Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 338, 344, 346, 349, 352 to 354 and 356.
Question No. 338—Mr. Clifford Small
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Atlantic Seal Science Task Team: (a) how many meetings has the task team had since it was established in 2019; (b) what are the dates of each meeting; (c) what deliverables or accomplishments resulted from each meeting; (d) what specific input has been provided on the priorities of DFO's Atlantic seal science program; (e) what has resulted from the team's examining the application of technology advancements to seal research; (f) what measurable progress has been made on the objective of the team to increase the involvement of the fishing industry in seal science projects; and (g) what specific advice did the team provide on how DFO could better communicate its scientific findings to the fishing industry?Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), as of March 15, 2022, the Atlantic seal science task team has met 15 times since it was convened in 2020.
In response to part (b), as of March 15, 2022, the Atlantic seal science task team met in 2020 on April 23, June 25, July 23 and October 15; in 2021 on February 23, March 12, April 15, May 11, July 15, October 12, November 12 and November 30; and in 2022 on February 2, February 8 and March 4. Deliverables or accomplishments of the task team are being captured in the Atlantic seal science task team report currently under development.
In response to all other parts of the question, input from the task team is being captured in the Atlantic seal science task team report currently under development.Question No. 344—Mr. Alex Ruff
With regard to Canadian travellers re-entering Canada, provisioned under current or previously issued Orders in Council (OICs) related to minimizing the risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada (quarantine, isolation and other obligations): (a) how many Canadians have been denied entry, or were not able to enter into Canada due to arriving at a land border with a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of Order in Council (OIC) 2021-0075; (b) how many Canadians have been denied entry or were not able to enter into Canada due to arriving at a land border with another traveller who presented a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (c) how many Canadians have been fined due to arriving at a land border with a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (d) how many Canadians have been fined due to arriving at a land border with another traveller who presented a positive test result, broken down by month since the issuing of OIC 2021-0075; (e) did the responsible minister request a Charter Statement, or similar review, prior issuing OIC 2022-0042 or similar repealed OICs; (f) where can the published Charter Statement in (e) be found; and (g) what health-based assessment was conducted on the risks to Canadian travellers health and safety for requiring these travellers to quarantine in the United States versus quarantining at home; and (h) how frequently has this assessment been reviewed and where are the published results available?Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) and (b) of the question, Canadian citizens, permanent residents of Canada or persons registered as an Indian under the Indian Act have right of entry into Canada. There is no provision to deny entry to Canadian citizens, permanent residents of Canada or persons registered as an Indian under the Indian Act for non-compliance with the Quarantine Act or associated orders in council.
In response to part (c), the Public Health Agency of Canada does not collect information regarding the citizenship of travellers that are issued fines. In total, 111 travellers have been fined due to arriving at a Canadian border with a recent positive COVID-19 test result. The monthly breakdown of fines issued since this requirement was introduced in January 2021 is as follows: January 2021, zero; February 2021, zero; March 2021, one; April 2021, three; May 2021, five; June 2021, three; July 2021, two; August 2021, six; September 2021, 13; October 2021, seven; November 2021, eight; December 2021, 31; January 2022, 30; and February 2022, two.
In response to part (d), no Canadians have been issued a fine due to arriving at a land border with another traveller who presented a positive test result, as this is not an offence under the Quarantine Act or associated orders in council.
In response to parts (e) and (f), charter statements are required to be provided for government bills that are being introduced in Parliament. Accordingly, given that the orders in council are by nature subordinate to legislation, charter statements would not be provided for the orders or similar instruments.
However, although the orders in council are not subject to the regulatory examination process under the Statutory Instruments Act, the Department of Justice reviews the orders using the criteria set out in subsection 3(2) of that act, in its capacity as legal adviser to the Clerk of the Privy Council. These criteria include a review of the orders for consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In response to parts (g) and (h), as set out in the Quarantine Act, the statutory purpose of the act is to protect public health by taking comprehensive measures to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases in Canada. The associated orders in council are also aimed at achieving this purpose of the act. In accordance with the act, the orders do so by imposing prohibitions or conditions on the entry of persons entering Canada, with the aim of protecting the public health of people in Canada.
