Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 250
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 380--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the trip of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to Madrid, Spain, for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2019: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what is the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all the meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including the (i) date, (ii) summary or description, (iii) participants, (iv) topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 381--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to recommendation 3.30 in Report 3 on fossil fuel tax subsidies of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development: (a) has the Department of Finance established criteria to determine whether a fossil fuel tax subsidy is inefficient, and, if so, what are these criteria and what is the department's definition of "inefficient"; and (b) does the Department of Finance still refuse to implement this recommendation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 382--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the notice and order sent by a railway safety inspector from Transport Canada to the Central Maine and Quebec Railway dated May 7, 2019: (a) how many ultrasonic rail tests were done on the Sherbrooke subdivision between mileage point 0 and mileage point 125.46, broken down by inspection period (i) between May 1 and June 30, (ii) between September 1 and October 31, (iii) between January 1 and February 28; (b) are the inspection frequencies in (a) still in force, and, if not, why; (c) for each inspection period in (a), what findings were sent to Transport Canada; (d) how many rails are currently faulty; and (e) how many faulty rails does Transport Canada believe are satisfactory for railway safety?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 383--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) and his performance agreement with the CIB Board of Directors, broken down by performance cycle since the inception of the CIB: (a) what are the objectives based on the corporate business plan and related performance measures; (b) what are the objectives that reflect the government's priority areas of focus and related performance measures; (c) what are the objectives based on financial management priorities and related performance measures; (d) which objectives are based on risk management priorities and any other management objectives set by the Board of Directors (infrastructure, marketing, governance, public affairs, etc.); (e) which objectives are based on the government's priorities for financial management and related performance measures (infrastructure, marketing, governance, public affairs, etc.); (f) what are the detailed results of the performance measures for each of the objectives in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); (g) what were the details of the CEO's compensation, including salary and performance-based variable compensation; (h) how many times was the performance agreement amended during each performance cycle and what was the rationale for each amendment; (i) what was the CEO's performance rating as recommended to the responsible minister by the Board of Directors; (j) which performance objectives were met; (k) which performance objectives could not be assessed and why; (l) which performance objectives were not met; (m) did the CEO receive an economic increase, and, if so, why; (n) did the CEO receive a salary range progression, and, if so, what is the rationale; and (o) did the CEO receive a lump sum payment, and, if so, what was the rationale?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 384--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency: what is the number of audits performed on small businesses since 2015, broken down by year and by province or territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 385--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the usage of the government's Challenger aircraft fleet, since December 1, 2019: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 386--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the commitment made in budget 2017 to invest $5 billion over 10 years for home care, including palliative care: (a) what is the total amount of allocated funding not yet spent; (b) what is the total amount of allocated funding transferred to provinces and territories, broken down by recipient province or territory; (c) what is the complete list of projects which have received funding; and (d) for each project identified in (c), what are the details, including (i) overall funding committed, (ii) amount of federal funding provided to date, (iii) description of services funded, (iv) province or territory in which the project is located?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 387--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the commitment made in budget 2017 to invest $184.6 million over five years for home and palliative care for First Nations and Inuit: (a) what is the total amount of allocated funding not yet spent; (b) what is the complete list of projects which have received funding; and (c) for each project identified in (b), what are the details, including (i) overall funding committed, (ii) amount of federal funding provided to date, (iii) description of services funded, (iv) province or territory in which the project is located?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 388--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the Paradise Papers case, the fight against tax non-compliance abroad and abusive tax planning: (a) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files are currently open with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (b) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) what is the number of employees assigned to the Paradise Papers files; (d) how many audits have been conducted since the Paradise Papers were disclosed; (e) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA; and (f) what is the total amount recovered so far by the CRA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 389--
Ms. Sylvie Bérubé:
With regard to the consultations that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is currently holding in order to develop an action plan to implement the 231 calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: (a) has the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations established a committee to develop this action plan; (b) if so, what mechanisms have been put in place to consult the Government of Quebec about the development of this action plan, including the implementation of the 21 Quebec-specific calls for justice in the report; and (c) if a committee has been established, will the Government of Quebec participate in its work?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 390--
Ms. Sylvie Bérubé:
With regard to the drinking water situation in Kitigan Zibi: has the Department of Indigenous Services (i) analyzed the plans that were submitted by the band council to connect to the Maniwaki water system, (ii) decided whether it will proceed with the connection, (iii) released the funding necessary to complete the connection work, (iv) set a timeline so that the community has access to running water within a reasonable time?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 391--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to forms used by the Government of Canada, broken down by year for the last 10 years: (a) how many forms does the government use; (b) to how many pages do the forms add up; (c) how many person-hours a year do Canadians spend filling out forms for the government; and (d) how many person-hours do government employees spend processing forms filled out by Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 392--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the call centres of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), for the fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19, broken down by business and by individual: (a) what is the number of calls received by the CRA; (b) what is the number of calls that were neither answered by an agent nor transferred to the automated self-service system; (c) what is the number of calls received by the automated self-service system; (d) what is the number of calls answered by an agent; (e) what is the number of calls not answered, broken down by (i) the number of callers who did not choose to use self-service through the automated service, (ii) the number of callers who got a busy signal; (f) what is the average time spent waiting to speak to an agent; (g) what is the change in the number of agents, broken down by (i) month, (ii) call centre; (h) what is the error rate for call centre agents, broken down by (i) National Quality and Accuracy Learning Program, (ii) Audit, Evaluation and Risk Branch; and (j) what is the number of call centres that have completed the transition to the new telephony platform as part of the Government of Canada Contact Centre Transformation Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 393--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the sales tax system between 2011 and 2019, broken down by year: (a) how many compliance audits have been conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to determine whether suppliers of digital goods and services are domestic or foreign and whether they are required to register for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST); (b) for the compliance audits in (a), how many additional revenue assessments were issued as a result of these audits and what was the total amount; (c) how many GST and HST forms had been submitted by consumers to the CRA for digital goods and services purchased in Canada from foreign suppliers not carrying on business in Canada or not having a permanent establishment in Canada; (d) how many compliance audits have been conducted by the CRA to determine whether taxpayers in Canada who rent their housing for short periods of time are required to register for the GST and HST; (e) for audits in (d), how many additional income assessments have been issued as a result of these audits and what is the total amount of these assessments; and (f) has the CRA finalized the development of a specific compliance strategy to better detect and address GST and HST non-compliance in the e-commerce sector, and, if so, what are the details of this strategy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 394--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Canadian Passport Order, since November 4, 2015, in order to prevent the commission of any act or omission referred to in subsection 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code, broken down by month: how many passports has the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (i) refused, (ii) revoked, (iii) cancelled?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 395--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying): what is the government’s definition of “reasonably foreseeable” in relation to the context of the bill?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 396--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the finding published in the 2018-19 Departmental Results Report of the Privy Council Office (PCO) that only 75% of ministers were satisfied with the service and advice provided by the PCO: (a) how was that number determined; (b) which ministers were among the 25% who were not satisfied; and (c) did any of those ministers indicate why they were not satisfied, and, if so, what were the reasons?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 397--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to sole sourced contracts over $10,000 issued by the Canadian Coast Guard since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor name, (iv) vendor location, including city or municipality, province or territory, country, and federal riding, if applicable, (v) start and end date of contract, (vi) description of goods or services provided, including quantity, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 398--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the finding published in the 2018-19 Departmental Results Report of the Privy Council Office (PCO) that 93% of cabinet documents distributed to ministers met the PCO’s standards: (a) in what ways did the other 7% of documents fail to meet the PCO’s standards; (b) why were the non-compliant documents circulated to ministers despite not complying with the standards; and (c) how many of the non-compliant documents were circulated as a result of the direction of (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) his exempt staff?