government service industries, local government service industries, international and other extra-territorial government service industries.
    NAICS code 91, “Public Administration” as per Statistics Canada, https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1181553&CVD=1181554&CPV=91&CST=01012017&CLV=1&MLV=5, includes the following subsectors: federal government public administration; provincial and territorial public administration; local, municipal and regional public administration; aboriginal public administration; international and other extra-territorial public administration.
    Details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.
    In response to (c), details identifying a specific recipient cannot be provided without prior consent from the financial institution and the borrower. CEBA is administered by EDC, who is working closely with Canadian financial institutions to deliver these loans to qualifying businesses.
    As per the requirements of the program set out by the Government of Canada and found on the CEBA website, https://ceba-cuec.ca/, when applying for a CEBA loan the borrower needs to confirm that it is not a government organization or body, or an entity wholly owned by a government organization or body; that it is not a non-profit organization, registered charity, union, or a fraternal benefit society or order, or an entity owned by such an organization, unless the entity is actively carrying on a business in Canada, including a related business in the case of a registered charity, that earns revenue from the regular supply of property/goods or services; that it is not an entity owned by any federal member of Parliament or senator; that it does not promote violence, incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, religion, age, or mental or physical disability, contrary to applicable laws.
Question No. 254--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
    With regard to the economic impact of the government's Clean Fuel Standard: (a) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's economy and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; (b) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's oil and gas industry and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; (c) did the government do any analysis on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on Saskatchewan's agricultural sector and, if so, what are the details and findings of the analysis; and (d) has Farm Credit Canada done any analysis or projections on the impact of the Clean Fuel Standard on farm incomes and, if so, what are the details and findings?
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the proposed clean fuel standard regulations were published in Canada Gazette, part I, on December 19, along with the regulatory impact assessment statement, which includes provincial, regional, and sectoral considerations. These documents can be found at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2020/2020-12-19/html/reg2-eng.html.
Question No. 257--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
    With regard to the Deloitte report on contracts with Chinese-based companies, referenced by Global Affairs Canada at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 18, 2020: (a) what was the date that the report was commissioned; (b) what was the date that the report was delivered; (c) what was the final cost of the report; (d) what was the scope of the report; (e) what was the title of the report; (f) what were the findings or conclusions of the report; and (g) was the report tendered competitively and, if not, why not?
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. In response to (a), the report was commissioned on August 10, 2020.
    In response to (b), the report was delivered on November 19, 2020.
    In response to (c), information on contracts worth more than $10,000 for the time period requested is available under “Proactive disclosure” on the Open Government site at https://open.canada.ca.
    In response to (d), Deloitte was mandated to conduct a review of Global Affairs Canada’s procurement process for security equipment, including a review of the go-forward options for the use of the recently established standing offers for security equipment and a review of the procurement options to support the future acquisition of mission equipment, including a review of the appropriateness of creating a new national security exception for security equipment.
    In response to (e), the title was “Global Affairs Canada: Security Equipment Procurement Review”.
    In response to (f), Deloitte conducted an independent review of the procurement process for security equipment. The review confirms that officials followed all the rules and policies related to security equipment and that there were opportunities for improvements in the areas of increased integration of security in the materiel management life cycle, broader consultation throughout the procurement process for security equipment and additional guidance with respect to publishing technical requirements. Global Affairs Canada’s revised procurement approach, currently under development with Public Services and Procurement Canada, will integrate these recommendations and will include consultations with security experts and possibly creating a national security exception to limit solicitations to trusted suppliers with the required security clearances.
    In response to (g), the report was tendered competitively.
Question No. 260--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
    With regard to Canada's emergency wage subsidy since its creation, broken down by province: (a) which enterprises have applied for the subsidy; (b) of the enterprises in (a), which enterprises have been eligible for the subsidy; and (c) what is the reason for refusal for each of the enterprises that have not been deemed eligible?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, what follows is the response from the CRA as of November 25, 2020, the date of the question. With regard to parts (a), (b) and (c), the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2, S.C. 2020, c. 6, notes that CEWS is available to qualifying entities, sets out definitions for the terms that apply to the emergency wage subsidy and provides definitions of both eligible employees and qualifying entities. The CRA’s role is to administer legislation as it has been approved by Parliament and assented to by the Crown.
    While this legislation amends the Income Tax Act, affording discretion to make public the name of any person or partnership that makes an application for CEWS, it does not permit the publication of specific CEWS application information, including province or reason for denial in the manner requested in the question.
    As of November 25, 2020, a public registry of CEWS recipients was in development. Once it is available on Canada.ca at https://www.canada.ca/ en/revenue-agency/services /subsidy/emergency- wage-subsidy.html, it will allow Canadians to identify employers benefitting from the CEWS.
    As of November 25, 2020, though the CRA has begun a preliminary small-scale CEWS post-payment audit program, it has not yet compiled statistics on reasons for denying claims. Therefore, the CRA cannot answer the question in the manner requested.
Question No. 261--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
    With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) program, since its inception: (a) what is the total amount paid out through the program; (b) how many individual companies have received payments, broken down by (i) country of physical address, (ii) country of mailing address, (iii) country of the bank account the funds were deposited into; (c) for all of the companies in (b) that are located in Canada, what is the breakdown down by (i) province or territory, (ii) municipality; (d) how many audits have been conducted of companies receiving CEWS; and (e) for the audits in (d), how many have found that funding has been spent outside of Canada?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA as of November 26, 2020, the date of the question. The COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2, S.C. 2020, c. 6, notes that Canada emergency wage subsidy, CEWS, is available to qualifying entities, sets out definitions for the terms that apply to the emergency wage subsidy and provides definitions of both eligible employees and qualifying entities. The CRA’s role is to administer legislation as it has been approved by Parliament and assented to by the Crown.
    With regard to part (a), financial transactional data regarding amounts “paid out” and “received” as suggested in the question is not available in the manner requested. Rather, general statistical information is available on Canada.ca regarding the CEWS, including total approved applications, all approved applications by value, the number of applications received and the dollar value of subsidies paid. This information can be found under “Claims to date - Canada emergency wage subsidy (CEWS)” at https://www.canada.ca/en /revenue-agency/services/ subsidy/emergency-wage- subsidy/cews-statistics.html.
    With regard to parts (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), information is not captured in the manner requested in the question.
    With regard to parts (c)(i) and (c)(ii), financial transactional data regarding amounts paid out and received, as suggested in the question, is not available in the manner requested. Rather, general statistical data on CEWS claims providing the total approved claims broken down by province/territory where applicant resides, industry sector and size of applicant is available on the Canada.ca website at https://www.canada.ca /en/revenue-agency/services/ subsidy/emergency-wage- subsidy/cews-statistics/ stats-detailed.html and can be found under “CEWS claims – detailed data”. Information is not available by municipality.
    With regard to part (d), as of November 26, 2020, the date of the question, the CRA had not launched its CEWS post-payment audit program.
    However, the CRA did launch a small scale CEWS post-payment audit research project that targets a limited sample. The intent of this pilot project is not only to learn about audit and verification challenges, including the types of non-compliance and the levels of compliance with respect to this benefit program, but also about conducting compliance activities during the COVID-19 pandemic and, by extension, other global crises. The CRA can confirm that as part of this research project, as of November 26, 2020, the CRA has contacted over 700 taxpayers and business in many ranges.
    With regard to part (e), since the CRA has not yet launched the full CEWS post payment audit program, the CRA is not yet tracking audit results in the manner requested in the above-noted question.
Question No. 269--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
    With regard to the announcement made by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs in Barrie, Ontario, on October 9, 2019, promising a four-year, $40 million funding commitment for Lake Simcoe: (a) how much of the $40 million commitment was or will be delivered in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021, (iv) 2022, (v) 2023; and (b) what are the details of all funding actually delivered since October 21, 2019, as part of the commitment, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description?
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, contained in the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s mandate letter is a commitment to develop further protections for and take active steps in the cleanup of the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Simcoe and other large lakes.
    Environment and Climate Change Canada is currently exploring approaches to further protect and restore vital freshwater ecosystems to support the delivery of the minister’s freshwater-related mandate commitments, including Lake Simcoe.
Question No. 272--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
    With regard to Health Canada’s approval of the first HIV self-test kits for use in Canada and the government’s promise to distribute 60,000 of these self-test kits: (a) how and through what program will the government distribute these test kits; (b) how many of the 60,000 self-test kits will be designated for distribution to communities who face greater barriers to accessing testing and in particular to guarantee access to Indigenous, racialized and low income people, and those who live in rural and northern communities; and (c) what are the long-term plans to ensure continued broad and free distribution to those most at risk?
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Public Health Agency of Canada itself does not undertake the distribution of self-test kits, as this does not fall under its jurisdiction. The REACH/MAP Centre initiative will be distributing test kits. There will be 60,000 self-tests kits made available through an implementation science program led by the REACH/MAP Centre initiative at St. Michael’s Hospital. This initiative was made possible through funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, along with other sources.
    The REACH/MAP Centre initiative is working with two key community-based organizations to support access to and distribution of 60,000 self-test kits across Canada, with peer navigation services free of charge and a telehealth platform. The launch of this program is expected to begin on January 1, 2021. Self-test kits will be distributed throughout the country via the Community-Based Research Centre, CBRC, for gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirit and queer men, GBT2Q; and Women’s Health in Women’s Hands, WHIWH, will distribute to racialized women from the African, Black, Caribbean, Latin American and South Asian communities.