The public health assessment of the measures introduced under the OICs is primarily undertaken by the Public Health Agency of Canada, including in consultation with other government departments or agencies as may be appropriate.
When issuing the order in council, the government publishes an explanatory note that accompanies each OIC. The explanatory note provides background information and rationale for the measures imposed in the orders. The explanatory note may provide further information outlining the basis for the various measures that have been introduced via the orders. As explained above, one of the main focuses of the measures is to protect the public health of Canadians.
Being provided periodically with each order that is made, the explanatory note is published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days of date that the order is made.Question No. 346—Mr. Brad Vis
With regard to the AgriDiversity Program administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: (a) how many applications were received in 2021; (b) how many projects were successful and received funding in 2021; (c) how many projects in (a) and (b) were to support African and Black Canadian work in 2021; and (d) what are the details of all projects in (c), including, for each, the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) amount of federal contribution, (iv) start date, (v) projected completion date?Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, 10 applications were received in 2021.
Regarding part (b), three projects were successful and received funding in 2021.
Regarding part (c), two applications related to part (a) were to support African and Black Canadian work.
In response to part (d), information for applications that have not received funding are submitted in confidence and the details of the project could reveal the identity of the third party or organization without their expressed consent.Question No. 349—Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan
With regard to the applications for the resettlement of refugees from Afghanistan, submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many applications were filed under the special immigration program for Afghan nationals, and their families, who assisted the Government of Canada; (b) how many of the applicants in (a) remain in Afghanistan; (c) how many applicants in (a) have been refused; (d) how many applicants in (a) have come to Canada; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by month, since July 2021; (f) how many applications submitted under the Special Immigration Measures (SIM) program, the Afghan humanitarian Government-Assisted Refugees (GAR) program, as well as the Afghan humanitarian Privately Sponsored Refugees (PSR) program have yet to be processed by IRCC; (g) what is the average amount of time that those applications in (f) have to wait before being processed; (h) how many applications submitted under the SIMs, GARs, and PSR have completed biometrics; (i) how many government employees have been working on applications filed under the SIMs since July 2021; (j) what is the breakdown of (i) by month, from July 2021 to February 2022; and (k) how many IRCC employees were in Afghanistan from August 15 to 27, 2021?Ms. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), as of February 16, 2022, approximately 14,840 persons’ applications have been received under the special immigration program for Afghan nationals and their families who assisted the Government of Canada.
With regard to (b), of the applications in process under the special immigration program for Afghan nationals and their families who assisted the Government of Canada, approximately 7,125 persons’ applications are from clients who remain in Afghanistan, based on information provided.
With regard to (c), fewer than 10 persons’ applications were refused through the special immigration measures program.
With regard to (d), members may refer to the website for the latest key figures, at https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services /refugees/afghanistan/key-figures.html.
With regard to (e), members may refer to the website for latest key figures, at https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ services/refugees/afghanistan/key-figures.html.
With regard to (f), as of February 16, 2022, about 8,500 persons’ applications that were submitted under the special immigration measures program and the Afghan humanitarian government-assisted refugees program were in our processing inventory.
The Afghan humanitarian privately sponsored refugee program will facilitate the arrival of a mix of Afghan privately sponsored refugees in the existing inventory and new applications. As of February 16, 2022, there are approximately 7,267 Afghan privately sponsored refugee applications, in persons, in the processing inventory.
With regard to (g), IRCC cannot provide an estimate as to how long it will take to process applications that are currently in the processing inventory. IRCC is processing Afghan applications under the special immigration program for Afghans who assisted the Government of Canada in the humanitarian programs as quickly as possible. The time required to process these applications will depend on a variety of factors, including whether the client is still in Afghanistan.
With regard to (h), as of mid-February approximately 4,455 applicants under the special immigration measures had completed biometrics, while an additional 6,005 persons were exempt from completing biometrics but underwent a modified biographic screening process. Under the Afghan humanitarian government-assisted refugees program, 2,805 applicants had completed biometrics, while an additional 2,140 were exempt from completing biometrics but underwent a modified biographic screening process. Under the privately sponsored refugees program, 2,290 Afghan applicants had completed biometrics, while 1,340 were exempt from completing biometrics but underwent a modified biographic screening process.