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 399--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the mortgage insurance and securitization activities carried out by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) on behalf of the government in the fiscal years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19: (a) what was the CMHC’s total annual authorization from the government to provide new guarantees on National Housing Act Mortgage Backed Securities (NHA MBS), broken down by fiscal year; (b) what was the CMHC’s total annual authorization from the government to provide new guarantees on Canada Mortgage Bonds (CMB), broken down by year; (c) what was the CMHC’s total annual limit for the issuance of portfolio insurance (non transactional), broken down by year; (d) for the portfolio insurance issued in each fiscal year, what was the lender allocation methodology for portfolio insurance and what was the total value allocated to each of the largest six Canadian lenders; (e) for the NHA MBS issued in each fiscal year, was there a lender allocation methodology and what was the total value of NHA MBS, broken down by the largest six Canadian lenders; (f) for the CMB issued in each fiscal year, was there a lender allocation methodology and what was the total value of NHA MBS purchased from each of the largest six Canadian lenders for the purpose of converting the MBS into CMB; (g) for the CMB auctioned in each fiscal year, what percentage were purchased by Canadian investors compared to international investors; (h) for the CMB auctioned in each fiscal year, what percentage were purchased by the Bank of Canada and other investors for which the government is the sole or majority shareholder; (i) for the CMB auctioned in each fiscal year, what was the value purchased by the Bank of Canada and other investors for which the government is the sole or majority shareholder; (j) for the NHA MBS issued in each fiscal year, what percentage were retained by the issuing financial institution for their own balance sheet management purposes; and (k) what is the position of the government on increasing the covered bond issuance limit for federally regulated financial institutions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 400--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to the government preparations in relation to the coronavirus (COVID-19): (a) what specific procedures are in place at each department and agency to ensure the continuity of government operations and that government services remain available during a pandemic; (b) what specific procedures are in place to ensure the safety and protection of government employees during a pandemic, including any procedures aimed at preventing employees from being exposed to coronavirus; and (c) what is the government’s remuneration, leave or benefit policy for (i) full-time employees, (ii) part-time employees, (iii) casual employees, who are required to be quarantined or otherwise away from the workplace as a result of coronavirus?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 401--
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay:
With regard to the criminal charges the government laid in December 2019 against the Volkswagen Group concerning the approximately 120,000 diesel vehicles whose nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions exceeded the standards allowed, broken down by the German companies of the Volkswagen Group, the Canadian companies of the Volkswagen Group, the U.S. companies of the Volkswagen Group, and directors, executives and employees: (a) why did the government file charges for 58 counts of importing non-compliant vehicles instead of one count for each of the 120,000 offences; (b) why did the government file charges for two counts of misleading information instead of one count for each of the 120,000 offences; (c) why did the government not file any charges against the Canadian companies of the Volkswagen Group; (d) why did the government not file any charges against the U.S. companies of the Volkswagen Group that took part in the illegal acts that affected Canada; (e) why did the government not file any charges against the directors, executives and employees who were involved in these offences; (f) why did the government not file any charges regarding the 120,000 offences for selling, renting or distributing these non-compliant vehicles; (g) why did the government not file any charges of fraud concerning the 120,000 pieces of software that prevented the non-compliance from being detected; and (h) why did the government not file any charges regarding the illegal pollution caused by these 120,000 vehicles in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 402--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy: for each defence procurement project, what projects or transactions have been approved as meeting the contractor’s obligations under the ITB Policy, broken down by (i) contractor, (ii) procurement project, (iii) fiscal year since 2016-17?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 403--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to government funding for the Scarborough Subway Extension and the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension: (a) what will be the total amount of government funding for each of the projects; and (b) what is the yearly breakdown of when the funding in (a) will be delivered for each year between 2020 and 2030?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 404--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to search and rescue military operations, since January 1, 2018: what are the details of all instances where a call for emergency assistance was received but personnel were either delayed or unable to provide the emergency assistance requested, including the (i) date of the call, (ii) nature of the incident, (iii) response provided, (iv) length of delay between the call being received and assistance being deployed, if applicable, (v) location of the incident, (vi) reason for the delay, (vii) reason assistance was not provided, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 405--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the government’s Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel: why are there not any panel members from a province other than Ontario or Quebec?