    With regard to (b), as noted above, the CBRC and WHIWH, two key community-based organizations involved in the REACH/MAP Centre initiative, have networks throughout Canada and are recognized for engaging with indigenous, racialized and low-income people. Distribution will be possible through mail, thus allowing reach to those who live in rural and northern communities.
    With regard to (c), the distribution of self-test kits and the provision of associated services falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments.
Question No. 274--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
    With regards to the role of First Nations fisheries and reconciliation: (a) how many meetings or briefings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had regarding reconciliation since November 20, 2019; and (b) what are the details of all meetings in (a), including the (i) date, (ii) attendees, (iii) location, (iv) purpose of the meeting or briefing?
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, implementing the Marshall decision is critical to the work of reconciliation, and it is a priority of our government. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard has met and continues to meet on a regular basis with first nations leadership and commercial industry representatives. Our government is working with communities to discuss their fishery plans and reach agreements. Together we will ensure that the treaty right to pursue a moderate livelihood is implemented in a way that ensures safe, orderly and sustainable fishing. Our goal is, and always has been, to develop a strong, stable and productive fishery for the benefit of everyone involved.
    Information regarding briefings is proactively disclosed in accordance with the Access to Information Act and can be found at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/bn/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=bn-search-orgs=Fisheries%20and%20Oceans%20Canada.
Question No. 278--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
    With regard to the national security review of the proposed takeover of TMAC Resources Inc. by Shandong Gold Mining Co. Ltd.: (a) when was the review ordered; (b) when will the review commence; (c) when is the review expected to be completed; (d) when will the government make a decision on the proposed takeover; and (e) has the government received any communication from the Chinese government advocating for the approval of the takeover and, if so, what are the details of any such communication?
Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (Innovation and Industry), Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, under the Investment Canada Act, all foreign investments are subject to a national security review. Canada remains open to investments that create jobs, growth, access to global trade and value chains, and long-term prosperity for Canadians, while protecting Canada’s national security interests. Reviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis as part of a rigorous and evidence-based process.
    With regard to the proposed investment, Innovation, Science and Economic Development can confirm that on October 15, 2020, TMAC publicly announced that an order for the national security review of the investment under the act was made by the Governor in Council and that on November 27, 2020, TMAC announced that the national security review of the investment was extended for a further period of up to 45 days.
    Further details of specific transactions under review are subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Investment Canada Act.
Question No. 279--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
    With regard to the Employment Insurance fund: (a) what was the balance of the fund as of March 1, 2020; (b) what is the current balance of the fund; (c) how much has been withdrawn from the fund for Employment Insurance payments since March 1, 2020; and (d) how much has been withdrawn from the fund for other programs such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit since March 1, 2020, broken down by program?
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the balance of the fund as of March 1, 2020, is not available. However, the audited financial statements of the employment insurance operating account were prepared for the year ended March 31, 2020. These statements were tabled in the House of Commons as part of the Public Accounts of Canada, section 4, consolidated accounts, as at March 31, 2020. Financial information related to measures in response to the Canada emergency response benefit is captured separately in these statements: https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2020/pdf/2020-vol1-eng.pdf
    With regard to (b), the current balance of the account is not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. The audited financial statements will present the balance of the fund for the year ending March 31, 2021.
    With regard to (c), the total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account since March 1, 2020, are not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. The total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account for the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, will be presented in the audited financial statements for the year ending on March 31, 2021.
    With regard to (d), the total benefits and support measures charged to the employment insurance operating account since March 1, 2020, are not available, as the fiscal year is still in progress. As per section 153.111 of the Employment Insurance Act, the employment insurance operating account will be credited by an amount determined by the Minister of Finance that corresponds to the total cost of the employment insurance emergency response benefit under this act, including all costs related to the benefit and its administration. We can confirm that this is the only Canada emergency response benefit that will be paid but later funded by the consolidated revenue fund out of the employment insurance operating account, as seen at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.6/page-39.html#h-1261609.
Question No. 280--
Mr. Peter Kent:
    With regard to the impact of the changes to the broadcasting industry proposed in Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) does the government have a projection of what the Canadian media market will look like in five years without the changes in Bill C-10; (b) does the government have a projection of what the Canadian media market will look like in five years with the changes in Bill C-10; (c) what are the government's projections related to the scenarios in (a) and (b); and (d) if the government does not have the projections in (a) or (b), then on what basis are the changes proposed in Bill C-10 being made?
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), yes, the government has projections of what Canadian production will look like in five years without Bill C-10.
    With regard to (b), yes, the government has projections of what future contributions to Canadian content will look like in five years with the changes in Bill C-10. With regard to (c), a major goal of Bill C-10 is to ensure that all broadcasters, including Internet giants, contribute in an appropriate manner to the Canadian broadcasting system. The bill gives the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission, CRTC, the tools it needs to effectively regulate online broadcasters. To that end, the government prepared estimates of what Canadian content production would look like in both a scenario without Bill C-10, and with the inclusion of online broadcasters in the Canadian regulatory framework after the adoption of the measures in Bill C-10.
    In further response to (a), with regard to a business-as-usual projection of future production volumes for Canadian television content, internal PCH projections find that without Bill C-10, falling commercial broadcasting revenues are expected to lead to a decline in the production of Canadian television content of around $1 billion by 2023 when compared with 2018. The projected decline would represent a 34 per cent decrease in production volume between 2018 and 2023.
    This figure relates to total volume of Canadian television production, i.e., the total budgets of all television productions that meet the definition for “Canadian content” in a given year. In addition to Canadian television broadcasters, there are many other sources of financing for television production in Canada, including the Canada media fund, foreign financing, Canadian distributors and federal or provincial tax credits. Statistical analysis of historical data for 2012 to 2018 from multiple sources was used to create these projections. Statistical relationships between broadcasting revenues and production were determined and applied to arrive at projections for production.
    In further response to (b), with regard to the projection of Bill C-10’s impact on future contributions to Canadian audio and audiovisual content, internal PCH estimates find that if the CRTC requires online broadcasters to contribute to Canadian content at a similar rate as traditional broadcasters, online broadcasters’ contributions to Canadian music and stories could amount to as much as $830 million annually by 2023.
    This figure relates to total regulatory requirements imposed by the CRTC on broadcasters to contribute to Canadian content and creators, rather than total volume of Canadian production, which relates to producers’ spending on Canadian content, drawing from multiple sources of financing. The contributions of online players would result in total contributions to Canadian content and creators in 2023 being 35 per cent higher than in a scenario where traditional broadcasters alone spend on Canadian content.
    There are two main sources of uncertainty in this estimate of Canadian content funding. Firstly, since online broadcasters typically do not provide data to the CRTC or publicly disclose their revenues, projections were prepared based on estimates of online revenues and historical trends in those estimates. Secondly, after holding public hearings, the CRTC may impose regulatory requirements on online and/or traditional broadcasters that vary from its current practices. This could significantly change the number above, which is based on online broadcasters contributing at similar levels as traditional broadcasters do now.
    It is important to note that $830 million in contributions from online players does not equate to an $830 million increase in production volume, e.g., the effect will not make the $1 billion loss a $170 million loss. In practice the impact on production volume may be more or less than $830 million, depending on the extent of any “spillover effects” and several other factors that cannot be estimated with available data.
    With regard to (d), it is not applicable.
Question No. 283--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
    With regard to the section on page 116 of the Fall Economic Statement 2020, which reads, "CRA will allow employees working from home in 2020 due to COVID-19 with modest expenses to claim up to $400, based on the amount of time working from home": (a) how many Canadians does the government project will be eligible for the deduction; (b) what is the required amount of time working from home to be eligible for the full $400 deduction; (c) what is the required amount of time working from home to be eligible for a deduction less than $400, and what is the formula used to calculate the eligible deduction amount; and (d) what is the specific eligibility criteria to determine if someone who worked from home is eligible for this new deduction, as opposed to the traditional work from home deductions for individuals who worked from home prior to the pandemic?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the response from the CRA is as follows. With regard to part (a), the CRA cannot respond in the manner requested as it does not have information on the projected number of Canadians who will be eligible for the deduction.
    With regard to part (b), if an employee worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they can claim $2 for each day they worked from home during that period. They can then also claim any additional days they worked at home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The maximum amount of $400 would be achieved at 200 days working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    With regard to part (c), if an employee worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they can claim $2 for each day they worked from home during that period. They can then also claim any additional days they worked at home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The formula to calculate the deduction is $2 x the total number of days the employee worked from home in 2020 due to COVID-19, to a maximum of $400.
    With regard to part (d), the deduction for home office expenses itself is not new. Rather, the CRA has introduced a new temporary flat rate method to simplify claiming the deduction for the 2020 tax year. However, employees can still choose to use the existing detailed method if they have larger claims. The eligibility criteria to use the new method are as follows: they worked from home in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic; they worked more than 50% of the time from home for a period of at least four consecutive weeks in 2020; they are only claiming home office expenses and are not claiming any other employment expenses; their employer did not reimburse them for all of their home office expenses.
Question No. 290--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
    With regard to the government’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan for Indigenous and remote communities: (a) what is the government’s specific plan for vaccine distribution; (b) during which month is each community projected to receive enough doses of the vaccine to inoculate the population; and (c) how will the vaccine be delivered or made available to those living in the most extreme remote communities, including those where traditional transportation methods may not be readily available?
