Hansard
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 7420
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
moved:
That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.
She said: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I would like to table, in both official languages, the budget documents for 2023, including notices of ways and means motions.
The details of the measures are contained in these documents.
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I am requesting that an order of the day be designated for consideration of these motions.
Canada's economy has made a remarkable recovery from the COVID recession. Last year, Canada delivered the strongest economic growth in the G7. There are 830,000 more Canadians working today than when COVID first hit. We have recovered 126% of the jobs that were lost in those first months, compared to just 114% in the United States.
When we announced a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care in our 2021 budget, we said that it would create new economic opportunities for mothers all across Canada and thus greater prosperity for all of us. It worked. I am so proud to say that last month the labour force participation rate for Canadian women in their prime working years hit a record high of 85.7%. That is feminist economic policy. Therefore, today there are more Canadians with good jobs than ever before.
Putin and the pandemic drove up inflation around the world. Central banks have responded with one of the fastest and most synchronized monetary tightening cycles since the 1980s.
Today, here in Canada, inflation is coming down. Inflation has fallen for eight months in a row, and fell to 5.2% in February. The Bank of Canada predicts it will drop to just 2.6% by the end of this year.
In February, the average wage for Canadians went up by 5.4%. That meant paycheques outpaced inflation, which meant more money in Canadians' pockets after a hard day's work—from coast to coast to coast.
However, we all know that our most vulnerable friends and neighbours are still feeling the bite of higher prices. That is why our budget delivers targeted and temporary inflation relief to those who need it most.
For 11 million Canadians and Canadian families, a new grocery rebate will help make up for higher prices at the checkout counter—without adding fuel to the fire of inflation.
What all Canadians want right now is for inflation to keep coming down, and for interest rates to fall. That is why the budget I have tabled today will ensure that Canada maintains the lowest deficit and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.
We are making sure the very wealthy and our biggest corporations pay their fair share of taxes, so we can afford to keep taxes low for middle-class families and invest in our health care system and social safety net.
Canada is a country of peace, order and good government. We have strong institutions and a resilient financial system that is the envy of the world. Our country has a proud tradition of fiscal responsibility. That is a tradition we are determined to uphold. We are refocusing government spending while taking great care not to reduce the services and direct support Canadians rely on.
By exercising fiscal restraint, we are ensuring that we can continue to invest in Canadians and in the Canadian economy for years to come, just as we have done since 2015. We know that investments in Canadians are also investments in our economy. This is what the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, has referred to as “modern supply-side economics”.
We are investing in housing, because our economy is built by people and people need homes in which to live. We are investing in Canadian workers so they have the skills they need and can travel to where the jobs are. We are investing in a stronger immigration system and welcoming record numbers of skilled workers to Canada to support our growing businesses. We are also investing in affordable child care for families from coast to coast to coast, so that more Canadian mothers no longer have to choose between their family and their career.
Investments in housing, skills, immigration and child care are not just social policies. They are economic policies.
Health care is another one of those policies, so today we are delivering the comprehensive $198-billion investment in public health care that the Prime Minister announced last month.
From helping every single Canadian find a family doctor to tackling the unacceptable backlog of surgeries and combatting the opioid crisis that has devastated so many of our families and our communities and has taken so many lives, we will ensure that Canadians receive the care they need. We will ensure that every Canadian can rely on a world-class, publicly funded, universal health care system, one that is deserving of its place at the very heart of what it means to be Canadian.
Just as we are reinforcing the public health care system we have today, we are also expanding its reach. Since December, our investments have helped more than 240,000 Canadian children receive the dental care they need.
Let us just think about that: 240,000 Canadian kids. Maybe their parents could not take them to the dentist before. Maybe their teeth hurt. Maybe they missed days at school. It is so important.
That is why today I am so proud to announce the creation of a new Canadian dental care plan. By the end of this year, by the end of 2023, we will begin rolling out a dental care plan that will eventually cover up to nine million uninsured Canadians. This will mean that no Canadian, ever again, will need to choose between taking care of their teeth and paying the bills at the end of the month. It will mean that one cannot tell the size of someone's paycheque by their smile.
These are significant and necessary investments, because a strong and effective public health care system is essential for a strong and healthy Canadian workforce. We need a strong and healthy Canadian workforce now more than ever because, as we wrestle inflation to the ground, Canada must also navigate two fundamental shifts in the global economy.
First, in what is the most significant economic transformation since the industrial revolution, our friends and partners around the world, chief among them the United States, are investing heavily to build clean economies and the net-zero industries of tomorrow.
At the same time, Putin and the pandemic have cruelly revealed to the world's democracies the risks of economic reliance on dictatorships. As a result, our allies are moving quickly to friendshore their economies and build their critical supply chains through democracies like our own.
Together, these two great shifts represent the most significant opportunity for Canadian workers in the lifetime of anyone here today, including our most senior and respected members of the House.
This is not hyperbole or mere turn of phrase. When President von der Leyen stood in this House earlier this month, she said that she wants Canada and Europe to “join forces for the climate, for our economies” and to end what she called Europe's “dangerous dependencies” on authoritarian economies.
When President Biden stood in this House just last week, he told us that we are at an “inflection point in history”. He said that we had all learned the hard way that just-in-time global supply chains make us vulnerable. He urged us to work together to build a shared future where Canada and the United States can “anchor the most competitive, prosperous and resilient economic region in the world.”
These are our closest friends. These are our steadfast democratic allies. These are our two greatest trading partners. Like so many of our friends around the world, they need the expertise of Canadian workers, the ingenuity of Canadian businesses and the resources that Canada has in such fortunate abundance.
Today, and in the years to come, Canada must either meet this historic moment—this remarkable opportunity before us—or we will be left behind as the world’s democracies build the clean economy of the 21st century.
So we will fight for Canadians, and we will fight for Canadian businesses. We will ensure that Canada seizes the historic opportunity before us. We are going to build a clean electrical grid that connects Canadians from coast to coast to coast, protects our environment, and delivers cleaner, more affordable electricity to Canadians and Canadian businesses.
We are going to make Canada the very best place in the world for businesses to invest, because that means more vibrant, prosperous communities, and more good careers for Canadians.
Canada has free trade deals with countries that represent two-thirds of the global economy. We are going to make Canada a reliable supplier of clean energy to the world, and, from critical minerals to electric vehicles, we are going to ensure that Canadian workers mine, and process, and build, and sell the goods and the resources that our allies need.
We are going to make sure that the unions who built the middle class can continue to thrive, and we are going to make it easier for Canadian workers to learn the skills they need.
When the Government of Canada buys things from other countries, we are going to make sure that those countries offer Canadian businesses the same access that we give them.
We are building big things here in Canada, from a Volkswagen battery plant in Ontario to the Galaxy Lithium mine in Quebec, to the Trans Mountain expansion in Alberta, to the Atlantic loop, to the LNG terminal in Kitimat, B.C.
Our plan means good-paying jobs, good careers for everyone everywhere, from our biggest cities to our smallest towns, from Toronto, Ontario, to Peace River, Alberta, for our auto workers building electric vehicles and our bus drivers who drive them, for our skilled tradespeople, expanding our clean energy grid and building thousands and thousands of affordable energy-efficient homes, for our miners and energy workers powering Canada and the world, for our health care workers and teachers, who make our communities thrive, for our farmers and fishers, who feed Canada and the world, for our incredible service workers, who are as essential today as ever.
Our plan is good for our forestry workers, for our climate scientists, and for our environmental biologists, for our engineers designing hydrogen plants and SMRs, and for our computer scientists who have made Canada an AI superpower.