With regard to (i) and (j), although IRCC has added significant resources to increase processing capacity, there is no specific data about staff working exclusively on processing applications for Afghan nationals. The department continues to process applications as efficiently as possible, not only by adding resources but also by waiving application fees, as well as mobilizing our global network to process and issue visas on an urgent basis. We have set up a dedicated telephone line, with extended hours, to serve Afghan clients seeking information and assistance.
With regard to (k), similar to other like-minded countries, all IRCC personnel left Kabul on August 15, 2021, with the closure of the embassy. During this period, IRCC mobilized a team supporting the Afghan evacuation efforts 24 hours per day and seven days per week, with employees in Canada, as well as at our missions around the globe, ensuring continuous real-time dedicated support for the air bridge. With the support of the Canadian Armed Forces, a Canadian presence remained in the region for as long as was safely possible.Question No. 352—Mr. Garnett Genuis
With regard to direction and control regulations as it relates to the Income Tax Act: (a) what is the government’s position regarding direction and control regulations; (b) does the government support Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources of a registered charity); (c) have government ministers met with individuals or organizations advocating for changes to direction and control regulations, and, if so, what are the details of all such meetings, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names of ministers and Members of Parliament in attendance, (iii) names and titles of ministerial or political staff, as well as government officials in attendance, (iv) names and titles of individuals or organizations in attendance, (v) meeting format (in person or virtual); (d) are discussions ongoing within government about the challenges posed by and possible reforms to direction and control regulation, and, if so, which ministers and departments are involved in the discussions and what is the expected timeline for when (i) the discussions are expected to conclude, (ii) any reforms would be announced or enacted, if applicable?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes that some charities find these rules overly restrictive and onerous, and it is committed to ensuring that the regulatory framework supports the important work that charities perform. This is why in the government’s response to the report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, the government committed to reviewing these rules to determine if they continue to be appropriate or if improvements can be made. The government is now actively considering how the framework for charities that work in partnership with others both in Canada and internationally could be improved such that it better supports the important work that charities perform while balancing the need for accountability among charitable resources.
The government will communicate its position on Bill S-216, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources of a registered charity), during the legislative process in the House of Commons.Question No. 353—Mr. Garnett Genuis
With regard to the government listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity: (a) is the government reviewing whether or not to list the IRGC as a whole as a terrorist entity, and not just the Quds Force; (b) has the government reached a decision about whether or not to list the IRGC as a whole; (c) if the government has reached a decision, what is it; and (d) if the government has not reached a decision on the IRGC, when will it reach one?Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, keeping Canadians safe is of paramount importance to this government. We are working with like-minded countries to ensure that Iran is held to account for its support of terrorism.
The Criminal Code sets out a terrorist listing regime to help prevent the use of Canada’s financial system to further terrorist activity and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences. The Minister of Public Safety may recommend to the Governor in Council, GiC, that individuals or groups be officially designated as “terrorist entities” pursuant to subsection 83.05(1) of the Criminal Code, on “establishment of list”, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity, or has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with, an entity referred to in paragraph (a).
The term “entity” is defined as “a person, group, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization”. The definition does not include reference to a state.
Canada has robust measures in place to hold Iran and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, accountable for their support for terrorism, including some of the toughest and most comprehensive sanctions against Iran in the world. Canada continues to look at all possible options to further constrain the activities of Iran that threaten national security.
Canada has maintained the listing of the IRGC Qods Force as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code since 2012. The Qods Force is recognized as responsible for terrorist operations and for providing arms, funding and training to other terrorist groups. The Government of Canada also continues to list terrorist entities that have benefited from the Qods Force patronage, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, and three Iran-backed regional militias that were listed as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code in 2019.
Canada has implemented sanctions decisions of the United Nations Security Council, UNSC, into domestic law under the United Nations Act. Among a wide range of restrictions, the Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on Iran also include a dealings ban on persons listed by the UNSC, including senior members of the IRGC.