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, and its Special Operating Agency, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, are concerned, the response is as follows. With regard to (a), Indigenous Services Canada is working with the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, and the National Operations Centre for COVID Vaccine Logistics, and provinces and territories to plan and implement vaccine distribution to all indigenous populations. According to the most recent guidance of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI, indigenous peoples have been identified as a first priority population for receiving the vaccine. For decades, indigenous peoples have been neglected and subjected to systemic discrimination in Canada’s health care institutions. This historic and continued discrimination has resulted in an understandable mistrust in Canada’s health care systems. We will continue to work with all partners, including provinces and territories, to ensure cultural safety and respect for first nations, Inuit and Métis when administering the COVID-19 vaccine.
    Further sequencing recommendations will be made based on considerations of ethics, equity, feasibility and acceptability, such as the clinical characteristics of the vaccines and the exact timing of supply. Allocations of vaccines and their rollout will be informed by NACI advice, with outreach and collaboration with indigenous partners.
    With regard to (b), as of December 23, 2020, Pfizer and Moderna are the only vaccine candidates to have received authorization from Health Canada and the first shipments of these vaccines have been received at various locations and are being administered to priority populations. COVID-19 vaccines will be distributed in Canada in a phased manner, and it is anticipated that supply will begin to meet demand over the course of 2021. The quantity and schedule of availability of vaccines will be the subject of ongoing discussion with provinces and territories who will manage rollout and delivery. The following webpage shows the total vaccine distribution amounts by province and territory, and its updated weekly: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks/covid-19-vaccine-treatment/vaccine-rollout.html#a4
    With regard to (c), given the varying storage requirements of different vaccine candidates, planning is under way to determine the best way to safely deliver vaccines to remote communities. Efforts to support coordinated planning include an Indigenous Services-led COVID-19 vaccine planning working group with regional representatives, indigenous partners, PHAC, and provincial/territorial representatives.
    Provinces and territories receive an allocation of the federally procured COVID-19 vaccine and are responsible for allocating the vaccine to all of those within their jurisdiction, including first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. Indigenous Services Canada is working with partners to advocate for the prioritization for of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and to support the planning and logistics. ISC will support vaccine distribution capacity in communities if needed.
Question No. 291--
Mr. Michael Kram:
    With regard to page 25 of the Liberal Party of Canada election platform, which stated that “we will merge existing financial and advisory services currently scattered between several agencies into Farm Credit Canada (FCC)”: (a) what specific action, if any, has been taken since the 2019 election related to the commitment; (b) which specific entities and services will be merged into FCC; (c) as a result of this merger, how many jobs are expected to be (i) eliminated, (ii) transferred to FCC, broken down by entity; and (d) what is the timeline for this merger, including a timeline of when each entity merged into FCC will wind down their own separate operations, if applicable?
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, in early 2020, the government began analyzing the platform commitment referenced by the member of Parliament for Regina-Wascana in Q-291 on December 3, 2020, with respect to Farm Credit Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had been in the process of undertaking an environmental scan of the agricultural financial lending situation in Canada, including agriculture and agri-food-sector-related financial products and services, including those offered by FCC. An approach to implementing this commitment was being developed in alignment with the mandate letter for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This work was put on hold with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.
Question No. 298--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
    With regard to the design and implementation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $10 billion growth plan announced on October 1, 2020: (a) were contracts awarded to private suppliers and, if so, how many; (b) what are the details of each of the contracts awarded in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to the design and implementation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $10-billion growth plan announced on October 1, 2020, and contracts awarded to private suppliers, Infrastructure Canada has nothing to report.
Question No. 299--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
    With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and spending related to the “Panama Papers” and “Paradise Papers”: (a) were contracts awarded to private-sector suppliers, and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details for each of the contracts in (a), including the (i) contract award date, (ii) description of the goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final amount of the contract, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, the CRA did not award any contracts related to the “Panama Papers” and “Paradise Papers” to private sector suppliers for the period of December 1, 2019, to December 4, 2020, the date of the question.
Question No. 309--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
    With regard to the Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations: (a) what is the total amount dispersed through the fund since March 1, 2020; (b) what are the details of funding provided through the fund, including the (i) recipient, (ii) location of the recipient, (iii) amount?
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canadian Heritage and (a), the answer is $390,697,000. With regard to (b), information pertaining to grants and contributions is publicly available on the Open Canada website at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Canadian%20Heritage This website excludes awards provided by the athlete assistance program, as these are disclosed on an annual basis, at the conclusion of each fiscal year.
    With regard to the Canada Council for the Arts and (a), the answer is $62,685,608. With regard to (b), disclosure of grant and prize recipients can be found at https://canadacouncil.ca/about/public-accountability/proactive-disclosure/grant-recipients/recipients-2017-present?form=submitted&page=1&year=all&discipline=Strategic+Funds&program=COVID-19+Emergency+Support+Fund&recipient=&province=all&city=&area=all&riding=all&Sort1=Recipient&Sort2=Recipient&Sort3=Recipient&firstfiscalyear=2017&lastfiscalyear=2147483647
    With regard to Telefilm Canada and (a), the answer is $29,687,367. With regard to (b), information pertaining to grants and contributions can be found at https://telefilm.ca/en/transparency/proactive-disclosure/grant-contribution/reports-by-quarter
Question No. 311--
Mr. John Nater:
    With regard to Canadian diplomats and diplomatic staff suffering from symptoms associated with what is commonly known as Havana Syndrome: (a) on what date did Global Affairs Canada (GAC) first become aware that diplomats and diplomatic staff in Cuba were suffering from symptoms; (b) what specific symptoms does GAC acknowledge are associated with Havana Syndrome; (c) how many current or former diplomats, diplomatic staff, or their family members have reported experiencing symptoms; and (d) why did the government warn diplomats in 2017 not to say anything about the symptoms experienced by those stationed in Havana?
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
    Since the beginning of the health incidents, the health, safety and security of diplomatic staff and their families has been the top priority.
    Canada’s diplomatic staff and their families have Global Affairs Canada’s full support. This has been a very distressing experience for these diplomats and their families, and the department will continue to take the necessary steps to help them.
    While we are exploring all avenues, no definitive cause of the health incidents has been identified to date.
    For privacy and security reasons, we cannot comment on the specifics of the ongoing investigations, individual cases, nor on specific security and briefing measures.
Question No. 332--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
    With regard to the decision by the government and Destination Canada to no longer fund tourism promotion related to hunting and outfitting: (a) when was the decision made; (b) who made the decision; (c) was any analysis done on the impact of such a decision on the economies of areas of Canada that rely on hunting and outfitting tourism, and, if not, why not; (d) if an analysis was conducted, what are the details, including findings; and (e) did the government or Destination Canada consult or notify the hunting and outfitting tourism industry in relation to the decision, and, if so, what are the details?
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada continues to value the contribution of the hunting and outfitting sector to the Canadian tourism economy.
    For the 2016-2018 period, Destination Canada received a one-time, special funding envelope of $30 million to launch a major tourism campaign in the United States. This campaign, entitled “Connecting America”, included a co-operative marketing fund where Destination Canada co-invested into its partners’ integrated U.S. marketing initiatives. Partners were invited to submit proposals for various initiatives that focused on specific activity-based markets, i.e., hunting, fishing, skiing, festivals and events, culinary. Destination Canada did not lead the creative on any of these co-op marketing initiatives.
    In 2017, one initiative led by Tourism Saskatchewan for a national hunting program was submitted and approved as part of this co-op marketing fund. Destination Canada co-invested funds alongside partners Tourism Saskatchewan, Travel Manitoba and Spectacular Northwest Territories for a national program designed to generate awareness of hunting opportunities in Canada and to enable Canadian partners to gain a foothold in the hunting-focused U.S. travel industry.
    Canada’s regional development agencies, RDAs, work to advance and diversify the regional economies. Through regular programming, RDAs have provided support to the hunting and outfitting industry to expand, modernize, and diversify its product offering, as well as support for marketing. To support the stabilization of the economy as a result of the impacts of COVID-19, RDAs are delivering the regional relief and recovery fund, RRRF, designed to provide liquidity support to small and medium-sized enterprises and stabilize the economy. Tourism operators in the outfitter sector are eligible recipients of the RRRF. Projects are searchable on the Open Government website: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
Question No. 344--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
    With regard to applications received by the government for a new Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) or a new Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence (RPAL), during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what was the exact date when new applications for PALs and RPALs (i) stopped being processed during the pandemic, (ii) began being processed again; and (b) how many new (i) PAL, (ii) RPAL applications were processed between March 15, 2020, and December 1, 2020, broken down by week?
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), the Canadian firearms program stopped data entry of new applications for possession and acquisition licences into the Canadian firearms information system by the central processing site the week of March 16, 2020. Chief firearms officers continued to approve applications that had already been entered into the Canadian firearms information system.
    With regard to (a)(ii), the Canadian firearms program restarted the data entry of new applications for possession and acquisition licences into the Canadian firearms information system by the central processing site the week of April 13, 2020.
    With regard to (b), the requested information is provided in Annex 1. Statistics for the period between March 15 and December 1, 2020, for new applications for possession and acquisition licences, non-restricted or restricted, associated to the data entry of these applications by the central processing site.