Our plan is good for indigenous peoples building major projects and sharing in the prosperity they create, for our new generation of small business entrepreneurs dreaming up solutions to the challenges of the 21st century and for their hard-working employees providing for their families all across our great country.
As I travelled across Canada over the past year, I met a lot of incredible hard-working Canadians.
Jeff is an electrician who lives in Etobicoke with his wife Cheryl, an ICU nurse. They are proud of their jobs and proud of the family that their jobs have made it possible for them to raise. As Jeff said to me, “I've got the skills to pay the bills.”
Léonard, a software developer in Quebec City, who codes charging stations that are used from San Diego, California, to Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I met two young union women. To Nicholle in Oshawa, who will start her first electrical placement this week, I would say, “Well done, Nicholle.”
Kayla, who I first met in Edmonton and then again in Calgary, teaches apprentices to weld and she gave me a couple of lessons too.
I have met potash miners and early learning and childhood educators. I have met scientists and innovators, and the longshore workers and the truckers who keep Canada's economy moving.
All across Canada I have met people who value the same things: a good career that pays them well for doing work they are proud of; the ability to live with dignity, to be who they are, to love who they love and to be judged on their character rather than what they look like or where they were born; the belief that if they work hard they can afford to raise their children and launch them into an even more prosperous future; and the conviction that because they live in Canada, by birth or by choice, every single day represents a new fresh opportunity.
That is what this budget invests in: the possibility for every single Canadian to share in the remarkable opportunities that Canada provides and in the new era of prosperity that we will build together.
The brave people of Ukraine have reminded me, I think they have reminded all of us, that we must never take our freedom and our democracy for granted. We have the power to shape our country's future and we must always be sure to use it.
What a gift it is to call this remarkable country our home. Canada is a land filled with good, hard-working people, people who do big and important things. It is because of us, the people of Canada, and the big and important things we will do in the months and years to come that I have never been more optimistic about the future of our great country than I am today.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2023-03-27 14:48 [p.12625]
Mr. Speaker, we have known for a long time now that CERB debt incurred by desperate people at the height of the pandemic would disrupt Canada child benefit payments, which people rely on to feed and clothe their children. The Liberals are quick to say not to worry about it and that they will deal with it on a compassionate, case-by-case basis.
How is it compassionate for families to be surprised by an $800 shortfall in their monthly revenue? How is it compassionate for parents, now worried about their rent cheques bouncing, to have to sit on the phone for days just for a chance to beg CRA for relief?
Real compassion requires a policy of CERB debt amnesty for low-income Canadians. When is the government going to do it?
View Irek Kusmierczyk Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Irek Kusmierczyk Profile
2023-03-27 14:49 [p.12625]
Mr. Speaker, when the pandemic hit, we acted quickly to get recovery benefits into people's bank accounts without delay. To achieve that goal, we planned to verify eligibility in the back end after the fact. This approach kept workers attached to their jobs and positioned our economy to come roaring back.
Lower-income workers and groups most impacted by the pandemic were able to benefit from all of our programs. We did the right thing. We will continue to have the backs of low-income Canadians and workers.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1207—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the International Mobility Program (IMP), since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the top 10 employers, in terms of the number of applications received by the government from the employers, for the IMP, and how many employees have each of the top 10 employers sponsored through the IMP; (b) for each employer in (a), what is the overview of the jobs that each has sponsored, including the (i) type of business, (ii) job titles and work description, (iii) wage ranges; (c) how much money was collected by the government in (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, from compliance fees related to the IMP; (d) how many separate employers were the fees in (c) collected from; (e) what is the number of employers currently ineligible for the IMP as a result of non-compliance; (f) how many investigations were conducted by (i) the Canada Border Services Agency (ii) Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada, related to violations of workers' rights or other suspected infractions of companies which used the IMP; (g) of the investigations in (f), what were the results, including, for each finding of wrongdoing, the (i) company's name, (ii) date the wrongdoing took place, (iii) description of the wrongdoing, (iv) punitive action taken by the government; (h) what was the total number of applications received each year under the IMP; and (i) what was the total number of applicants who arrived in Canada through the IMP each year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1209—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to PacifiCan funding programs, broken down by federal electoral district in British Columbia since the agency’s inception: (a) what are the details of all projects that received funding under the Regional Innovation Ecosystems program stream, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (b) what are the details of all projects that received funding under the Regional Quantum Initiative, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (c) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Economic Development Initiative, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received, (iii) official language minority community that the funding supports; (d) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Community Economic Development and Diversification program, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (e) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Strategic Partnerships Initiative, including the (i) Indigenous community name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (f) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Strategic Innovation Fund, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) total amount of funding contribution, (iii) total investment leveraged, (iv) number of jobs created and maintained; (g) what is the total amount of funding delivered through past programs, including through the (i) Canadian Experiences Fund, (ii) Steel and Aluminum Initiative, (iii) Western Innovation Initiative, (iv) Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program; and (h) what is the total amount of funding delivered to each federal electoral district in British Columbia in (a) through (g)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1210—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to PacifiCan COVID-19 relief and recovery funding, broken down by federal electoral district in British Columbia and fiscal year since the agency’s inception: (a) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Canada Community Revitalization Fund, including the (i) name of the community, (ii) name of the project, (iii) total amount of funding received; (b) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Jobs and Growth Fund, including the (i) name of the business or the organization, (ii) total amount of funding received; (c) what are the details of all projected that received funding through the Tourism Relief Fund, including the (i) name of the business or the organization, (ii) total amount of funding received; (d) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Aerospace Regional Recovery Initiative, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (e) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Regional Air Transportation Initiative, including the (i) name of the airport, the air carrier, the organization, the business, or the public institution, (ii) total amount of funding received; (f) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Major Festivals and Events Support Initiative, including the (i) name of the eligible festival or event, (ii) total amount of funding received; (g) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Canadian Seafood Stabilization Fund, including the (i) name of the fish and seafood processor, (ii) total amount of funding received; and (h) what is the total amount of funding delivered to each federal electoral district through the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1211—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government's executive vehicle fleet and travel expenses incurred by chauffeurs or drivers of those vehicles for travel outside of the National Capital Region (NCR): what are the details of all trips where travel expenses were claimed, including the (i) name and title of the minister, deputy minister, or high-ranking government official driven on the trip, (ii) date of departure from the NCR, (iii) date of return to the NCR, (iv) destination, (v) total expenses claimed, (vi) breakdown of the expenses by type (air transportation, accommodation, meals, etc.), (vii) reason for the trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1213—
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to the Minister of Transport's trip to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in December 2022: (a) what were the total expenditures related to the trip, broken down by type of expense and who incurred the expense (minister, exempt staff, local embassy, etc.); (b) what was the minister's itinerary on each day of the trip, including who attended each item on the itinerary; and (c) what are the details, including the summary of terms, of any agreements which were signed during the trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1214—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to the government's financial dealing with Medicago: (a) how much funding has the government provided to Medicago since 2018, broken down by date of payment and program or procurement order under which Medicago received the funding; (b) of the money in (a), how much does the government project will be recovered; and (c) what action, if any, has the government taken with Medicago or its parent company, Mitsubishi Chemical Group, to recover the amounts in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1215—