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 406--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the 4,710 individuals who were admitted to Canada in 2019 via humanitarian, compassionate, and other grounds: how many of them were admitted by ministerial exemption, in total and broken down by federal riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 407--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to visas issued by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada since May 1, 2019: (a) how many Cuban citizens have applied for Canadian visitor visas (temporary resident visas); (b) how many Cuban citizens have applied for Canadian study permits; (c) how many Cuban citizens have applied for Canadian work permits; (d) how many Cuban citizens have been approved for Canadian visitor visas (temporary resident visas); (e) how many Cuban citizens have been approved for Canadian study permits; (f) how many Cuban citizens have been approved for Canadian work permits; (g) how many Cuban citizens have been denied Canadian visitor visas (temporary resident visas); (h) how many Cuban citizens have been denied Canadian study permits; (i) how many Cuban citizens have been denied Canadian work permits; (j) for the visas in (d), (e) and (f), how many visas were issued to single adult men; (k) for the visas in (d), (e) and (f), how many visas were issued to single adult women; (l) for the visas in (d), (e) and (f), how many visas were issued to married men; (m) for the visas in (d), (e) and (f), how many visas were issued to married women; (n) for the visas in (g), (h) and (i), how many visas were denied to single adult men; (o) for the visas in (g), (h) and (i), how many visas were denied to single adult women; (p) for the visas in (g), (h) and (i), how many visas were denied to married men; and (q) for the visas in (g), (h) and (i), how many visas were denied to married women?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 408--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to judicial nominations, broken down by year, since 2016, and by province and territory: (a) how many judicial candidates assessed as “highly recommended” by a judicial appointments advisory committee were appointed as judges; (b) how many judicial candidates assessed as “recommended” by a judicial appointments advisory committee were appointed as judges; and (c) how many judicial candidates assessed as “unable to recommend” by a judicial appointments advisory committee were appointed as judges?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 409--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Panama Papers case, the fight against tax non-compliance abroad and abusive tax planning: (a) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files are currently open with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (b) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) what is the number of employees assigned to the Panama Papers files; (d) how many audits have been conducted since the Panama Papers were disclosed; (e) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA; and (f) what is the total amount recovered so far by the CRA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 410--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the decision to award SAP the contract to replace the Phoenix pay system: (a) what will the differences be between the SAP replacement system and the current Phoenix pay system; (b) what are the details of any financial agreements or contracts the government has with SAP in relation to the replacement pay system (e.g. value, start date, rate, scope, etc.); and (c) when does the government expect the current Phoenix pay system to be transferred to the replacement SAP system?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 411--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the government response to the rail blockades in February and March of 2020: (a) what was the total estimated economic impact of the blockades; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by industry and province; and (c) what are the details of any financial assistance provided by the government for individuals or businesses impacted by the blockades?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 412--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the administration of the 2019 federal general election: (a) has the Chief Electoral Officer, pursuant to subsection 477.72(4) of the Canada Elections Act, informed the Speaker of the House of Commons of any candidates elected as members of the House that were not entitled to continue to sit or vote as members, and, if so, who were these candidates; and (b) with respect to each candidate in (a), (i) on what date did the entitlement to sit or vote become suspended, (ii) on what date did the Chief Electoral Officer inform the Speaker, (iii) which requirement of the act was not satisfied, (iv) has the requirement in (b)(iii) been subsequently satisfied, and, if so, on what date was it satisfied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 413--
Ms. Nelly Shin:
With regard to information requests received by departments or agencies from the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all requests and responses, including the (i) request, (ii) date it was received, (iii) date when the information was provided; and (b) what are the details, including the reasons, for all instances where the information was either delayed or not provided to the PBO?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 414--
Mr. Jagmeet Singh:
With regard to the three tax provisions proposed in the Fall Economic Statement 2018 to accelerate business investment for the 2018-19 fiscal year: (a) what is the estimated number of businesses that have benefited, broken down by (i) tax provision, (ii) size of business, (iii) economic sector; (b) what is the estimated increase in total business investment since the three tax provisions came into force; (c) what is the estimate of the number of jobs created by businesses in Canada since the coming into force of these three tax provisions; and (d) what is the estimate of the number of businesses that have chosen to continue operating in Canada rather than relocate abroad since the coming into force of these three tax provisions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 415--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to claimed stock option deductions, between the 2012 and 2019 tax years inclusively, broken down by tax years: (a) what is the number of individuals who claimed the stock option deduction whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; (b) what is the average amount claimed by an individual whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; (c) what is the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; and (d) what is the percentage of the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is more than $1 million?