[English]

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

    Mr. Speaker, if the supplementary response to Question No. 173 originally tabled on December 9, 2020; the government's responses to Questions Nos. 206 to 208, 211 to 214, 217, 218, 220 to 223, 225, 227, 230, 232 to 234, 237, 239 to 241, 243 to 249, 251 to 253, 255, 256, 258, 259, 262 to 268, 270, 271, 273, 275 to 277, 281, 282, 284 to 289, 292 to 293, 294 to 297, 300 to 308, 310, 312 to 316, 318 to 331, 333 to 343, 345 and 346; and a response to starred question 317 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
    Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Text]

Question No. 206--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
    With regard to the Next Generation Human Resources and Pay project: (a) what is the total projected budget for the project; (b) what are the project’s anticipated (i) start-up and implementation costs, broken down by type of expense, (ii) ongoing or yearly operating costs; and (c) what is the projected date of when the system will be implemented for each department, agency or other government entity, broken down by entity?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 207--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
    With regard to the government’s reaction to measures taken by the Chinese government against those living in Hong Kong: (a) how many asylum and refugee claims have been granted, since January 1, 2019, to those who were previously living in Hong Kong; (b) how many asylum and refugee claims from individuals in Hong Kong does the government project will be received in the next 12 months; (c) has the government made contingency plans to ensure that safe return of all Canadians who wish to return, including those with dual citizenship and, if so, what are the details of such plans; and (d) what specific steps, if any, has the government taken to ensure that Canadians in Hong Kong are not arbitrarily arrested or detained under the guise of the so-called national security law?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 208--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
    With regard to each contract signed by the government since March 1, 2020, with a value greater than $10 million: (a) what specific measures, if any, were taken by the government to ensure that taxpayers were getting value for money, broken down by each contract; and (b) what are the details of each contract, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) whether or not the contract was sole-sourced?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 211--
Mr. Scott Aitchison:
    With regard to training provided to Canadian Armed Forces public affairs staff, since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total value of the contracts awarded to the companies or individuals that provided the training; and (b) what are the details of each related contract, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) type of training provided (public speaking, social media, etc.), (v) file number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 212--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
    With regard to Indigenous Services Canada's provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) for Indigenous peoples in Canada since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount requested by First Nations communities and other Indigenous organizations, broken down by type of PPE (masks, face shields, etc.); (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) date of request, (ii) name of First Nations community or organization making the request, (iii) amount requested, broken down by type of PPE; and (c) what are the details of each PPE delivery provided to First Nations and other Indigenous organizations, including (i) date of delivery, (ii) recipient community or organization, (iii) amount delivered, broken down by type of PPE?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 213--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
    With regard to the Invest in Canada Hub: (a) since March 12, 2018, how much has been spent on hospitality or ticket purchases related to attracting foreign investment; and (b) what are the details of all expenditures in (a), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) number of guests or tickets purchased, (iv) location, (v) vendor, (vi) description of event, (vii) number of government officials in attendance, (viii) number of guests in attendance, (ix) companies or organizations represented?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 214--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
    With regard to the Business Credit Availability Program (BCAP): (a) how many businesses have received loans from (i) Export Development Canada, (ii) the Business Development Bank of Canada, (iii) other sources under the BCAP program since the pandemic began; (b) how many applications for loans under the program were declined; (c) what is the total value of loans provided under the program; and (d) what were the median and average value of loans provided under the program?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 217--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
    With regard to the Universal Broadband Fund: (a) how many applications has the government received for funding; (b) what is the total amount dispersed by the fund since its official formation; (c) how many applications were classified as originating from a local government district; (d) how many applications were received from applicants in the province of Manitoba; (e) how many of the applications in (d) were successful; and (f) what are the details of all funding provided through the fund, including (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 218--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
    With regard to the government's announcement in May 2020 to provide $77 million to assist food processors with their COVID-19 protection and adaptation plans: (a) how much of the funding has been provided to date; and (b) what is the breakdown of how much funding each food processor received by (i) name of recipient, (ii) type of processor (beef, pork, produce, etc.), (iii) amount, (iv) location?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 220--
Mr. John Nater:
    With regard to the statutory responsibilities of ministers: what are the statutory responsibilities of the Minister of Rural Economic Development?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 221--
Mr. Glen Motz:
    With regard to the requests for information received by the government from the Parliamentary Budget Officer since January 1, 2017: what are the details of all the instances where some or all of the information requested was either withheld or redacted, including (i) the specific request, (ii) date of request, (iii) number of pages withheld or redacted, (iv) title of the individual who authorized the redactions or the refusal to provide all of the information, (v) reason for the redactions or refusal to provide the information?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 222--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
    With regard to the recommendation by the Chief Public Health Officer that Canadians use a three-layer non-medical mask with a filter: (a) how many non-medical masks purchased by the government since March 1, 2020, (i) meet this criterion, (ii) do not meet this criterion; and (b) what is the value of the masks purchased by the government that (i) meet this criterion, (ii) do not meet this criterion?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 223--
Mr. Dave Epp:
    With regard to expenditures made since January 1, 2018, for non-public servant travel, and broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what is the total of all expenditures, broken down by object code; (b) what are the details of each trip taken in relation to expenditures made under the classification non-public servant travel - Key stakeholders (code 0262), or similar classification, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) mode of travel (train, air, etc.), (v) cost of trip, broken down by type of expense (accommodation, airfare, etc.), (vi) organization represented by traveller, (vii) purpose of travel or description of events requiring travel; and (c) what are the details of each trip taken in relation to expenditures made under the classification non-public servant travel - Other travel (code 0265), or similar classification, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) mode of travel (train, air, etc.), (v) cost of trip, broken down by type of expense (accommodation, airfare, etc.), (vi) organization represented by traveller, (vii) purpose of travel or description of events requiring travel?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 225--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
    With regard to the Canada Student Service Grant program and the original decision to have WE Charity administer the program: was an Official Languages Impact Analysis conducted on the program, and, if so, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) on what date was the analysis completed, (iii) what were the findings of the analysis, (iv) which Minister signed the analysis?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 227--
Mr. Glen Motz:
    With regard to the backlog of evidence processing in the RCMP crime laboratories: (a) what is the current backlog for each category and type of evidence submitted, including DNA, swabs, fingerprinting, firearms, fabric evidence, non-firearm weapons, and any other type of evidence, broken down by laboratory; (b) what was the expected timeline to deliver evidence prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, broken down by laboratory; (c) what is the current expected timeline to deliver evidence, broken down by laboratory; (d) how many times have the RCMP laboratories sent notices or requests to prosecutors, police officers or police services seeking an extension for the originally projected timelines; (e) in the last 24 months, how many evidence submissions have been rejected because of (i) lack of capacity to do the analysis, (ii) lack of response from the officer or prosecutor who sent in the evidence, (iii) inaccurate or poorly collected evidence, (iv) lack of personnel with the skills needed to do the work, (v) decision by the evidence laboratory that the evidence was not needed or relevant, (vi) decision by the evidence laboratory that they would not process evidence because they were already processing something similar; (f) in the last 24 months, how much work has been outsourced to private laboratories to deal with overflow, broken down by month, year, and the laboratory it was sent; (g) in the last 24 months, how many times was outsourcing of work requested by laboratories and rejected by management due to financial considerations; (h) in the last 24 months, how many times has the RCMP sent out any notice, communication or information declining to process certain evidence or types of evidence; (i) how many employees and vacant positions in evidence laboratories currently exist, broken down by evidence laboratory; (j) how many new staff have been hired in the last 24 months; (k) in the last 24 months, how many employees have left or retired; (l) over the last six months, are there any open positions requiring critical skills, in any of the evidence laboratories, thus limiting the amount of work done by the laboratory, and, if so, what are the details; (m) have any of the RCMP evidence laboratories sought support, work sharing, transfer of work to municipal, provincial or private sector laboratories for evidence they lacked the capacity, skills or equipment to process, and, if so, what are the details; and (n) how many notices have been sent in the last 24 months that evidence would be available for prosecutors or police in time for trial?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 230--
Mr. Don Davies:
    With regard to the federal tobacco control strategy for fiscal year 2019-20: (a) what was the budget for the strategy; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each component of the strategy, specifically, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the strategy and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 232--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
    With regard to advertising by agencies and Crown corporations under the Finance portfolio since January 1, 2016: (a) how many advertisements have been created in total, broken down by year and by type (internet, print dailies, radio, television, etc.); (b) what is the media authorization number and name of each advertisement listed in (a); (c) what are the details of each advertisement or campaign, including the (i) title or description of the advertisement or campaign, (ii) purpose or goal, (iii) start and end date of the campaign, (iv) media outlets running advertisements, (v) name of the advertising agency used to produce the advertisement, if applicable, (vi) name of the advertising agency used to purchase advertising space, if applicable, (vii) total amount spent, broken down by advertisement and campaign; and (d) what are the details of all contracts awarded related to advertising, including any contracts awarded to advertising or production agencies, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) start and end date, (iv) title or summary of each related campaign, (v) description of goods or services?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 233--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
    With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence creating dossiers on journalists since November 4, 2015: (a) how many dossiers on journalists have been created; and (b) what are the details of each dossier created including the (i) journalist, (ii) news outlet, (iii) date created, (iv) section that created the dossier (public affairs, defence strategic communication, etc.), (v) observations, analysis or comments contained in dossier?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 234--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
    With regard to the government's Joint Support Ship program and the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, dated November 17, 2020: (a) why did the government choose the more expensive option rather than purchase the vessels from Chantier Davie Canada Inc.; (b) why was the estimated savings of $3 billion with the Davie option not the deciding factor in the government's choice not to use Davie; (c) does the government accept the findings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as accurate, and, if not, which specific findings does it not accept; and (d) has the government conducted an assessment of the capabilities of the Asterix and Obelix as commercial vessels converted for military purposes versus those of the built-for-purpose Joint Support Ship program, and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment, or, if not, why not?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 237--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
    With regard to expenditures on social media marketing and management companies, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent each year since January 1, 2016; (b) as of November 11, 2020, what are the details of all social media accounts that are managed, in whole or in part, by a company, including (i) platform, (ii) handle or account name, (iii) name of the company managing the account, (iv) type of work being done by the company (writing posts, scheduling, promoting, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all contracts signed since January 1, 2016, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of the contract, (iv) which social media accounts are covered by the contract, (v) detailed description of goods or services provided?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 239--