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to government expenditures on appearance fees, speaking fees, hosting fees, or other similar type of fees, since January 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: what are the details of all such expenditures, including, for each, the (i) date of the event, (ii) description of the role (keynote speaker, master of ceremony, etc.), (iii) name of the speaker, (iv) location of the event, (v) event description, (vi) size of the audience or the number of attendees, (vii) amount paid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1217—
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay:
With regard to the Prime Minister's residence at Harrington Lake, including the surrounding property: (a) what are the total expenditures related to all renovations, upgrades, construction, or other projects at the residence or property since November 4, 2015; (b) what are the details of each project, including the (i) cost or estimated cost, (ii) start date, (iii) completion date or the expected completion date, (iv) project description; (c) what was the total annual budget to operate the residence and property since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by type of expense (utilities, landscaping, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1219—
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to requests made by the government to social media companies to take down, edit, ban, or change in any other way social media content, posts, or accounts, since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: what are the details of all such requests, including (i) who made the request, (ii) the date, (iii) the social media platform, (iv) the description of the original content, including the name or the handle associated with post, (v) the description of the change requested, (vi) whether the social media company abided by the government's request?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1220—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to staffing at the RCMP's Operational Communications Centres (OCC): (a) what was the job vacancy rate (i) nationally, (ii) at each OCC, broken down by location, as of February 7, 2023; (b) how many calls from the public to the OCCs went unanswered or received a busy signal, broken down by month and location since January 1, 2022; and (c) how many hours was each OCC (i) understaffed, (ii) not staffed, broken down by month since January 1, 2022?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1222—
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille:
With regard to both small and mid-sized projects components of the Enabling Accessibility Fund, since its creation: what projects have been funded, broken down by (i) province, (ii) applicant, (iii) amount awarded, (iv) year of the project completion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1225—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to furniture and office equipment delivered to the personal residences of ministers and ministerial exempt staff, including in the Office of the Prime Minister, since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all such items delivered to the residences of ministers, including, for each, the (i) minister, (ii) amount paid or the financial value (iii) cost per unit, (iv) description of the items, including the brand and the quantity, (v) vendor, (vi) contract or file number; (b) what are the details of all such items delivered to the residences of ministerial exempt staff, including, for each, the (i) name of the minister the staff member worked for, (ii) amount paid or the financial value, (iii) cost per unit, (iv) description of the item, including the brand and the quantity, (v) vendor, (vi) contract or file number; and (c) are any of the items in (a) or (b) expected to be returned to a government location at any point in the future, and, if so, what are the details of any such plans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1226—
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to Medicago, Philip Morris International and the government's investments in Medicago: (a) what are the details of all memorandums, correspondence or briefing materials sent to or received by any minister, exempt staff, or government official in any department or agency in the Health portfolio or the Innovation, Science and Economic Development portfolio, since January 1, 2020, about Medicago or Philip Morris International, including, for each, the (i) type of document, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) title, (vi) subject matter, (vii) summary of contents, (viii) file number; (b) on what date was the government made aware that Philip Morris' minority ownership stake in Medicago's parent company would make its products ineligible to receive authorization from the World Health Organization; and (c) did the government do anything to hedge its investments following the realization in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1227—
Mrs. Dominique Vien:
With regard to the announcement by the government on August 1, 2019, that it would be providing $250 million in repairs and upgrades to Reserve armouries and training facilities across Canada: (a) how much of that money has been distributed to date, broken down by the location of each armoury or training facility that has received funding; and (b) at each location in (a), what specific projects or repairs are being done with the funding and what is the expected completion date of each project?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-441-1207 International Mobility Program8555-441-1209 PacifiCan funding programs8555-441-1210 PacifiCan COVID-19 relief ...8555-441-1211 Government's executive veh ...8555-441-1213 Minster of Transport's tri ...8555-441-1214 Government's financial dea ...8555-441-1215 Government expenditures on ...8555-441-1217 Prime Minister's residence ...8555-441-1219 Social media content, post ...8555-441-1220 Staffing at the RCMP's Ope ...8555-441-1222 Enabling Accessibility Fund ...Show all topics
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2023-03-27 18:34 [p.12663]
Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-11.
We have been around this issue a number of times. It is really important in this age of post truth, disinformation, falsehood and conspiracy that we actually say in Parliament what it is that we are debating and what the issues actually are. One would think this is a place where the precepts of truth are supposed to hold to some kind of standard but unfortunately they do not.
Bill C-11 is fundamentally about making sure that some of the most powerful corporations in the world, the web giants, actually pay a fair share of tax and level the playing field with Canadian broadcasters that are unable to compete, given the huge advantages that have been taken and appropriated by some of the media giants that have emerged out of Silicon Valley. For example, we can look at Netflix and how Disney moved online and took up a huge role of broadcasting, which is fine because industry changes. However, they are not paying nearly the level of tax in Canada for services they provide in Canada, which puts other Canadian operations at a disadvantage. They have also not been willing to pay into the system that has existed in Canada for years and has created an ecosystem of arts, culture and identity: the media fund. This is about levelling the playing field.
This bill is not about spying on one's grandmother's Internet. It is not, as I have heard Conservatives say, allowing the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to block one's YouTube views on how to fix one's deck. This is not about censorship and shutting down so-called free expression. This is about making sure that extremely powerful corporations pay their share, and we are going to talk about that tonight.
Some of this disinformation was certainly allowed in the previous bill, Bill C-10, because, I am sorry to say, the environment minister, who was then the heritage minister, had an inability to even explain what the bill was about. He created an absolute total dumpster fire and got people rightly upset because he could not explain the difference between corporate content and user-generated content. What exactly was in the bill? He did not seem to know. It left the arts community and everyone else having to do damage control.
Bill C-11, I would say, is an okay bill. It is not a great bill. However, as a legislator, one of the great honours of my career has been to work with parliamentarians from around the world on the need to address the unprecedented power of Silicon Valley and to make it obligated to respect domestic jurisdiction. Its complete disregard for domestic jurisdiction is a serious issue.
In 2018, when I was on the ethics committee and the Canadian delegation of parliamentarians went to London for the first international grand committee, I believed that the Canadian delegation was out front because the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats were working together. We understood the need to take on the disinformation. The threat to democracy was such a serious element that it was beyond partisanship. What I have seen in my international meetings is that the need to hold companies like YouTube and Facebook to meet domestic obligations is something that should normally be beyond partisan consideration, but that is not what has happened under Bill C-11.
We met with parliamentarians from Brazil who told us about the shocking rise of Bolsonaro, who was a complete marginal extremist. They told us about how he used the YouTube algorithms to drive his ascendancy, which has created a political toxic nightmare in Brazil. We met with representatives from the global south who attempted time and time again to deal with Facebook and YouTube on toxic disinformation that led to genocidal levels of death in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. We met with delegations from Singapore on their attempts to get these Silicon Valley companies to take responsibility for the hate that was being perpetrated.
Today, the member for Lethbridge, in one of the most dismal, disgraceful speeches I have ever heard in my 19 years, presented a complete falsehood and talked about this magical thing called the Internet. This is not 2004. This is 2023, when this so-called magical thing called the Internet in Myanmar replaced all the domestic media and was used to promote violent, hateful genocide that left thousands and thousands and thousands of people dead. We had the representative from Facebook come to our committee, and I asked them a simple question about the corporate responsibility for genocide. The answer we got was the classic Silicon Valley jargon bunk: Nobody is perfect and we are all on a journey together. We are not on a journey together when corporate irresponsibility leads to genocide.
This is not about my opinion. This was the United Nations begging Facebook to take responsibility because it was the only broadcaster. It was the same thing in Sri Lanka. It was the same thing in Germany, where we can track the rise of anti-refugee violence to the algorithms of Facebook and YouTube. What we never heard from the Conservatives in their attack on Bill C-11 is anything about the algorithms.