Other existing measures against the IRGC include the sanctions imposed under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA (Iran) Regulations), in response to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The regulations explicitly target IRGC organizations, including the IRGC Air Force and Air Force Missile Command, IRGC Logistics and Procurement, IRGC Missile Command, IRGC Navy, and several members of its senior leadership. The SEMA (Iran) Regulations include a dealings ban on designated individuals and entities, which include the aforementioned IRGC organizations, effectively freezing their assets in Canada. These measures are also intended to restrict Iran’s access to sensitive goods from Canada, especially with respect to nuclear proliferation and the development of ballistic missiles.
On February 21, 2020, the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, the international standard-setting body for combatting money laundering and terrorist financing, called on its members, including Canada, to impose countermeasures on Iran to help mitigate the risk the Islamic Republic of Iran presents to the international financial system. On July 25, 2020, the Minister of Finance issued a ministerial directive due to Iran’s failure to address strategic deficiencies in its anti-money-laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism, or AML/CFT, regime. The measures identified were applied to the areas of greatest risk and include the requirement for financial institutions, credit unions and money services businesses to treat every financial transaction originating from or bound for Iran as a high-risk transaction and to report all transactions, regardless of their amount, to the Financial Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre.
Finally, Canada lists Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act, SIA, which allows civil actions to be taken against it under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, the JVTA.
We remain unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world.Question No. 354—Mr. Kyle Seeback
With regard to the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act and the Emergency Economic Measures Order: (a) which crowdfunding platforms or payment service providers registered with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada in relation to the order; (b) how many (i) suspicious, (ii) large value, transactions were reported by each platform or provider in relation to (a); and (c) what is the total value of the (i) suspicious, (ii) large value transactions reported by each platform in relation to (a)?Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, due to the revocation of the Emergency Economic Measures Order and the limitations on the disclosure of information that are set out in subsection 55(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, and the Department of Finance cannot respond to the question.
In processing Parliamentary returns, the Department of Finance and FINTRAC also apply the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and this information constitutes personal information held by third parties that the government is not legally able to share.Question No. 356—Ms. Lianne Rood
With regard to expenditures by the government on the rental or purchase of cots or folding beds which were delivered to the government lobby in the House of Commons on February 17, 2022: what are the details of all related contracts and expenditures, including, for each, (i) the amount spent, (ii) the vendor, (iii) whether units were rented or purchased, (iv) the number of units?Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, the government did not buy or rent any cots or folding beds for the government lobby in the House of Commons for February 17, 2022.
Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 337, 339 to 343, 345, 347, 348, 350, 351 and 355 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 337—Mr. Tom Kmiec
With regard to the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund (RRRF): (a) which businesses and communities have applied for funding; (b) for each business and community that have applied, was their application accepted or rejected, and if it was accepted, how much funding did they receive; (c) for each successful application, how many jobs were (i) initially meant to be saved by receiving funding through the RRRF, (ii) actually saved; (d) what specific follow-up measures were taken with each successful applicant to ensure that the funding was actually used to save jobs; (e) how many of the jobs saved by the RRRF were located (i) in Canada, (ii) outside of Canada; and (f) is the government aware of instances where funds from the RRRF were used inappropriately or for ineligible expenses and, if so, what are the details of all such instances, including the (i) recipient, (ii) value, (iii) summary of goods or services inappropriately purchased?
(Return tabled)Question No. 339—Mr. Rick Perkins
With regard to employees at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what was the total number of employees or full-time equivalent on the (i) Fisheries section, (ii) Oceans section of DFO, broken down by year since 2015; (b) what was the number of fishery offices field supervisor positions in conservation and protection at DFO, broken down by year since 2016; (c) what is the current number of fishery offices field supervisor positions in conservation and protection; (d) how many positions at DFO were eliminated in conservation and protection in (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022; and (e) how many positions at DFO were eliminated in total in (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, broken down by section of DFO and type of position?