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
    With regard to the Veterans Affairs Canada service standard of 16 weeks for decisions in relation to disability benefit applications, for applications received during the 2019-20 fiscal year: (a) how many and what percentage of applications received a decision within (i) the 16-week standard, (ii) between 16 and 26 weeks, (iii) greater than 26 weeks; and (b) how many such applications have yet to receive a decision?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 240--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
    With regard to privacy breaches since November 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) how many privacy breaches have occurred; and (b) for each privacy breach, (i) was it reported to the Privacy Commissioner, (ii) how many individuals were affected, (iii) what were the dates of the privacy breach, (iv) were the individuals affected notified that theirinformation may have been compromised and, if so, on what date and by what manner?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 241--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
    With regard to social media posts that were posted and later deleted or edited on government accounts since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of all such posts, including the (i) subject matter, (ii) time and date of the original post, (iii) time and date of the deletion or edit, (iv) description of the original post including the type of post (text, still picture, video, etc.), (v) summary of the edit, including the precise differences between the original post and the revised post, (vi) reason for the deletion or edit?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 243--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
    With regard to expenditures on, and use of, isolation or quarantine accommodations during the pandemic: (a) how many (i) foreigners, (ii) Canadian citizens or permanent residents have required the government to provide isolation or quarantine accommodations since August 1, 2020; (b) what is the total amount spent by the government on such accommodations since August 1, 2020, broken down by month; (c) what are the details of all such accommodations and in which municipalities and provinces are such accommodations located, including (i) municipality, (ii) province or territory, (iii) type of facility (hotel, dorm rooms, etc.); and (d) are individuals requiring such accommodations required to reimburse the taxpayer for the cost associated with the accommodation and, if so, how much has been received in reimbursements (i) prior to August 1, 2020, (ii) since August 1, 2020?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 244--
Mr. Brad Vis:
    With regard to the government’s Rapid Housing Initiative: what are the details of all funding commitments provided to date under the initiative, including (i) date of commitment, (ii) amount of federal commitment, (iii) detailed location, including address, municipality and province, (iv) project description, (v) number of housing units, broken down by type of housing?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 245--
Mr. Brad Vis:
    With regard to funding provided under the Social Development Partnerships Program since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided under the program, broken down by year and by province or territory; and (b) what are the details of all projects or programs funded through the program, including (i) date of funding, (ii) amount of federal contribution, (iii) recipient, (iv) purpose of funding or project description, (v) location of recipient, (vi) location of project or program, if different than recipient?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 246--
Ms. Monique Pauzé:
    With regard to the fossil fuel sector and the renewable energy sector, and for all the departments and agencies affected: (a) what regulatory amendments, including amendments to federal-provincial partnership programs, have been made since March 15, 2020, that affect the funding or regulation of one of these sectors, including (i) the duration of each of these amendments, (ii) the impact of each amendment; and (b) for these two sectors, what financial support measures have been implemented (i) through programs administered by Export Development Canada, (ii) by any other governmental or quasi-governmental department or agency?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 247--
Mr. David Sweet:
    With regard to electric vehicle charging stations installed on government property, since January 1, 2016, that are primarily for the use of government employees, such as the stations near West Block or the stations adjacent to parking spots reserved for high-level government officials, such as the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: (a) what is the location of each such charging station; (b) who has access to each of the stations, broken down by location; (c) what was the total cost to install each of the stations, broken down by location; and (d) for those stations that are adjacent to reserved parking spaces for government employees, how does the public have access to each station, if they are available to the public?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 248--
Mr. David Sweet:
    With regard to contracts signed by any government department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, and Bensimon Byrne, since November 4, 2015, and including any contracts that were not or have yet to be posted on the government's proactive disclosure websites: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) start and end dates, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) title and summary of any related advertising campaign, (v) title of the official who approved the contract, (vi) reason the contract was not made public through proactive disclosure, if applicable?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 249--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
    With regard to the ongoing process to replace the government's VIP aircraft, including the Airbus and Challenger planes used to transport the Prime Minister and other ministers: (a) what is the projected timeline when each aircraft will be replaced; (b) what is the projected cost to replace each aircraft; (c) what specific action to date has been completed in relation to the process of replacing each aircraft; (d) what replacement options have been presented to the Minister of National Defense, the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Transport in relation to the replacement option; and (e) for each option in (d), what is the anticipated location where each aircraft would be built?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 251--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
    With regard to the 2017 report presented by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled "Starting Again: Improving Government Oversight of Immigration Consultants": what specific action, if any, has the government taken in response to each of the committee’s 21 recommendations, broken down by each of the specific recommendations?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 252--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
    With regard to the mandate letter of the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth: (a) which of the items in the mandate letter have been fully accomplished to date; (b) which of the items are currently being worked on, and what is the expected completion date of each of the items; and (c) which of the items are no longer being pursued?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 253--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
    With regard to the response from the Minister of Immigration Refugee and Citizenship (IRCC) to Order Paper question Q-45 about visitors coming to Canada for the sole purpose of giving birth on Canadian soil, which stated that “IRCC is researching the extent of this practice, including how many non-residents giving birth are short-term visitors by engaging the CIHI and Statistics Canada": (a) what is the projected timeline for this research project; (b) how many people from IRCC have been assigned to work on this project; (c) on what date did IRCC “engage” the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) and Statistics Canada; (d) what information has been provided to IRCC to date from CIHI or Statistics Canada, broken down by date the information was provided; and (e) are provincial health authorities, including the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux Quebec, being engaged as part of the ongoing research?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 255--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
    With regard to both formal and informal requests received by Indigenous Services Canada for ministerial loan guarantees, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such requests, including the (i) date the request was received, (ii) name of the First Nation or organization making the request, (iii) value of the loan guarantee requested, (iv) value of the loan guarantee provided by the government, (v) purpose of the loan?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 256--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
    With regard to sole-sourced COVID-19 spending since March 13, 2020: (a) how many contracts have been sole-sourced; (b) what are the details of each such sole-sourced contract, including the (i) date of the award, (ii) description of goods or services, including volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of vendor; (c) how many sole-sourced contracts have been awarded to domestic-based companies; and (d) how many sole-sourced contracts have been awarded to foreign-based companies, broken down by country where the company is based?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 258--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
    With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (herein referenced as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by Deloitte since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such deliverables, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 259--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
    With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) procurement with AMD Medicom: (a) how many units of PPE have been produced for Canada by AMD Medicom since the contract was awarded, broken down by type of PPE; (b) how many units of PPE have been delivered to the government by AMD Medicom since the contract was awarded, broken down by type of PPE and date of delivery; (c) how many units of AMD Medicom PPE are being held in government storage facilities; (d) how many units of AMD Medicom PPE are being held in AMD Medicom storage facilities; (e) how many government storage facilities are there to hold PPE; (f) of the storage facilities in (e), how many are (i) full, (ii) empty; (g) what is AMD Medicom currently producing at, broken down monthly by type of PPE; (h) what was the date of the first shipment by AMD Medicom to the government; (i) what was the date of the first shipment received by the government; (j) since the contract was awarded, how many units of PPE were turned away due to lack of storage facilities; (k) of the units in (j), when were they (i) turned away, (ii) finally delivered; and (l) of the PPE delivered by AMD Medicom, how many units have been distributed to the provinces, by province, month and type of PPE?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 262--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
    With regard to the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program, since its inception: (a) what is the total amount paid out through the program; (b) how many individual companies have received payments, broken down by (i) country of physical address, (ii) country of mailing address, (iii) country of the bank account the funds were deposited into; (c) for all companies in (b) that are located in Canada, what is the breakdown down by (i) province or territory, (ii) municipality; (d) how many audits have been conducted of companies receiving the CECRA; and (e) for the audits in (d), how many have found that funding has been spent outside of Canada?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 263--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
    With regard to the government's fleet of aircraft: (a) what are the make and model of each aircraft owned by the government; (b) how many of each make and model does the government own; (c) what is the estimated cost to operate each aircraft per hour, broken down by make and model; and (d) what is the estimated hourly (i) fuel usage, (ii) greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint of each aircraft, broken down by make and model?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 264--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
    With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke between January 2018 and November 2020: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (viii) project description or purpose of funding; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke by recipients tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 265--
Mr. John Barlow:
    With regard to Health Canada’s proposed front-of-package and food labelling modernization regulations, and other mandatory labelling changes: (a) what are the details of all proposed or ongoing changes to nutrition and ingredient labelling and all compliance timelines; and (b) when will Health Canada announce the alignment of compliance timelines for each change for labeling in the food and beverage industry, broken down by change?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 266--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
    With regard to the new College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants becoming the official regulator of immigration and citizenship consultants: (a) how will the college be funded; (b) what is the projected budget for the college for each of the next five years; (c) what specific powers or enforcement mechanisms will be available to the college; (d) what will be the organizational structure of the college; (e) will all immigration and citizenship consultants be required to be members of the college; (f) what is the timeline for when the college will be operational; (g) what is the timeline for enforcement powers given to the college to come into effect; and (h) will there be any demographic or geographical requirements or considerations for the selection of board members and, if so, what are the details?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 267--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
    With regard to the government's position regarding the admissibility to Canada of individuals who have faced politically motivated charges in Hong Kong or China: (a) are foreigners convicted of politically motivated charges in Hong Kong or China barred from entry into Canada as a result of the politically motivated charges; (b) what directives have been issued, or measures taken, to ensure that border and immigration officials do not reject admittance to Canada based on politically motivated charges; and (c) what is the list of offences, which would normally bar admittance to Canada, that the government will consider to be politically motivated if the charges were laid in Hong Kong or China?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 268--