Again, I want to refer to my colleague from Lethbridge and the toxic brew of paranoia, disinformation and hate that was promoted. I have read the legislation, and the member said that Bill C-11 was going to allow the cabinet, the Liberals and the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to spy on people's search pages. That is a falsehood. To say that Bill C-11 would allow the Liberals, the cabinet and the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to watch someone's Facebook scrolling is a deliberate falsehood. That has nothing to do with how Facebook or YouTube works and the algorithms that drive people to extremism. The member said that this bill would allow the cabinet, the Liberals, the elite gatekeepers, the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the big arts union bosses, whom she also threw in, to block people's ability to watch cat videos. That was said in the House of Commons.
I raise that because there is a lot of synthetic outrage we hear. That is part of the job. People jump up and down and declare all kinds of calumny toward the government. I have certainly declared all kinds of malice toward government over the years. However, we are in an age of disinformation and paranoia, and we are talking about the need for parliamentarians to rise above that and not feed it for mendacious political purposes. This is an important issue because we see in 2023 the rise of conspiracy politics, and the new leader of the Conservative Party thinks it is working in his favour.
When the member for Lethbridge says that if this bill is passed, it will make the leader of Canada powerful like the dictator of North Korea, not only is that a falsehood, but it is a disgrace to anyone who suffers under authoritarian regimes. It needs to be called out because we are at a point where 44% of the Canadian public believes conspiracy theories. That is being fed by the Conservatives, who believe that this will somehow get them an advantage in polling. It is a very dangerous path to go down.
We have only to look, for example, at the new shadow minister for infrastructure, who has used her time in the House to promote disinformation about Bill Gates, a classic trope of conspiracy theorists, and vaccines, which is another conspiracy misinformation drive. To her, Bill Gates and vaccines are undermining Canadian sovereignty, and she is accusing the Prime Minister. This is a person appointed as a shadow minister in the Conservative shadow cabinet. It is therefore not surprising that when Christine Anderson, a far-right German neo-Nazi extremist, came to Canada, she was feted and welcomed by key members of the Conservative caucus. They felt at home with that spread of disinformation.
This is not harmless stuff. A report that just came out on vaccine disinformation said that Canada had 198,000 extra cases of COVID, 13,000 more people sent to hospital and a $300-million hit to the medical system from people who were encouraged to believe in vaccine disinformation. An extra 2,800 people died as a result. That is double all the car accidents in Canada for a year.
These people were not isolated weirdos. They were our cousins, our neighbours and our aunts. When we see the Conservatives promoting vaccine disinformation because they think it is going to win them votes, we have to ask ourselves what is happening in our nation today that the political representatives of the people are not telling people that medical science is working with us. We did not have all the answers on the vaccines. We did not have all the answers on dealing with the biggest pandemic in a century. However, we all had an obligation to stand up and say that threatening and attacking doctors, nurses and paramedics is unacceptable. That is the danger of disinformation.
It not as though this pattern comes out of nowhere, because we know what happened in Brazil with the Zika virus. There was suddenly a proliferation of falsehood videos on YouTube that told mothers it was feminists making their children sick, that it was George Soros who was making their children sick. However, there were doctors and nurses on the front lines trying to stop that pandemic, and we saw the disinformation.
Why does that disinformation need to be talked about? We have never heard the Conservative caucus talk about holding the algorithms to account, but it is the algorithms that have created toxic disinformation. They are upending democratic engagement. The Conservatives talk about freedom, the freedom to believe in ivermectin and horse tranquillizers. We have heard Conservative leadership candidates brag about how great ivermectin is. They can believe whatever they want, but the issue is that this is about how the algorithms on Facebook and YouTube turn people toward disinformation.
I urge my colleagues to read the book The Chaos Machine. As they will see in it, when people started to study vaccine disinformation in 2013 and 2014, there were parent groups talking about raising their children, but the only ones that were promoted on the algorithm promoted disinformation. If someone clicked on one of those, soon after the algorithm would feed them more and more extremist content.
By the time the pandemic hit, I had joined an international group of parliamentarians led by Damian Collins from the U.K. We thought we could actually stay ahead of disinformation. We thought we could challenge it and take it on. However, within a month it was clear that the game was over. During the pandemic, if someone checked anything on Facebook while asking for the query “alternate health” in Facebook's search function, it sent them to QAnon. That is how the algorithm works.
The algorithms are set to send people to extremism, but we do not hear that when the Conservatives talk about Bill C-11. They are trying to make Canadians believe this is some kind of plot so that the big Liberal elites, their gatekeepers and their big arts bosses can attack our rights, spy on us and shut down our views.
In fairness, I know some of the Conservatives believe this. I firmly believe that some of them, in their hearts, do believe in the Klaus Schwab and George Soros tin hat conspiracy theory. However, I also know there is an element in the Conservative Party that thinks this is a great idea and that they should spread the hate and disinformation, because it will keep people angry and it will get them to vote against the other government. They do not come here with a vision of how to address the mass power of the web giants, which other jurisdictions are dealing with. They do not come here to ask how we ensure a balance of rights and freedoms and how we ensure local content.
I am not going to be the one to say let us give extra money to Postmedia or any of the other historic companies, but what is the obligation of companies to pay their share? That is a fair discussion and that is what we should be discussing, but it is not what this has been turned into. It is about the Conservative push to promote disinformation, falsehoods and ridiculous statements. The only thing I have not heard about from the Conservatives is “pizzagate”. That is about the only thing they have not mentioned. They have mentioned everything else but that.
When I go back to international forums with parliamentarians from France, Germany, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Brazil, who are asking what Canada is doing about disinformation, I will say there is a mixed bag. We recognize the damage disinformation is doing, that it costs lives, that it is creating paranoia and that there has been a rise in death threats against doctors, nurses, paramedics and people in political life for daring to speak up. It was the member for Oshawa who used his position in the House of Commons to promote the falsehood that the Prime Minister was somehow working for Klaus Schwab. When I took that on, within an hour I was attacked and received threats.
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
View Leah Gazan Profile
2023-03-23 11:39 [p.12513]
Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to rise in the House today. Before I begin, I will mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.
We talk about budgets, and I hear rhetoric in the House almost on a daily basis about how people from coast to coast are struggling to make ends meet, with a particular reference to single mothers. The story of the single mother is consistently usurped in this House without real solutions to tackle issues of poverty and inequality in this country.
I actually was a single mom, as I have mentioned in the House. When I first had my son, I was one of the people we talk about in the House. I was not a single mom at the time, but I had just graduated from university and I was poor. The only thing that kept a roof over our heads at the time and allowed me to feed my son was affordable housing with rent geared to income and social assistance. I had just given birth to my child, and my partner at the time had employment that did not pay the bills, so I needed to get help.
I share this today because I often find that in this place these stories are taken by people who have never had lived experience with struggling to make ends meet or struggling to feed their kids. I share today, with my head held high, that I was one of those folks. It is an experience that allows me to understand that things are more difficult in life than a person picking themselves up by their bootstraps so they can survive.
Very often things are much more complicated in the lives of individuals and families, and they were for me at the time. I consider myself a well-educated person. It certainly was not about a lack of intelligence or hard work. It was just a matter of the circumstances of life at the time.
I share this because we are still coming out of a global pandemic that has impacted families from coast to coast, a pandemic that has left families more economically vulnerable than we have seen in a long time. We had programs put in place during the pandemic that kept food on the table, I would argue. We had CERB.
Now, as we move in another direction in real time, the current government is not going after big corporations to pay their fair share of the pandemic. It is not going after the billionaire class to pay their fair share of the pandemic. It is not going after big CEOs to pay their fair share of the pandemic. Do members know who it is going after? It is low-income parents to get money from the monies they collected from CERB, knowing that costs for families were drastically impacted during the pandemic.