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 416--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the government’s commitment to return the $1.3 billion in surtax assessed on U.S. steel, aluminum, and other products to affected industries between the 2018-19 and the 2023-24 fiscal years: (a) how does the government explain the discrepancy with the estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the government will return $105 million less than it assessed in surtax and related revenues over the period; (b) how does the government plan to return the $1.3 billion; and (c) what is the breakdown of the $1.3 billion by industry and recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 417--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the $180.4 million listed in Supplementary Estimates (B) 2019-20 under Department of Employment and Social Development (ESDC) to write off 33,098 debts from the Canada Student Loan Program: (a) what information was shared between ESDC and the Canada Revenue Agency to determine which loans would be written off; (b) what specific measures are being taken to ensure that none of the written off loans are from individuals who have the income or means to pay back the loans; and (c) what was the threshold or criteria used to determine which loans would be written off?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 418--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the $17.6 million contract awarded to Peter Kiewit Sons ULC for the Big Bar Landslide Fish Passage Remediation Project on the Fraser River: (a) how many bids were received for the project; (b) of the bids received, how many bids met the criteria for qualification; (c) who made the decision to award the contract to Peter Kiewit Sons ULC; (d) when was the decision made; (e) what is the start date and end date of the contract; (f) what is the specific work expected to be completed as a result of the contract; and (g) was the fact that the company is currently facing criminal negligence causing death charges considered during the evaluation of the bid, and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 419--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to investments in Budget 2019 for the Forest Innovation Program, the Investments in Forestry Industry Transformation Program, the Expanding Market Opportunities program, and the Indigenous Forestry Initiative: (a) how many proposals have been received for each program to date; (b) how much of the funding has been delivered to date; (c) what are the proposal criteria for each program; and (d) what are the details of the allocated funding, including the (i) organization, (ii) location, (iii) date of allocation, (iv) amount of funding, (v) project description or purpose of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 420--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to Transport Canada Concern Paper C-FT-03 (Boeing 737-8 MAX) (file number 5010-A268): (a) on what date did the Minister of Transport, or his office receive or become aware of the document; (b) what action, if any, did the minister take in response to the concerns raised in the document; (c) on what date was the Minister of Transport, or his office, first notified of the concerns raised the document; (d) what action, if any did the minister take in response to the concern; (e) when did deputy minister's office receive the document; (f) on what date was the Minister of Transport, or his office, made aware of Transport Canada's concerns regarding the nose down pitch not readily arrested behaviour in relation to the aerodynamic stall of the 737-8 MAX; (g) was a briefing note on the concern paper provided to the minister or his staff, and, if so, what are the details of the briefing note, including the (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) summary of contents, (iv) sender, (v) recipient, (vi) file number; and (h) what was the Minister of Transport's response to the briefing note in (g)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 421--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), since July 15, 2018: (a) how many air passenger complaints have been received, broken down by the subject matter of the complaint; (b) of the complaints received in (a), how many have been resolved, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (c) how many air passenger complaints were dismissed, withdrawn and declined, broken down by (i) subject matter of the complaint, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (d) for each complaint in (a), how many cases were resolved by a settlement; (e) how many full-time equivalent agency case officers are assigned to deal with air travel complaints, broken down by agency case officers dealing with (i) the facilitation process, (ii) the mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (f) what is the average number of air travel complaints handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with (i) the facilitation process, (ii) the mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (g) what is the number of air travel complaints received but not yet handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with (i) the facilitation process, (ii) the mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (h) in how many cases were passengers told by CTA facilitators that they were not entitled to compensation, broken down by rejection category; (i) among cases in (h), what was the reason for CTA facilitators not to refer the passengers and the airlines to the Montreal Convention that is incorporated in the international tariff (terms and conditions) of the airlines; (j) how does the CTA define a "resolved" complaint for the purposes of reporting it in its statistics; (k) when a complainant chooses not to pursue a complaint, does it count as "resolved"; (l) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to an officer to be assigned to the case, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (m) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to reaching a settlement, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; and (n) for complaints in (a), what is the percentage of complaints that were not resolved in accordance with the service standards?