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
    With regard to the government's promise of $1.75 billion over eight years in compensation to dairy farmers resulting from concessions made under Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: (a) how much compensation has been or will be delivered to dairy farmers, broken down by each of the next eight years, starting with the 2020-21 fiscal year; and (b) on what date in each of the fiscal years will the payments be sent?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 270--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
    With regard to bonuses or performance pay given to government executives at the director level (EX-01) or higher, who were assigned duties related to the development, rollout, or implementation of the Phoenix pay system, and broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures on bonuses or performance pay for such executives; and (b) how many such executives have received bonuses or performance pay?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 271--
Mr. Dean Allison:
    With regard to conditions placed on individuals receiving national interest exemptions related to travel restrictions or quarantine requirements during the pandemic: (a) how many individuals have received national interest exemptions since March 1, 2020; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many have had conditions placed on their exemption; (c) what is the breakdown of the type of condition placed on individuals (geographic restriction, limit on time in Canada, etc.), including the number of individuals subject to each type of condition; and (d) what costs have been incurred by the government in relation to faciliting national interest exemptions, broken down by item and type of expense?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 273--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
    With regard to the ongoing issues related to the Indigenous Nova Scotia lobster fishery, since November 20, 2019: (a) how many briefings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had from the departmental scientists in charge of Lobster Fishing Areas (LFA) 33, LFA 34 and LFA 35 regarding the state of the lobster fisheries; (b) what are the details of the briefings in (a), including (i) the date, (ii) subjects of the briefings, (iii) whether the briefing was requested by the minister or recommended by the department; (c) how many meetings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had with stakeholders regarding the state of the lobster fisheries; and (d) what are the details of all meetings in (c), including the (i) date, (ii) meeting summary (iii) stakeholder groups in attendance, (iv) location?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 275--
Mr. Peter Kent:
    With regard to the acquisition of buildings by government departments or agencies, since December 1, 2019, for each transaction: (a) what is the location of the building; (b) what is the amount paid; (c) what is the type of building; (d) what is the file number; (e) what is the date of transaction; (f) what is the reason for acquisition; and (g) who was the owner of the building prior to government acquisition?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 276--
Mr. Peter Kent:
    With regard to the acquisition of land by government departments or agencies, since January 1, 2016, for each transaction: (a) what is the land location; (b) what is the amount paid; (c) what is the size and description of the land; (d) what is the file number; (e) what is the date of transaction; (f) what is the reason for acquisition; and (g) who was the owner of the building prior to government acquisition?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 277--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
    With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Business Risk Management Programs (BRMs), AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery: (a) what is the total amount of funds budgeted in fiscal year 2019-20 for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery; (b) what is the total amount of funds dispersed in fiscal year 2019-20 for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery; (c) what is the total amount of funds for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery dispersed in the last 10 fiscal years, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) business risk management program, (iii) province, (iv) sector; and (d) what is the total percentage of agricultural producers who have accessed AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance, and AgriRecovery in the fiscal year 2019-20, broken down by (i) business risk management program, (ii) province, (iii) sector?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 281--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
    With regard to the government's level of co-operation with investigations or analysis conducted by the police or any officer or agent of Parliament, such as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: (a) since January 1, 2016, how many waivers has the government signed to allow for complete and unrestricted co-operation and sharing of information between the government and those conducting the investigation or analysis; and (b) what are the details of each waiver, including the (i) date, (ii) types of records covered by the waiver (protected, cabinet confidence, etc.), (iii) entity with which the waiver allows information to be shared (RCMP, Commissioner of Lobbying, etc.), (iv) subject matter of the investigation?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 282--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
    With regard to government revenue from taxes or duties related to cannabis sales: (a) what was the original projected revenue from these taxes or duties in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) what was the actual revenue generated from these taxes or duties in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by revenue source (GST, excise tax, etc.); (d) what is the projected revenue from these taxes or duties in each of the next five years; (e) what percentage of cannabis sold in Canada does the government estimate is currently sold through (i) legal distributors, (ii) illegal drug dealers; and (f) what was the amount of revenue generated, broken down by month, related to cannabis sales between (i) March 1, 2019, and December 1, 2019, (ii) March 1, 2020, and December 1, 2020?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 284--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
    With regard to government expenditures on aircraft rentals since December 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on the rental of aircraft; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) dates of rental, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) purpose of trip, (vi) origin and destination of flights, (vii) titles of passengers, including which passengers were on which segments of each trip?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 285--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
    With regard to the various financial relief programs put in place since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount dispersed through each measure to date, broken down by program; and (b) what is the estimated level of fraudulent applications for each program, including (i) estimated percentage of fraudulent applications, (ii) estimated number of fraudulent applications, (iii) estimated dollar value of fraudulent applications?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 286--
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
    With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: (a) since the minister was sworn in on November 20, 2019, how many members of the middle class have seen their prosperity (i) increase, (ii) decrease; and (b) what metrics does the minister use to measure the level of middle class prosperity?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 287--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
    With regard to contracts issued by ministers' offices for the purpose of media training, since December 1, 2019: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) vendors, (ii) dates of contract, (iii) dates of training, (iv) individuals for whom the training was for, (v) amounts?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 288--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
    With regard to polling by the government since December 1, 2019: (a) what is the list of all poll questions and subjects that have been commissioned since December 1, 2019; (b) for each poll in (a), what was the (i) start and end date each poll was in the field, (ii) sample size of each poll, (iii) manner in which the poll was conducted (in person, virtually, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all polling contracts signed since December 1, 2019, including the (i) vendor, (ii) date and duration, (iii) amount, (iv) summary of the contract, including the number of polls conducted?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 289--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
    With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) since 1995, what is the number of attempted suicides amongst active and former Canadian Armed Forces members, both regular and reserve force, broken down by (i) year, (ii) service status, (iii) branch, (iv) rank; (b) since 1995, what is the number of suicides amongst active and former Canadian Armed Forces members, both regular and reserve force, broken down by (i) year, (ii) service status, (iii) branch, (iv) rank; (c) what government agency, directorate and office has the ability or responsibility to collect and maintain data related to suicides and attempted suicides by former and current members of the Canadian Armed Forces; (d) what is the step by step protocol and procedure for collecting data on attempted suicides and suicides by past and present Canadian Armed Forces members; and (e) if there is no protocol or step by step process, what would the process be to collect and maintain this data?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 292--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
    With regard to the Prime Minister's announcement in May 2020 of an agreement with CanSino Biologics Inc. (CanSinoBIO) in relation to the development of a potential COVID-19 vaccine: (a) what were the original details of the agreement, as understood by the government in May 2020; (b) on what date did the government first become aware that the agreement would not proceed as planned; (c) on what date did the government become aware that shipments of Ad5-nCoV were being blocked by the Chinese government; (d) what reason, if any, did the Chinese government provide to the government for blocking the shipment; (e) has the government transferred any money or any type of expenditures to CanSinoBIO since January 1, 2020, and, if so, what is the total amount sent, broken down by date of transfer; (f) what are the details of any contracts signed with CanSinoBIO since January 1, 2020, including the (i) amount, (ii) original value, (iii) final value, (iv) date contract was signed, (v) description of goods or services, including volume; (g) was the National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister advised of terms of the terms agreement prior to the Prime Minister's announcement, and, if so, did he approve of the agreement; (h) was the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service informed of the details of the agreement prior to the Prime Minister's announcement, and, if so, did they raise any concerns with the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office; and (i) what were the results of any security analysis conducted in relation to CanSinoBIO?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 293--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
    With regard to the government's decision not to conduct an Official Languages Impact Analysis in relation to certain items announced since January 1, 2020: (a) why was an Official Languages Impact Analysis not conducted on the proposal to have WE Charity run the Canada Student Service Grant; (b) what is the complete list of items approved by Treasury Board since March 13, 2020, that underwent the required Official Languages Impact Analysis prior to submission; (c) what is the complete list of items approved by Treasury Board since March 13, 2020, that did not undergo an Official Languages Impact Analysis, prior to submission; and (d) for each item in (c), what is the government's rationale for not abiding by the Official Languages Impact Analysis requirement?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 294--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
    With regard to the consultations that have taken place since 2018 regarding potential changes to the seed royalty regime: (a) what is the complete list of entities consulted; (b) what is the number of independent producers consulted; (c) what specific concerns were raised by those consulted, broken down by proposal; and (d) is the government currently considering any changes to the seed royalty regime, and, if so, what are the details, including the timeline, of any potential changes?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 295--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
    With regard to the statement of the Vice-President of Guyana, in August 2020, that, "it's a Canadian grant and there will be a Canadian consultant," in reference to the appointment of Alison Redford to assist in developing Guyana's oil and gas sector: (a) what are the details of the grant, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) purpose, (iv) department and program administering the grant; (b) what are the details of any other grants, programs, initiatives, or expenditures that have provided any assistance to Guyana's oil and gas sector since November 4, 2015; and (c) did the government conduct any analysis on the impact that the development of the Guyana oil and gas sector will have on the Canadian oil and gas sector, and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 296--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
    With regard to investments in Canada Revenue Agency tax compliance measures to crack down on international tax evasion, since the 2016–17 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many auditors specializing in foreign accounts have been hired; (b) how many audits have been conducted; (c) how many notices of assessment have been sent; (d) what was the amount recovered; (e) how many cases were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (f) how many criminal charges have been laid?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 297--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
    With regard to the design and implementation of programs and spending measures relating to COVID-19, broken down by program and spending measure: (a) have contracts been awarded to private-sector suppliers and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details for each contract in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 300--
Mr. Peter Julian:
    With regard to the temporary suspension of some programs and services of the Canada Revenue Agency, since the month of March 2020: (a) what is the name of each suspended program and service; and (b) for each program and service in (a), what is the (i) suspension date and resumption date, (ii) what are the reasons for the suspension?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 301--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
    With regard to the decision of Transport Canada not to allow passengers to remain in their vehicles on certain decks of BC Ferries throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) did Transport Canada conduct any analysis relating to exempting passengers from this restriction throughout the pandemic in order to prevent possible exposure to COVID-19, and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis; (b) why did Transport Canada require those passengers to venture out of their vehicles into the communal areas of BC Ferries; (c) did Transport Canada consult Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada prior to enforcing this restriction during the pandemic, and, if not, why; (d) why did Transport Canada refuse to exempt high risk and elderly travelers from this requirement, thus causing such individuals to be unnecessarily exposed to others; (e) what are the details of any communication received by either Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada regarding this decision from Transport Canada, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents; and (f) what was the response of Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to any communication received in (e)?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 302--
Mr. Dave Epp:
    With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB): (a) how many self-employed Canadians earning more than $5,000 in gross income, but less than $5,000 in net income, have applied for the benefit during the qualification period; (b) how many individuals in (a) have been asked by the Canada Revenue Agency to repay the amount they received under the CERB; (c) what is the (i) average, (ii) median, (iii) total amount that the individuals in (a) were asked to repay; and (d) why did the government not specify that the $5,000 requirement was for net income rather than gross income on the original application form?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 303--
Mr. Dave Epp:
    With regard to the COVID Alert app and the November 23, 2020, update to fix a bug causing gaps in exposure checks for some users: (a) on what date did the government first become aware of the gaps or other issues; (b) how many potential exposures were missed because of the gaps; (c) how many app users encountered gaps in exposure checks; (d) on what date did the gaps first begin; (e) on what date were the gaps fully resolved; (f) what is the average number of days that the gaps lasted for those impacted; (g) were certain types of mobile devices more prone to encounter the gaps, and, if so, which ones; and (h) on what date did the government notify provincial health officials about the gaps?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 304--
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
    With regard to medical equipment, excluding personal protective equipment, purchased by the government related to the government's COVID-19 response: (a) what is the total amount spent, broken down by type of equipment (ventilators, syringes, etc.); (b) what is the total number of contracts signed for medical equipment; (c) what is the breakdown of the amount spent by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located; and (d) what is the total number of contracts signed broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 305--
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
    With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) purchased by the government since the COVID-19 pandemic began: (a) what is the total amount spent on PPE; (b) what is the total number of contracts signed for PPE; (c) what is the breakdown of the amount spent by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located; and (d) what is the total number of contracts signed broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 306--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
    With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), since March 2020: (a) how many air passenger complaints have been received, broken down by the subject matter of the complaint; (b) of the complaints received in (a), how many have been resolved, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (c) how many air passenger complaints were dismissed, withdrawn or declined, broken down by (i) subject matter of the complaint, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (d) for each complaint in (a), how many cases were resolved through a settlement; (e) how many full-time equivalent agency case officers are assigned to deal with air travel complaints, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (f) what is the average number of air travel complaints handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (g) what is the number of air travel complaints received but not yet handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (h) in how many cases were passengers told by CTA facilitators that they were not entitled to compensation, broken down by rejection category; (i) among the cases in (h), what was the reason for the CTA facilitators not to refer the passengers and the airlines to the Montréal Convention that is incorporated in the international tariff (terms and conditions) of the airlines; (j) how does the CTA define a "resolved" complaint for the purposes of reporting it in its statistics; (k) when a complainant chooses not to pursue a complaint, does it count as "resolved"; (l) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to an officer to be assigned to the case, broken down by the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (m) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to reaching a settlement, broken down by the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; and (n) for complaints in (a), what is the percentage of complaints that were not resolved in accordance with the service standards?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 307--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
    With regard to GST/HST tax revenues, beginning in fiscal year 2016-17, and broken down by fiscal year: what was the revenue shortfall for (i) suppliers of digital goods and services that are not physically located in Canada, (ii) goods supplied through fulfillment warehouses with online suppliers and digital platforms located outside of Canada?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 308--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
    With regard to government advertising campaigns launched since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all campaigns, including the (i) title and description, (ii) total budget, (iii) start and end date; and (b) for each campaign, what is the breakdown of the total amount spent on advertising by each type of media (radio, television, social media, etc.)?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 310--
Mr. John Nater:
    With regard to expenditures on communications professional services (codes 035, 0351, and 0352) since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or competitively bid?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 312--
Mr. John Nater:
    With regard to funding provided through the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund, since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to date; (b) what is the number of recipients; and (c) what are the details of each funding recipient, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) location of the recipient, (v) type of funding (loan, grant, etc.)?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 313--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
    With regard to SNC-Lavalin and the design and implementation of COVID-19 programs and spending measures, broken down by program and spending measures: (a) have any contracts been awarded to SNC-Lavalin, and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details of each of the contracts in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of the goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 314--
Mr. Matthew Green:
    With regard to government business finance programs and government contracts, broken down by funding program, contracts and fiscal year, since 2011: (a) what is the total funding for (i) Facebook, (ii) Google, (iii) Amazon, (iv) Apple, (v) Netflix?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 315--
Mr. Matthew Green:
    With regard to funding to support food banks and local food organizations, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory and by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were denied; and (d) of the applications denied in (c), what is the rationale for each denied application?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 316--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
    With regard to the COVID-19 Economic Response Plan and the section outlining support for Indigenous people: what is the total amount dispersed and the total number of recipients to date for each of the following listed programs and initiatives, (i) supporting Indigenous communities, (ii) boosting the On­Reserve Income Assistance Program, (iii) funding for additional health care resources for Indigenous communities, (iv) expanding and improving access to mental wellness services, (v) making personal hygiene products and nutritious food more affordable, (vi) providing support to Indigenous post­secondary students, (vii) ensuring a safe return to school for First Nations, (viii) new shelters to protect and support Indigenous women and children fleeing violence?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 317--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
    With regard to information held by the Bank of Canada: (a) what was the total combined purchase price of all the Government of Canada bonds that the Bank of Canada purchased on the secondary market since March 1, 2020; (b) what was the total combined purchase price of the bonds listed in (a) when originally auctioned on the primary market; (c) what was the average sale price of (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds, since March 1, 2020, to the primary market; (d) what is the average sale price of (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds at the time of issuance paid by all purchasers, other than the Bank of Canada; (e) what was the average purchase price paid by the Bank of Canada for (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds; (f) what is the actual answer or information contained in any URL links provided in the response in (a) through (e), if applicable; and (g) what are the details of all corporate bonds that the Bank of Canada has purchased since March 1, 2020, including the (i) name of the company, (ii) purchase and price per unit, (iii) date of the purchase, (iv) total amount of the purchase?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 318--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
    With regard to the Boeing 737 MAX 8: (a) during communication with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) on or after October 29, 2018, including in the emergency Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA, what information was received by Transport Canada, including (i) the findings of any FAA risk analysis into the airworthiness of the 737 MAX 8 and likelihood of fatal crashes during its service, (ii) any information concerning the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software and its role in the crash of Lion Air flight 610, (iii) any information about the risks of an angle-of-attack sensor failure, (iv) data indicating the cause of the crash of Lion Air flight 610, including black box recordings, (v) any explanation of the cause of the crash of Lion Air flight 610, including any description of the runaway stabilizer trim; (b) was this information communicated to the Minister of Transport or the Director General of Civil Administration, and, if so, when; (c) were any concerns with the absence of information regarding the crash of Lion Air flight 610 conveyed to the FAA, and, if so, what was the substance of these concerns; (d) did Transport Canada consider any order grounding the 737 MAX 8 between October 29, 2018, and March 10, 2019, and, if so, why was this option rejected; (e) at any time before March 10, 2019, did Transport Canada receive any concerns about the 737 MAX 8 from airlines or pilot associations and, if so, what were these concerns and who issued them; (f) after October 29, 2018, did Transport Canada consider undertaking its own risk analysis of the 737 MAX 8, and, if so, why was this option rejected; and (g) prior to March 10, 2019, did Transport Canada communicate the causes of the Lion Air crash, including an explanation of the runaway stabilizer trim, with any airlines or pilot associations?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 319--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
    With regard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy since 2011: how much money has been invested by the federal government per year and per project at (i) Seaspan, (ii) Davie, (iii) Irving?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 320--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
    With regard to projects funded through the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI) since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided through the CFLI; and (b) what are the details of each project including the (i) amount, (ii) date project was funded, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description, (v) location of the project, (vi) relevant Canadian Embassy or High Commission that approved the project?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 321--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
    With regard to the government's decision not to use PnuVax for domestic vaccine production: (a) why did the government decide not to invest in the PnuVax facility so that it could produce vaccines; (b) did the government have any communication with PnuVax about the possibility of vaccine production since March 13, 2020, and, if so, what are the details of each communication; (c) did the government discuss the possibility of a Strategic Innovation Fund investment with PnuVax, and, if not, why not; and (d) has the government received any applications for funding or financial assistance from PnuVax since March 13, 2020, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) date of application, (ii) government program, (iii) amount applied for, (iv) reason application was denied, if applicable?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 322--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
    With regard to information held by Health Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or Statistics Canada: (a) what is the number of surgeries that have been postponed since March 1, 2020, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province or territory; (b) what is the number of hospitalizations resulting from substance abuse or overdose since March 1, 2020; (c) what is the number of fatalities resulting from substance abuse or overdose; and (d) what is the number of suicides since March 1, 2020, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province or territory?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 323--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