That is unacceptable, and who is the most impacted by it? It is single mothers with multiple children. We are talking about housing and supporting families. This is going to leave a lot of families on the verge of falling into the streets.
Going back to my story, I was very fortunate at the time that I had affordable housing with rent geared to income. It allowed me to keep food on the table when food did not cost as much. That is not the reality right now, which is why the NDP has called on the current government to put in place CERB amnesty for low-income families in particular. The process the government is using could result in families being at greater risk of precarious housing and being placed in deeper levels of poverty. We know that people who were already behind before the pandemic are further behind now.
We need to stop poor-bashing in this place. We need to stop the simplified discussions about how to deal with the growing poverty crisis that impacts my riding of Winnipeg Centre, Manitoba, which was just reported to have some of the highest child poverty rates in the country.
Children are supposed to be provided with minimum human rights. We have signed on to international law. We have an obligation to uphold international and domestic laws to ensure that children are provided with basic human rights, which are being violated every day, whether in urban centres, first nations communities, indigenous communities or Inuit communities across the country.
I hope all my colleagues in the House will support the call for a CERB amnesty for low-income families, which, again, are the most impacted. If we are so concerned about the story of the single mother, it will be single mothers with multiple children who will be most impacted. That, for me, as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre, is a true test of this so-called care I hear about in this place all the time. We must have CERB amnesty now.
The NDP also put forward a dental care plan, a universal pharmacare plan, and has been fighting for a national child care strategy that prioritizes public, not-for-profit care. We have been working with frontline advocates and organizations for almost 30 years to push that forward.
I am glad the current government finally heeded our call to implement a national child care strategy. This would have made a difference in my life and the life of my son. We talk about people working multiple jobs to pay the bills. I was one of those single moms who had to work multiple jobs to pay the bills. Part of the reason for that was because of high child care costs. I literally had to work more so I could work.
If members of the House want to support families, then they need to support a universal dental care plan, universal pharmacare and a national child care strategy that ensures that all children are afforded their minimum human right to have access to affordable, accessible, high-quality child care. These services are essential for supporting families, as is the addition of affordable housing with rents geared to income and my bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income.
I want to build a Canada where families are not begging to eat, where we do not make the assumption we are all born with the same privileges, where nobody is living in poverty, and where we stop poor-bashing and deal with what is going on in our country at the very roots of inequality. We can do that as members in the House.
Therefore, today, I call on all members of the House to support the NDP's call, and certainly my bill for a guaranteed livable basic income, and build a Canada for all.
View Tako Van Popta Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tako Van Popta Profile
2023-03-23 11:51 [p.12515]
Madam Speaker, I am very intrigued by the concept of CERB amnesty. I would like to hear some more details about my colleague's thoughts about that. Will there be means testing? I am assuming that applicants for this amnesty would have to be below a certain income or below a certain wealth level. Would there also be inquiries as to why applicants for amnesty applied for CERB when they clearly did no qualify for it? How about the people who decided not to apply for CERB because they knew they did not pass the test? Would they also qualify now for a CERB payment after the fact?
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
View Leah Gazan Profile
2023-03-23 11:52 [p.12515]
Madam Speaker, we should be clear that this program was not clear to begin with. There were calls to apply for CERB and then we would deal with it after. That is important to point out.
A lot of people benefited from support during the pandemic. We know that if we do CERB clawbacks for families that are currently living at lower incomes right now, it is going to result in people ending up on the streets.
Income assistance programs are not enough for families to survive, and children are going to be punished for this. I am calling for this, as is the NDP. Instead of going after families living in poverty, instead of going after poor people all the time, poor bashing and criminalizing poor people, let us to go after rich CEOs who collected bonuses during the pandemic from programs that were paid by the government
I get tired of that rhetoric in the House. It is not based on research. It is not based on fact. It is a violence that continues in the House against people living in poverty, and I do not accept it.
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 1191—
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to government contracts with entities prohibited from importing goods into the United States under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States: (a) since January 1, 2016, has any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity purchased any goods from the (i) Baoding LYSZD Trade and Business Co., Ltd., (ii) Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. (and one alias: Changji Yida Textile), (iii) Hetian Haolin Hair Accessories Co. Ltd. (and two aliases: Hotan Haolin Hair Accessories; and Hollin Hair Accessories), (iv) Hetian Taida Apparel Co., Ltd (and one alias: Hetian TEDA Garment), (v) Hoshine Silicon Industry (Shanshan) Co., Ltd (including one alias: Hesheng Silicon Industry (Shanshan) Co.) and subsidiaries, (vi) Xinjiang Daqo New Energy, Co. Ltd (including three aliases: Xinjiang Great New Energy Co., Ltd.; Xinjiang Daxin Energy Co., Ltd.; and Xinjiang Daqin Energy Co., Ltd.), (vii) Xinjiang East Hope Nonferrous Metals Co. Ltd. (including one alias: Xinjiang Nonferrous), (viii) Xinjiang GCL New Energy Material Technology, Co. Ltd (including one alias: Xinjiang GCL New Energy Materials Technology Co.), (ix) Xinjiang Junggar Cotton and Linen Co., Ltd., (x) Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (including three aliases: XPCC; Xinjiang Corps; and Bingtuan) and its subordinate and affiliated entities, (xi) Aksu Huafu Textiles Co. (including two aliases: Akesu Huafu and Aksu Huafu Dyed Melange Yarn), (xii) Hefei Bitland Information Technology Co., Ltd. (including three aliases: Anhui Hefei Baolongda Information Technology; Hefei Baolongda Information Technology Co., Ltd.; and Hefei Bitland Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd.), (xiii) Hefei Meiling Co. Ltd. (including one alias: Hefei Meiling Group Holdings Limited), (xiv) KTK Group (including three aliases: Jiangsu Jinchuang Group; Jiangsu Jinchuang Holding Group; and KTK Holding), (xv) Lop County Hair Product Industrial Park, (xvi) Lop County Meixin Hair Products Co., Ltd., (xvii) Nanjing Synergy Textiles Co., Ltd. (including two aliases: Nanjing Xinyi Cotton Textile Printing and Dyeing; and Nanjing Xinyi Cotton Textile), (xviii) No. 4 Vocation Skills Education Training Center (VSETC), (xix) Tanyuan Technology Co. Ltd. (including five aliases: Carbon Yuan Technology; Changzhou Carbon Yuan Technology Development; Carbon Element Technology; Jiangsu Carbon Element Technology; and Tanyuan Technology Development), (xx) Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) and its subordinate and affiliated entities, (xxi) Baoding LYSZD Trade and Business Co., Ltd., (xxii) Hefei Bitland Information Technology Co. Ltd., (xxiii) Hetian Haolin Hair Accessories Co. Ltd., (xxiv) Hetian Taida Apparel Co., Ltd., (xxv) Hoshine Silicon Industry (Shanshan) Co., Ltd., and Subsidiaries, (xxvi) Xinjiang Junggar Cotton and Linen Co., Ltd., (xxvii) Lop County Hair Product Industrial Park, (xxviii) Lop County Meixin Hair Products Co., Ltd., (xxix) Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) and its subordinate and affiliated entities, (xxx) Yili Zhuowan Garment Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; and (b) if the answer to any part of (a) is affirmative, what are the details of the contract, including the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1193—