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 422--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to aviation safety: (a) what was the annual failure rate from 2005 to 2019 for the Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) conducted by Transport Canada inspectors for pilots working for 705 operators under the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs); (b) what was the annual failure rate from 2005 to 2019 for the PPC in cases where industry-approved check pilots conducted the PPC for pilots working for Subpart 705 operators; (c) how many annual verification inspections did Transport Canada inspectors conduct between 2007 and 2019; (d) how many annual Safety Management System assessments, program validation inspections and process inspections of 705, 704, 703 and 702 operators were conducted between 2008 and 2019; (e) how many annual inspections and audits of 705, 704, 703 and 702 system operators were carried out pursuant to Transport Canada manual TP8606 between 2008 and 2019; (f) how many aircraft operator group inspectors did Transport Canada have from 2011 to 2019, broken down by year; (g) what discrepancies has Transport Canada identified between its pilot qualification policies and the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 2005; (h) what are the ICAO requirements for pilot proficiency checks and what are the Canadian PPC requirements for subparts 705, 704, 703 and 604 of CARs; (i) does Transport Canada plan to hire new inspectors, and, if so, what target has it set for hiring new inspectors, broken down by category of inspectors; (j) what is the current number of air safety inspectors at Transport Canada; (k) for each fiscal year from 2010-11 to 2018-19, broken down by fiscal year (i) how many air safety inspectors were there, (ii) what was the training budget for air safety inspectors, (iii) how many hours were allocated to air safety inspector training; and (l) how many air safety inspectors are anticipated for (i) 2019-20, (ii) 2020-21, (iii) 2021-22?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 423--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy: what is the total amount of funding provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for each year since 2017, broken down by province, for (i) the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (ii) the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iii) the Housing Partnership Framework, (iv) the Federal Lands Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 424--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the government’s plan to introduce a new fund to help municipalities and school boards purchase 5,000 zero-emission buses over the next five years: (a) has the government undertaken any forecasting on the total cost of this commitment, and, if so, (i) how much is this commitment forecasted to cost municipalities and school boards, (ii) what is the expected cost of associated charging infrastructure; (b) how much will be provided by the federal government annually in this new fund; (c) what proportion of the total cost to municipalities will be provided by the federal government through this new fund; (d) what will be the application process for municipalities and school boards; (e) will funding be based on ridership in line with existing transit funding; and (f) how does the government plan on ensuring that transit agencies are not forced to delay or forego other transit expansions to purchase zero-emission buses in line with this target?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-431-380 Trip of the Minister of Env ...8555-431-381 Report 3 on fossil fuel tax ...8555-431-382 Railway safety8555-431-383 Chief Executive Officer of ...8555-431-384 Canada Revenue Agency8555-431-385 Challenger aircraft fleet8555-431-386 Home care8555-431-387 Home and palliative care fo ...8555-431-388 Paradise Papers case8555-431-389 Consultations by the Minist ...8555-431-390 Drinking water situation in ... ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 260--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the government requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements: (a) how many public servants currently employed by the government were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, broken down by department or agency; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by section or branch of the relevant department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 261--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Canada 150 commemorative plaques: (a) how many plaques have been approved for distribution; (b) what is the breakdown of plaque distribution by province and by city; (c) what is the location and the rationale for the award of a plaque to each location in (b); (d) what is the total cost of the plaques and what is the cost per unit; (e) have the plaques been installed with government resources, and, if so, (i) which department is responsible, (ii) what is the labour cost associated with the installation; and (f) are there any maintenance costs, and, if so, what are they?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 262--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to vehicles purchased by the government for the G20 Summit: (a) how many vehicles were purchased; (b) what was the market value of each individual vehicle purchased at the time of purchase; (c) how many of the vehicles in (a) were put up for sale by the government; (d) of the vehicles in (c), how many were sold; (e) what was the individual selling price for each vehicle sold; and (f) of the vehicles in (c), how many (i) remain, (ii) are still up for sale, including the individual selling price, (iii) are being used by the government, (iv) are in storage?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 263--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Department of National Defence capital equipment projects over $100 million: (a) what is the name of each project that has received financial authority for project implementation from the Treasury Board Secretariat since 2010, and (i) when did each project receive its initial financial authority, (ii) what was the value of each authority when initially granted, (iii) what is the value of the project’s final or most recent authorities, and the date of change of financial authority; and (b) what is the name of each project that has received financial authority for project implementation from the Minister of National Defence since 2010, and (i) when did each project receive its initial financial authority, (ii) what was the value of each authority when initially granted, (iii) what is the value of the project’s final or most recent authority, and the date of change of financial authority?