    With regard to the government’s responses to Order Paper questions Q-1 to Q-169, and broken down by each response: what is the title of the government official that signed the required Statement of Completeness for each response?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 324--
Mr. Gord Johns:
    With regard to the communities that comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the 1993-94 and current year fiscal year: (a) what are the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to the municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (b) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Comox Valley Regional District, (ii) Regional District of Nanaimo, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, (iv) Powell River Regional District, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (c) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasqueti Island, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (d) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nations, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) projects, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (e) what are the federal infrastructure investments directed towards the Pacific Rim National Park, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by year; and (f) what are the federal infrastructure contributions to highways, including but not limited to (i) Highway 4, (ii) Highway 19, (iii) Highway 19a, (iv) Bamfield Road, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) total expenditure by fiscal year?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 325--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
    With regard to the promises made in the 2015 and 2019 Liberal Party of Canada election platforms to end the discriminatory blood donation ban for gay and bisexual men: (a) on what exact date will the ban end; and (b) why did the government not end the ban during its first five years in power?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 326--
Mr. Gord Johns:
    With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to Transport Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Transport Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and program; (c) how much money has been allocated to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (e) how much money has been allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (f) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Environment and Climate Change Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (g) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (h) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, since 2016, broken down by year; (i) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; and (j) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 327--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
    With regard to the $3 billion transfer to the provinces and territories for support to increase the wages of low-income essential workers: a) what is the total amount transferred broken down by province and territory; and b) what are the details on the use of the funds transferred, broken down by province and territory?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 328--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
    With regard to funding for the initiative to support women's shelters and sexual assault centres, including facilities in Indigenous communities, since May 2020, broken down by province and territory, and by program: a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; b) what is the total number of applications; c) of the applications in b), how many were approved and how many were refused; and d) of the applications refused in c), what is the rationale for each refused application?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 329--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
    With regard to funding for homelessness support through Reaching Home, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory, and by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were denied; and (d) of the applications denied in (c), what is the rationale for each denied application?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 330--
Mr. Gord Johns:
    With regard to support for charitable and not-for-profit organizations serving vulnerable populations through the Emergency Community Support Fund, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were declined; and d) of the applications declined in (c), what is the rationale for each declined application?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 331--
Mr. Gord Johns:
    With regard to funding for youth employment and skills development programs, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory, by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were declined; and d) of the declined applications in (c), what is the rationale for each declined application?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 333--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
    With regards to Lobster Fishing Area 34 between 2016 and 2019, broken down by year: (a) how many kilograms of lobster are confirmed to have landed outside of the commercial season; (b) how many kilograms are estimated to have landed outside of the commercial season; (c) under what legal or regulatory authority, if any, was the lobster in (a) and (b) harvested; and (d) if there was no legal or regulatory authority, how many charges were laid under the Fisheries Act in relation to the fishing in (a) and (b)?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 334--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
    With regards to the Transport of Munitions of War (MoW) by Foreign Air Operators between 2015 and 2019, broken down by year: (a) how many foreign air operators have applied for a Ministerial Authorization to carry MoW when operating in Canada; (b) how many foreign air operators have applied for a blanket Ministerial Authorization to carry MoW; (c) of the applications in (a) and (b), how many were (i) issued, (ii) rejected; (d) what are the details of each flight authorized to carry MoW, including (i) origin, (ii) destination, (iii) date, (iv) country of aircraft registration, (v) details of cargo that necessitated the MoW authorization; and (e) how many times have foreign air operators been found to be in breach of condition or non-compliant in respect to carrying MoW?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 335--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
    With regard to consultations on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since October 20, 2019, at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office: (a) what, if any, consultations have occurred with the heavy trucking sector (specifically operators and manufacturers of class 8 vehicles) with regard to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since October 20, 2019; (b) did the consultations take place in person, via telephone or virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions; (c) what are the dates of those consultations; (d) who was in attendance for those consultations, including the (i) name of each individual from any department or agency in attendance, (ii) position and title of each individual department or agency, (iii) name of each company or organization represented, (iv) position and title of each individual from those respective companies or organizations represented; (e) were any briefing notes prepared in advance of each consultation, and, if so, what are the titles of those briefing notes; (f) were any briefing notes prepared following each consultation, and, if so, what are the titles of those briefing notes; and (g) were there any notes taken during those consultations?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 336--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
    With regard to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office: what is the government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the heavy trucking sector (specifically operators and manufacturers of class 8 vehicles) at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 337--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
    With regard to the agreements between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States signed on October 26, 2020: what are the details of such agreements, including the (i) title, (ii) summary of the terms?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 338--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
    With regard to the Minister of National Defence's use of Canadian Armed Forces aircraft from November 4, 2015, to December 9, 2020: what are the details of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) purpose of the travel, (v) types of aircraft used?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 339--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
    With regard to the participation of the Minister of National Defence in military exercises and SkyHawks training where parachute jumps were involved, from November 4, 2015, to December 9, 2020: (a) how many times did the minister take part in parachute jumps with the Canadian Armed Forces; and (b) what are the dates and locations of each parachute jump by the minister?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 340--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
    With regard to counterfeit goods discovered and seized by the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other relevant government entities, since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total value of the goods discovered, broken down by month; (b) for each seizure, what is the breakdown of goods by (i) type, (ii) brand, (iii) quantity, (iv) estimated value, (v) location or port of entry where the goods were discovered, (vi) product description, (vii) country of origin; and (c) for each seizure that included medical or personal protective equipment (PPE), what are the details, including (i) type of recipient (government agency, private citizen, corporation, etc.), (ii) name of the government entity that ordered the goods, if applicable, (iii) description of medical equipment or PPE, including quantity, (iv) estimated value, (v) location where goods were seized, (vi) whether any action taken against the counterfeit supplier, and, if so, what are the details?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 341--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
    With regard to the National Housing Strategy: (a) what is the breakdown of the over one million Canadians helped to find affordable housing mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, broken down by year and province or territory; (b) what is the breakdown for the number of Canadians helped to find affordable housing since January 1, 2010, broken down by year and province or territory; (c) what is the highest known cost of rent and median cost of rent that currently exists that meets the affordability criteria (i) used in the National Housing Co-investment Fund, (ii) used in the Rental Construction Financing initiative, (iii) and used among the Canadians helped to find affordable housing; (d) what percentage of the initial 50 percent target of reducing chronic homelessness has been achieved so far; and (e) how much funding through the National Housing Strategy has gone to Indigenous housing providers since 2017, broken down by year, province or territory, and stream?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 342--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
    With regard to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) processing levels since January 1, 2020, broken down by month: (a) how many applications have been received, broken down by stream and country of origin; (b) how many applications have been fully approved, broken down by stream and country of origin; (c) how many applications are in backlog, broken down by stream and country of origin; (d) what is the breakdown between inland and outland applications for family class sponsorship applications in (a) and (b); (e) how many holders of Confirmation of Permanent Residence that have expired since IRCC shut down operations (i) are there in total, (ii) have been contacted to renew their intent to travel to Canada, (iii) have confirmed their intent to travel, (iv) have been approved to travel while meeting the travel exemption; and (f) what is the number of extended family reunification travel authorization requests that were (i) received, (ii) processed beyond the 14 business day standard processing time.
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 343--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
    With regard to asylum seekers: (a) since 2020, broken down by nationality (including passport holders for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as its own category) and year, how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), (iii) approved by the IRB, (iv) refused by the IRB, (v) had a request for a pre-remove risk assessment (PRRA), and (vi) have had a PRRA decision made in their favour; (b) what is the average time from the receipt of an application until a decision was made in (a)(iii) and (a)(iv); (c) how many cessation applications have been made by the government since 2012, broken down by year, grounds for the application and country of origin; (d) is there an annual target to strip refugees of status; and (e) what are the total resources spent pursuing cessation cases, broken down by year.
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 345--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
    With regard to administrative support provided to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) between June 1, 2018, and December 1, 2020: (a) what is the total scope of the administrative, logistical and operational support provided to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by departmental personnel regularly situated at DFO national headquarters in Ottawa, and what is the precise nature of that support, excluding all activities and expenditures for which the department is reimbursed in accordance with the annual memoranda of agreement between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for delivery of sea lamprey control; and (b) how many departmental personnel regularly situated at DFO national headquarters in Ottawa regularly and substantially engage in activities on behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and what is the precise nature of that engagement, excluding all activities for which the department is reimbursed in accordance with the annual memoranda of agreement between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the delivery of sea lamprey control?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 346--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
    With regard to immigration: (a) how many post-graduate work permits have lost status since Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) shut down operations in response to COVID-19, broken down by month; (b) what is the average time taken for the issuance of an acknowledgement of receipt for Quebec skilled workers after an application has been received by IRCC since 2015, broken down by month; and (c) since 2018, broken down by month and country of origin, how many applications in the Student Direct Stream have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) refused?
    (Return tabled)

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
    Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

Requests for Emergency Debate

Keystone XL Pipeline