(Return tabled)Question No. 340—Mr. Rick Perkins
With regard to research conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what dollar amount and percentage of DFO's scientific research budget has been provided to the (i) oceans department, (ii) fisheries department, broken down by year since 2016; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by topic or area of research?
(Return tabled)Question No. 341—Mr. Rick Perkins
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Eastern Shore Islands Area of Interest (AOI) and the proposed marine refuge off the Scotian Shelf bioregion: (a) how many (i) groups, (ii) individuals, have been consulted since January 1, 2019, regarding the AOI or the proposed marine refuge; and (b) what are the details of all such consultations, including, for each, (i) the date of the consultation, (ii) the format, (iii) the name of the individual or group consulted, (iv) who conducted the consultation, (v) the summary of the feedback or submission related to the consultation?
(Return tabled)Question No. 342—Ms. Michelle Ferreri
With regard to the various government relief programs for businesses put into place since March 1, 2020, and broken down by each program: (a) what was the number of incorporated businesses that (i) applied for funding, (ii) were provided funding, (iii) had their application rejected or not accepted; (b) what was the average amount of funding provided in (a)(ii); (c) what was the number of sole proprietorship businesses that (i) applied for funding, (ii) were provided funding, (iii) had their application rejected or not accepted; (d) what was the average amount of funding provided received in (c)(ii); and (e) what is the breakdown of each of the subparts in (a) and (c), by sector and industry, if known?
(Return tabled)Question No. 343—Mr. Alex Ruff
With regard to Canadian travellers re-entering Canada, provisioned under Order In Council 2022-0042 (Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada Order (Quarantine, Isolation and Other Obligations)): (a) on what date (s) were the webpages “COVID-19 vaccinated travellers entering Canada”, “Find out if you can travel to Canada – Citizen with symptoms – By land or sea”, and “COVID-19 testing for travellers” on the government’s travel website updated to reflect the entry requirements that Canadians must wait at least 10 calendar days after a positive test result before entering Canada, to avoid being fined $5,000 per traveller (plus surcharges); (b) which department is responsible for (i) drafting communications regarding this provision, (ii) updating the webpages in (a); and (c) what are the details of all other communications which were issued regarding this entry requirement, including, for each, the (i) date issued, (ii) medium, (iii) summary of communication?
(Return tabled)Question No. 345—Ms. Michelle Ferreri
With regard to the requirement for fully vaccinated travellers to have a recent negative COVID-19 test before crossing the land-border or face a $5,000 fine: (a) was this decision based on any scientific research, other than political science, and, if so, what specific scientific studies or data was it based on, and what are the specific website locations where the studies and data is located; (b) has the government conducted a cost-benefit analysis of maintaining the test requirement, either molecular or antigen, and, if so, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) what were the findings; and (c) what specific criteria or metrics must be met (i) at the land border, (ii) on flights from travellers from the United States, (iii) on flight from other international travellers, before the antigen test requirement for returning travellers is dropped, and on what dates does the government anticipate meeting each of these metrics or criteria?
(Return tabled)Question No. 347—Mr. Marty Morantz
With regard to the "Other consolidated specified purpose accounts", listed on pages 133 and 134 of the 2021 Public Accounts of Canada, Volume 1, and broken down by each account: (a) what is the current balance of the account; (b) how many (i) individuals, (ii) corporations, (iii) other entities, have received payments from the funds, broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17; (c) what is the total value of the expenditures in each subpart of (b); (d) what is the annual cost to the government to operate and maintain each fund; (e) what is the itemized breakdown of (d); (f) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to administer each fund; and (g) which minister and department has responsibility for the employees in (f)?
(Return tabled)Question No. 348—Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan
With regard to the refusal of applications submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many applications were submitted between January 1, 2014, and January 31, 2021; (b) how many applications in (a) were refused; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by (i) country of applicant, (ii) line of business being applied to, (iii) month; (d) how many applications in (a) were processed using Chinook; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by (i) country of applicant, (ii) line of business being applied to, (iii) month; (f) of the visa offices using Chinook, what is the refusal rate of applications, broken down by line of business; and (g) what is the breakdown of (f) by year from 2017 to 2021?