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 264--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the $1.6 billion in funding to support Alberta oil and gas, announced in December 2018: (a) how were these funds allocated, broken down by (i) public body, such as department or Crown corporation, (ii) program, (iii) quarter, or fiscal year, if quarterly data is not kept; and (b) in the case of funds disbursed as loans to businesses, for each loan, what are the details, including (i) the amount of the loan, (ii) the recipient, (iii) the purpose of the loan, (iv) the public body and program authorizing the loan, (v) the quarter in which it was granted, or fiscal year, if quarterly data is not kept?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 265--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to programs, departments and Crown corporations participating in the Clean Growth Hub: (a) how much was allocated to each program since 2015, excluding the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and Export Development Canada, broken down by (i) department, (ii) fiscal year; (b) since 2015, how much was spent by each program, excluding the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and Export Development Canada, broken down by (i) program, (ii) department, (iii) fiscal year, (iv) province in which the money was spent; and (c) how much was spent by the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and Export Development Canada on loans or programs specifically related to clean technology or sustainable development since 2015, broken down by (i) program, (ii) Crown corporation, (iii) fiscal year, (iv) province or country, if the money was spent abroad?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 266--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Department of Justice’s consultations on medical assistance in dying (MAID) eligibility criteria and request process: (a) how many online submissions were received; (b) what is the breakdown of submissions by (i) province or territory, (ii) urban or rural area, (iii) other demographics; (c) for each question in the consultation, what is the breakdown of the number of submissions for each of the possible answers; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c), by (i) province or territory, (ii) urban or rural area, (iii) other demographics?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 267--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to government evidence or studies related to the effectiveness of measures being considered by the government in relation to firearms: (a) what measures are currently being considered or implemented; (b) for each of the measures in (a), does the government have any evidence that such measures would be effective; and (c) based on the evidence in (b), what will be the projected impact of each measure, including the effect on various crime rates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 268--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government missing the deadline to raise our bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status from "Controlled Risk to BSE" to "Negligible Risk to BSE" with the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in the summer of 2019: (a) why did the government miss the deadline; (b) has the government sought a waiver or exemption with the OIE for the missed deadline; (c) has the government filed an application with the OIE for the “Negligible Risk“ status, and, if so, on what date was the application filed; (d) what measures have been put in place since the missed deadline to ensure that future deadlines are not missed; (e) has the government received any indication from the OIE regarding whether or not the status will be raised to “Negligible Risk“ in March 2020; and (f) will the raising of the status be delayed and, if so, until when?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 269--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the government's response to question Q-143, indicating that the $56,000 owed to the managers of the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas has been paid: (a) did the government pay the balance, or was the amount owing settled in another way, and, if so, what are the details of how the matter was settled; and (b) as of what date was the payment made or the outstanding amount settled?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 270--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to expenditures on gifts for diplomats in relation to the ongoing campaign for a UN Security Council seat: (a) what is the total amount spent on gifts; and (b) what are the details of each gift, including the (i) description, (ii) cost per unit, (iii) number of units purchased?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 271--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to expenditures made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to its current civil litigation action against the Conservative Party of Canada regarding the use of footage during the 2019 election campaign: (a) what is the total of all expenditures incurred to date in relation to the matter; and (b) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 272--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the $196,010,248 loan that was written off from Export Development Canada’s Canada Account: (a) who received the loan; (b) what was the purpose of the loan; and (c) why was it written off?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 273--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the 16 CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft purchased by the government: (a) what are the operational limitations of the aircraft; (b) what operational limitations were discovered during any phase of the pre-acceptance testing; (c) what specific content in the aircraft’s manual is under dispute; (d) what specific Canadian requirements do the aircraft manuals suggest the aircraft does not meet; and (e) what are the critical safety aspects of the technical manuals currently under discussion between Canada and Airbus?