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what are the details of all funding agreements VAC has, or has had, in place with the Canadian Virtual Hospice since January 1, 2020; (b) what are the details of any projects funded, in whole, or in part, with the Canadian Virtual Hospice, including, for each, the (i) project description, (ii) purpose of the project, (iii) amount of federal contribution; and (c) has VAC sent or received any correspondence or communication to or from the Canadian Virtual Hospice related to medical assistance in dying and, if so, what are the details of such correspondence or communication, including the (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) type of communication, (iv) sender, (v) recipient, (vi) summary of contents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1194—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to government contracts on professional and special services which were signed since January 1, 2016, and that have a value greater than one million dollars: what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) the contract start and end dates, (ii) the vendor, (iii), the value, (iv) the description of work completed, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process, (vi) the reason the work was unable to be completed using existing public service resources?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1195—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to contracts entered into by the government where the vendor did not meet its contractual obligations, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such instances, including, for each contract, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) description of goods or services agreed to in the contract, (v) part of the contractual obligation which the vendor did not meet, (vi) corrective action taken, (vii) amount recovered by the government, if any?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1197—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the government’s contract with the Pacific Gateway Hotel in Richmond, British Columbia, for the provision of quarantine facilities and accommodations during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) on what date was the contract signed; (b) what was the end date for the contract; (c) what was the rationale for awarding the contract; (d) how much has the government paid to date for all services provided by this site, broken down by type of cost (meals, security, etc.) and total cost per year; (e) what are the details of any other costs associated with the provision of quarantine facilities and accommodations at this site, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) amount paid by the government, (iii) description of goods or services; (f) how many people elected to use this facility as a designated quarantine facility, broken down by total users per month and year; (g) is the government contractually required to continue paying for any services at this site following the end of pandemic restrictions, and, if so, what are the details, including amounts of any such required payments; and (h) has the government had to pay this site for any other cost related to the contract, such as damages, upkeep, or renovations, and, if so, what are the details, including dates and amounts of all such costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1198—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to funding applications submitted to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, broken down by fiscal year from 2019-20 to 2021–22 and by region: (a) how many applications were submitted; (b) what proportion of applications were submitted by small businesses; and (c) what was the success rate of applications submitted by small businesses?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1199—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund in Ontario, broken down by fiscal year since 2020-21: (a) what are the (i) names of the applicants, (ii) purpose of the projects, (iii) amounts of funding requested, (iv) amounts of funding approved, for all projects funded through the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund; (b) what percentage of projects benefited not-for-profit organizations; and (c) what percentage of projects funded were specifically designed to aid in economic recovery for individuals identifying as (i) Indigenous, (ii) LGBTQ2S+, (iii) racialized Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1201—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the statement in the government response to Order Paper question Q-965 that “93.5% of Canadians have access to high-speed Internet, or are targeted to receive access through program commitments”: (a) what is the breakdown of the percentage of Canadians who (i) currently have access to high-speed internet, (ii) do not currently have access, but are targeted to received access through program commitments; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) in (i) rural areas, (ii) northern areas, (iii) First Nation reserve areas, (iv) each province and territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1202—
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) transferring refugees to Niagara Falls, Ontario, from the province of Quebec: (a) when was the first transfer of refugees from Quebec to Niagara Falls; (b) since the date of the first transfer, how many refugees have been transferred from Quebec to Niagara Falls in total; (c) what is the monthly breakdown of the number of refugee transfers from Quebec to Niagara Falls; (d) which hotels is the government using to lodge refugees in Niagara Falls; (e) how many hotel rooms are currently being occupied by refugees in Niagara Falls; (f) what is the capacity of each hotel room that is being occupied by refugees in Niagara Falls; (g) how many refugees are staying in each hotel room in Niagara Falls; (h) what is the average length of time IRCC expects (i) an individual refugee, (ii) a refugee family, to be lodged in a Niagara Falls hotel room; (i) for all refugees being lodged in government funded Niagara Falls hotel rooms, and without identifying names or other personal information, how many days has each refugee stayed; (j) what is the average cost per night that IRCC pays per refugee for staying in a Niagara Falls room; (k) for the night of February 1, 2023, what was the total cost IRCC paid hoteliers to house refugees located in Niagara Falls; (l) what is the average cost that IRCC pays per refugee who lives in a Niagara Falls hotel room for daily meals and refreshments; (m) for the day of February 1, 2023, what was the total cost IRCC paid hoteliers to feed refugees located in Niagara Falls; (n) what are the countries of origin for refugees who have been transferred from Quebec to Niagara Falls; (o) how many refugees come from each country of origin; (p) how many funds have been transferred by the federal government to the municipality of Niagara Falls to deal with the influx of refugees in the city; (q) how many funds have been transferred by the federal government to the Region of Niagara to deal with the influx of refugees in the region; (r) how many funds have been transferred by the federal government to local not-for-profit, charitable, and non-governmental organizations in Niagara Falls to deal with the influx of refugees in the city; (s) what are the names of the specific not-for-profit, charitable, and non-governmental organizations who have received federal government funding; (t) what is the breakdown of funding for each organization to date; (u) how many more refugees does IRCC currently plan to transfer from Quebec to Niagara Falls; (v) since the IRCC began transferring refugees to Niagara Falls from Quebec, how many refugees have moved out of government funded hotel rooms in Niagara Falls and into personal accommodations; (w) when does the federal government plan to stop paying for refugee hotel rooms in Niagara Falls; and (x) what are the terms and conditions of the financial agreement that IRCC has with each hotelier located in Niagara Falls that houses refugees and receives federal monies to provide this service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1203—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the Memorial to the Victims of Communism: (a) what specific work was done on the memorial between January 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023; (b) what is the monthly breakdown of (a); (c) is the 2023 target completion date stated in the government's response to Order Paper question Q-519 still accurate, and, if so, when in 2023 will the memorial be completed; and (d) if the 2023 target completion date has been delayed, what is the new target completion date and what is the reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1204—
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to expenditures related to the government's participation in the Conference of the Parties (COP27) in Egypt, in November 2022: what is the breakdown of the $1,077,126.40 spent on hotels and other accommodations, as referenced in the government's response to Order Paper question Q-1039, including (i) what hotels were used, (ii) how much was spent at each hotel, (iii) how many rooms were rented at each hotel and for how many nights, (iv) what was the room rate, or range of room rates, paid at each hotel, (v) how many different individuals' accommodations the $1,077,126.40 covered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1205—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to phone lines paid for by the government, broken down by cellular line versus traditional landline, for each part of the question: (a) how many phone lines was the government paying for as of January 1, 2023; (b) how many of the phone lines are dormant; (c) how many of the phone lines are active but have not been used or have not had any activity in the last year; (d) how many of the phone lines are considered redundant; and (e) what was the total amount spent on phone lines during the 2022 calendar year, broken down by service provider?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1206—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB): how many government employees were fired or terminated as a result of receiving CERB payments while also being employed by the government, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-441-1191 Government contracts with ...8555-441-1193 Veterans Affairs Canada8555-441-1194 Government contracts on pr ...8555-441-1195 Government contracts with ...8555-441-1197 Government contract with t ...8555-441-1198 Funding applications submi ...8555-441-1199 Regional Relief and Recove ...8555-441-1201 Response to question Q-9658555-441-1202 Immigration, Refugees and ...8555-441-1203 Memorial to the Victims of ...8555-441-1204 Government expenditures re ... ...Show all topics
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a report from the Standing Committee on International Trade, on which we have spent many hours in discussion and looking at opportunities for improvements in the system.