(Return tabled)Question No. 350—Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan
With regard to the use of the Chinook software program at Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) what oversight of Chinook is in place; (b) has Chinook undergone a performance audit; (c) when was the last time Chinook was audited; (d) what quality assurance is in place for Chinook; (e) what training materials are used to train IRCC employees on the use of Chinook; (f) what is the content of those training materials in (e); (g) what training is given to IRCC employees using Chinook specifically to prevent racism and discrimination; (h) what is the content of the material used for the training in (f); (i) what consultation with stakeholders was done by IRCC on the implementation of Chinook before it was implemented; (j) has any consultation with stakeholders been done by IRCC since Chinook was implemented; (k) were any immigration lawyers or consultants consulted by IRCC before Chinook was implemented; (l) if any stakeholders were consulted by IRCC on Chinook, how many stakeholders were consulted; (m) what was the result of the Privacy Risk Assessment of Chinook conducted in August 2019; (n) what is the content of the Security Assessment Report conducted for Chinook in January 2020; (o) why are the visa offices in Algiers, Havana, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Tel Aviv not using Chinook; (p) are notes about immigration officers’ decisions while using Chinook kept; and (q) why is no list provided to applicants of the software that is used to process applications, including the use of Chinook?
(Return tabled)Question No. 351—Mr. Garnett Genuis
With regard to the requirement for federal public servants to be vaccinated against COVID-19: (a) how many public servants have been placed on unpaid leave as a result of their vaccination status; (b) how many public servants have received health exemptions; (c) does the government gather information regarding the nature of individual health exemptions, such as the condition causing the need for the exemption, and, if so, what is the prevalence of different kinds of health exemptions; (d) how many public servants have received religious exemptions; (e) does the government gather information regarding the nature of individual religious exemptions, such as the particular faith of those with the exemption, and, if so, what is the prevalence of different kinds of exemptions; (f) how many public servants have applications for health exemptions pending; (g) how many public servants have applications for religious exemptions pending; (h) by what date does the government expect the applications in (f) and (g) to be resolved; (i) how many public servants had applications for a health exemption denied; (j) how many public servants had applications for a religious exemption denied; (k) for each response in (a) through (j), what is the breakdown by department, agency, or other government entity; (l) how many replacement workers has the government (i) contacted, (ii) hired, to fulfill functions previously performed by those who are on unpaid leave as a result of their vaccination status, broken down by department or agency, type of job, and job title; (m) what is the government policy related to the ability of the individual placed on leave to return to their position after it has been filled with a replacement worker; (n) what ordinary functions of the government are not currently being carried out as a result of unvaccinated workers being placed on leave without pay; (o) has the government assessed the impact on public services resulting from the decision to place unvaccinated workers on leave without pay, and, if so, what are the details of the assessment, broken down by the impact on each department; (p) how many workers are being expected to perform additional tasks as a result of colleagues being placed on leave without pay as a result of these new requirements, broken down by department or agency; (q) how many of the workers in (p) are receiving any additional compensation directly related to their colleagues being placed on leave; (r) has the government identified any increase in stress or strain for the workers referred to in (p) as a result of additional workload, and, if so, what are the details; (s) how long will the workers in (p) be expected to perform additional tasks; (t) does the government intend to hire additional replacement workers if the workers on unpaid leave continue to be on leave for more than (i) six months, (ii) nine months, (iii) 12 months; (u) has the government received legal advice regarding whether this policy is consistent with (i) existing labour agreements, (ii) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (iii) other human rights codes, laws, or agreements which bind the actions of the federal government; and (v) what legal advice did the government receive respecting the items in (u)?
(Return tabled)Question No. 355—Mr. Kyle Seeback
With regard to the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act and the Emergency Economic Measures Order: (a) how many (i) personal, (ii) business, banking accounts have been frozen under the order; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) (i) and (ii), by financial institution; (c) what is total value of the accounts in (a) (i) and (ii), broken down by financial institution; and (d) has the government set up any fund or compensation program for individuals or businesses that have their accounts frozen as a result of error or mistaken identity related to the order and, if so, what are the details?
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.