It is my honour to present, in both official languages, as required, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, entitled “The ArriveCAN Digital tool: Impacts on Certain Canadian Sectors”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 1146—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the government's "Check processing times" webpage, broken down by application type, sub-type, when applicable, and by country: (a) what is the service standard for processing each type of application, measured in days; (b) what is the actual time it takes to process each type of application, measured in days; and (c) during the current fiscal year, broken down by month, how many individuals have been processed (i) within the service standard, (ii) outside the service standard?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1147—
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to civilian work within the Department of National Defense, broken down by fiscal year and province or territory since 2015-16: what is the total value of external contracts issued for (i) food services, (ii) cleaning, (iii) facilities maintenance, (iv) firefighting, (v) administration, (vi) information technology services, (vii) power engineers and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1151—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to funding from the Universal Broadband Fund or other sources known to the department: how much funding has been allocated to projects that improved broadband living for the residents of Hamilton living within West Flamborough?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1153—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the double taxation of Canadian commuters working from home a few days per week for US-based companies and the impact on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) foreign tax credit of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes deducted in the US and the US 401(k) contributions via the CRA form RC268; (a) must employment be 100 percent exercised in the US per year in order to claim 100 percent of the FICA tax deductions as a foreign tax credit in Canada; (b) if the employment is partially exercised in the US while FICA taxes are deducted based on full employment income by US-based employer regardless of where employment is exercised, would only the percentage of FICA tax deductions equivalent to the percentage of days of employment is exercised in the US be eligible to claim as a foreign tax credit rather that the full actual FICA tax deduction amount; (c) if the answer in (b) is affirmative, why is it not possible for commuters to deduct (on a Canadian tax return via the foreign tax credit) the full FICA tax amount paid in the US based on full employment income even when working from home in Canada; (d) for the 401(k) US pension plan, if employment is only being partially exercised in the US while 401(k) contributions are being made 100 percent throughout the year regardless of where the employment is exercised, would only a percentage of the 401(k) contributions that matches the percentage of days that employment is being exercised in the US be eligible to claim on CRA form RC268; (e) if the answer in (d) is affirmative, is the combination of the lack of a tax deduction credit for the 401(k) portion not eligible to claim on RC268 and the income tax payable during retirement upon 401(k) funds withdrawal considered as double taxation, and, if not, why not; (f) is there a minimum percentage of time that employment must be "exercised" in the US so that Canadian commuters can claim 100 percent of their full year 401(k) contributions on form RC268; (g) if the requirement in (f) is 100 percent or if the answer in (a) is affirmative, could the Department of Finance Canada and the CRA clarify or work to have the convention modified to establish and allow a minimum requirement (a percentage of days of exercising employment in the US vs. total work days) with regard to being allowed to claim 100 percent of FICA taxes and 100 percent of 401(k) contributions; (h) why is the third qualifying bullet on form RC268 not allowed a deduction on the full-year 401(k) contributions (regardless of where employment is exercised); (i) would partially working from home in Canada disqualify Canadian commuters from claiming (i) 100 percent of their 401(k) contributions on Form RC268, (ii) a certain percentage of the full-year 401(k) contributions with respect to the percentage of employment exercised in Canada; (j) how does the Government of Canada, along with the CRA, abide by Article XXIV-ii (Elimination of Double Taxation), if (i) FICA taxes are not fully deductible in Canada through a foreign tax credit, (ii) the 401(k) contributions are disqualified or partially disqualified from being claimed on Form RC268 due to the form's third qualifying bullet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1154—
Mrs. Julie Vignola:
With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the Governor General’s trips within Canada in 2022, broken down by department and trip: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of all other costs related to the trips?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1155—
Mrs. Julie Vignola:
With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the Governor General’s trips outside Canada since July 26, 2021, broken down by department and trip: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of all other costs related to the trips?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1156—
Mrs. Julie Vignola:
With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the royal family’s visits to Canada since July 26, 2021, broken down by department and visit: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of expenditures incurred for the Prime Minister, the Governor General and their accompanying persons, (ix) amount of all other costs related to the trips?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1157—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Weather Modification Information Act, broken down by year since 1985, or as far back as records permit: (a) how many times has the government’s administrator been informed of weather modification activities; (b) what are the details of each instance in (a), including, for each, (i) the date and time when and the place where the activity was to be carried out, (ii) who carried out the activity, (iii) the purpose of the activity, (iv) the equipment, materials and methods used, (v) geographic area affected; and (c) how many instances is the government aware of where an individual violated the act, and for each instance, what was the result (warning, fine, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1158—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government’s response to the freedom convoy protests, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what was the total number of employees or full-time equivalents who were assigned to report, monitor, advise or gather information for their department about the convoy and protestors; (b) was the information collected shared with any banks or other financial institutions, and, if so, which ones; (c) did any non-governmental entities receive this information, and, if so, which ones; and (d) what were the estimated costs associated with the work described in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1159—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Canadian Army’s fleet of Leopard II tanks: (a) how many are currently (i) combat capable, (ii) not combat capable, broken down by class of vehicle and by variant; (b) for the tanks in (a)(ii) which are not currently combat capable, when does the government expect them to return to service or to become combat capable; (c) how many are required for training operations, broken down by class of vehicle and by variant; (d) what were the total expenditures on maintenance of Canada’s Leopard II tanks since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (e) what is the expected retirement date of Canada’s Leopard II tanks; (f) has the Department of National Defence initiated any consultations or plans to replace Canada’s Leopard II tanks and retain the Canadian Army’s heavy armour capability, and, if so, what are the details, including when the consultations began and what consultations have begun; and (g) has the government initiated discussions with the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the possible transfer of Leopard II tanks to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and, if so, when were the discussions initiated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1160—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the development of a comprehensive violence prevention strategy announced in the Fall Economic Statement 2020: (a) how much of the $724.1 million announced has been spent; and (b) broken down by province and territory, how many shelters (i) have been newly opened, (ii) are currently in construction, (iii) are planned, but the construction has not begun?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1161—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), broken down by industry under the North American Industry Classification System and province or territory: (a) in total, how many businesses applied for CEBA funding; (b) how many businesses were initially approved for CEBA funding but later deemed ineligible; (c) of the businesses in (b), how many were provided reasons for being deemed ineligible; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by reason given; (e) what is the dollar amount of CEBA funds that were initially provided to businesses that were later deemed ineligible; (f) in total, how many businesses applied for CEWS funding; (g) how many businesses were initially approved for CEWS funding but later deemed ineligible; (h) of the businesses in (g), how many were provided reasons for being deemed ineligible; (i) what is the breakdown of (h) by reason given; and (j) what is the dollar amount of CEWS funds that were initially provided to businesses that were later deemed ineligible?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1162—
Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas:
With regard to funding applications submitted by researchers at Canada’s francophone and bilingual universities, broken down by granting agency (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada), by fiscal year from 1980–81 to 2021–22 and by university: (a) how many applications were submitted in (i) French, (ii) English; (b) what proportion of applications were submitted in (i) French, (ii) English; and (c) what was the success rate of applications submitted in (i) French, (ii) English?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1163—
Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas:
With regard to scientific research and publication in Canada: what strategic plans, measures, programs and mechanisms have been put in place within the three federal granting agencies (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) by the government in order to facilitate, ensure, promote or elevate (i) the submission of French-language funding applications, (ii) fair and equitable assessment of French-language funding applications, (iii) the conduct of research in French, (iv) scientific publication in French, (v) the dissemination of scholarly knowledge in French, (vi) the profile and positioning of Canada within the international francophone scientific community?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1164—
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to expenditures on consulting services by the government in the 2021 and 2022 calendar years, broken down by year and by department, agency or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent on (i) training consultants (code 0446), (ii) information technology and telecommunications consultants (code 0473), (iii) management consulting (code 0491), (iv) other types of consultants or consulting, broken down by type and object code; and (b) for each response in (a), what is the total value of the expenditures that were (i) awarded competitively, (ii) sole-sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1165—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircraft, since September 1, 2022: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or an estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1166—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to usage of the government's Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, since September 1, 2022: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or an estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1167—
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to the regulatory changes related to amendments to the Insurance Companies Act made in budget 2018: (a) what is the status of the drafting of the regulations; (b) what is the anticipated timeline for publishing the regulations in the Canada Gazette; and (c) what is the anticipated date of bringing these changes into force?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1168—
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to expenditures related to the video released by the government titled "Minister Alghabra clears Santa for take-off in Canadian airspace": (a) what were the total expenditures related to producing the video; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of expense (video editing, location rental, etc); (c) how many employees worked on the video; and (d) what are the details of any contracts signed related to the video, including, for each, (i) the vendor, (ii) the amount, (iii) the description of goods or services, (iv) how the contract was awarded (sole source, competitive bid, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1172—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the connectivity (i.e. internet, cellular, broadband, etc.) funding announced by the government since November 2015, broken down by year: (a) how much money has been announced for connectivity under the (i) CRTC Broadband Fund, (ii) Strategic Innovation Fund, (iii) Universal Broadband Fund, (iv) Connect to Innovate program, (v) First Nation Infrastructure Fund, (vi) Canada Infrastructure Bank, (vii) Investing in Canada Plan; (b) what are the details of all connectivity projects funded by each funding mechanism in (a), including, for each, the (i) project name and description, (ii) date of funding announcement, (iii) amount of funding, (iv) recipient, (v) date funding was actually transferred to recipient, (vi) current status of project, (vii) date construction began on project, (viii) project location, (ix) original projected completion date, (x) actual completion date or current projected completion date, (xi) reason for delay, if applicable, (xii) number of households or businesses connected through the project; and (c) are there any connectivity projects which were announced by the government but later cancelled, and, if so, what are the details of each, including the (i) date of announcement, (ii) project name and description, (iii) project location, (iv) amount of funding announced, (v) amount of funding transferred to recipient, (vi) date of cancellation, (vii) reason for cancellation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1173—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities program, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16 and province or territory: (a) what are the details of all projects funded through provincial or territorial Aboriginal sport bodies for the development of sport community projects; (b) what are the details of all projects funded through Indigenous governments, communities and not-for-profit Indigenous organizations; and (c) what are the details of all projects funded to ensure that Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people have access to sport activity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1174—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Community Sport for All Initiative, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16 and province or territory: (a) what is the total number of projects that applied for fundings and were deemed (i) eligible, (ii) ineligible; (b) what are the details of all projects that received funding, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) amount of funding recieved, (iii) sport or activity, (iv) number of participants in the project; (c) what is the total amount of funding delivered to rural, remote or Northern communities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1175—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the $4.3 billion announced for Indigenous housing in budget 2022, broken down by federal electoral district: what are the details of all projects that received funding, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) number of housing units built, (iii) number of housing units under construction, (iv) total number of units approved, (v) total amount of funding received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1176—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to spending on stock photographs or images by the government since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each contract or expenditure, including (i) the vendor, (ii) the amount, (iii) the details and duration of contract, (iv) the date, (v) the number of photos or images purchased, (vi) where the photos or images were used (Internet, billboards, etc.), (vii) the description of the advertising campaign, (viii) the file number of the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1177—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to personal protective equipment masks purchased by the government: (a) how many masks were purchased each month since January 2021; (b) how much was spent each month on the masks in (a); and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by type of mask (N95, disposable cloth, reusable, etc.) and by manufacturer?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1178—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) purchased by the government since March 1, 2020, broken down by year: (a) what is the total value of PPE purchased by the government that was (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process; and (b) what is the total value of PPE contracts that were made under a national security exemption?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1180—
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to expenditures related to the Prime Minister's trip to Jamaica in December 2022 and January 2023: (a) what were the total costs incurred by the government for (i) accommodations, (ii) per diems, (iii) other expenses for the flight crew and government officials who travelled to Jamaica in connection with the Prime Minister's trip; (b) what hotels or resorts did the flight crew and government officials stay at in Jamaica; (c) how much did the Prime Minister reimburse the government in relation to the flight for his family's vacation; and (d) did any government officials travel to Jamaica in a method other than on the Challenger flight which carried the Prime Minister's family and, if so, how many officials travelled through other means, and how much was spent on their airfare?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1181—
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay:
With regard to the Crown corporation Export Development Canada (EDC) and McKinsey & Company: has EDC offered any contracts to McKinsey & Company since January 1, 2011, and, if so, what is the nature of these contracts and what are the amounts involved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1182—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency's post-payment compliance work related to the Canadian Emergency Wage Subsidy: (a) what metrics are being used in the assessment of risk of non-compliance; (b) how is each metric in (a) used; (c) how many recipient companies were audited for suspected non-compliance; (d) how many of the audits in (c) (i) are completed, (ii) resulted in a finding of non-compliance; and (e) how much money resulting from findings of non-compliance (i) has been recovered, (ii) is still outstanding, (iii) has been written off?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1183—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Business Account, broken down by program: (a) how many organizations which received funding are (i) in receivership, (ii) insolvent; and (b) how much funding did the organizations in (a) receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1185—
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC), since 2016, and broken down by year: (a) what are the details of all funding transfers between the DFO and the GLFC, including, for each, the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) type of funding or reason for the transfer; (b) which line item in the DFO's financial statements included the funds allocated to or received from the GLFC; (c) which of the GLFC related funding commitments in budget 2022 will be shown in the financial statements of the DFO and how will they be listed; and (d) which of the GLFC related funding commitments in budget 2022 will be shown in the financial statements of another government department or agency, and which department or agency will each commitment be listed with?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1186—
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, broken down by month: (a) what were the delivery times for permanent resident cards, from when the application was received to the issuance of a card, for the time periods between (i) July and December 2019, (ii) July and December 2022; and (b) what was the average time between the confirmation of the permanent residency and the issuance of the card, between (i) July and December 2019, (ii) July and December 2022?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 1187—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to expenditures related to the lifting of long-term and short-term drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves since fiscal year 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount provided, broken down by individual Nation and reserve, for boil-water advisories that (i) have been lifted, (ii) are still in effect; and (b) for each boil water advisory still in effect, what are the expected costs to lift each advisory?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-441-1146 Processing of applications ...8555-441-1147 Civilian work within the D ...8555-441-1151 Universal Broadband Fund8555-441-1153 Double taxation and impact ...8555-441-1154 Expenditures for the Gover ...8555-441-1155 Expenditures for the Gover ...8555-441-1156 Expenditures for the royal ...8555-441-1157 Weather Modification Infor ...8555-441-1158 Government's response to t ...8555-441-1159 Canadian Army's fleet of L ...8555-441-1160 Comprehensive violence pre ... ...Show all topics
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
2023-03-10 11:16 [p.12206]
Madam Speaker, tomorrow is the third national day of observance for COVID-19. It is hard to imagine that it has been three years since the first COVID death in Canada and all of the suffering that has happened since and still does. I want to first acknowledge all those who have lost a loved one to or because of COVID-19.
Their grief is compounded by how their loved one died, especially for those who could not be with him in his last moments. Today, we all share their grief, hoping to ease their pain a little.
I also want to acknowledge the nurses, paramedics, doctors, PSWs and all other frontline workers who were there when we could not be; those still suffering from long COVID and mental health challenges stemming from those difficult years; and those who are still getting COVID today. I want them to know that we see them. They are not suffering alone. That is why today, the whole country is taking a day to pause and remember.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2023-03-08 18:21 [p.12102]
Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill S‑209, an act respecting pandemic observance day—
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
2023-03-08 18:22 [p.12102]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respect your decision, but you never called my riding by name. You looked my way, and I—
Results: 1 - 15 of 7420 | Page: 1 of 495

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data