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 274--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the report of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans entitled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”: (a) what directives has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans given to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to fulfill recommendations Nos. 1 through 20, broken down by recommendation; (b) what funding streams have been allocated to fulfill recommendations Nos. 1 through 20, broken down by recommendation; and (c) what plans and timelines have been established by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to fulfill recommendations Nos. 1 through 20, broken down by recommendation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 275--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the decision by the Minister of Finance to reclassify expenditures made to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other multilateral development banks from provisioned assets with no residual value to a full investment asset: (a) why was the change made; (b) when did this accounting change go into effect; (c) does the government have the ability to liquidate or recover this “full investment asset”, and if so, what is the manner or mechanism by which it has the ability; (d) what are the details of each payment made to a multilateral development bank or similar type of institution, going back as far as records are available, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) manner in which expenditure was records (non-budgetary statutory expense, fully expensed payment, full investment asset, etc.); (e) what are the revised deficit or surplus levels for each of the past 20 years based on the minister’s new way of classifying these expenditures; (f) which outside firms were hired by the Department of Finance to provide position papers on this matter; (g) what position did each firm listed in (f) provide to the government; and (h) what are the details of all contracts related to (f), including (i) name of firm, (ii) initial contract amount, (iii) final contract amount, (iv) goods or services delivered, (v) start and end date of contract, (vi) date position paper was delivered to the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 276--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the June 22, 2018, government news release titled “The Government of Canada Announces Repairs to Graham’s Pond Harbour”: (a) what specific repairs to the Graham’s Pond Harbour have been completed since the announcement; (b) what are the total expenditures related to the repairs since June 22, 2018; (c) what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) amount, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) vendor, (iv) program from which expenditure funding was provided; and (d) if any repairs associated with the announcement have not yet been completed, on what date is completion expected, broken down by repair?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 277--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the September 17, 2018, government news release titled “Minister Brison announces Government of Canada investment in Delhaven Harbour”: (a) what specific expenditures for the harbour infrastructure in Delhaven have been made since the announcement, including (i) date of expenditure, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) project description, (v) program name under which funding was delivered; (b) what are the total expenditures since September 17, 2018, on improvements to Delhaven Harbour; and (c) if there are any projects or expenditures related to the announcement which have not yet been delivered, what are the details of each project or expenditure, and what is the reason for not yet delivering the project or expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 278--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to funds paid by the government to finfish aquaculture producers in compensation for disposal of finfish at aquaculture facilities since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of compensation paid to finfish aquaculture producers; and (b) what are the details of all compensations paid, including (i) amount, (ii) date of payment, (iii) name of finfish aquaculture producer, (iv) location of finfish aquaculture production facility, (v) reason for disposal of finfish for which compensation was paid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 279--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the comments by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on CTV’s Question Period on Sunday, February 2, 2020, that “if you’re a distributor of content in Canada […] we would ask that they have a licence”: (a) are individuals who post their opinions on social media considered to be distributors of content; (b) what is the government’s criteria for who is considered to be a distributor of content; (c) is there a threshold in terms of social media audience or followers which an individual must meet before being considered a distributor of content, and, if so, what is the threshold; (d) has the government received any legal opinions concerning whether or not its plan to require a licence would survive a charter challenge, and, if so, what are the details of any such legal opinions, including (i) who provided it, (ii) what the opinion is; (e) what are the planned consequences for distributors who do not acquire or maintain a licence; and (f) what is the projected number of distributors who would be required to obtain a licence under the plan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 280--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the impact of SNC-Lavalin’s guilty plea in December 2019 on fraud charges in relation to the company’s contract to support servicing of minor warships and auxiliary vessels: (a) what impact will the guilty plea have on the scheduled renewal of the contract; (b) what specific considerations will the government take into account when deciding the status of the renewal; (c) what is the projected timeline for either renewing this contract or awarding a new contract to another company; and (d) what changes has the government made to the way it conducts business with SNC-Lavalin following the December 2019 guilty plea?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 281--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the government’s contracting and integrity regime framework: (a) which corporations have been formally investigated under the framework; (b) of the corporations in (a), which ones (i) received sanctions, (ii) were found in violation of the framework but received an exemption or waiver from sanctions, (iii) were found not to be in violation; (c) what are the details of each exemption or waiver from sanctions, including (i) the name of the corporation, (ii) the date the waiver or exemption was granted, (iii) the rationale or justification for the waiver or exemption, (iv) the minister who provided the exemption or waiver?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 282--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy, broken down by stream (i.e. new construction, housing repair and renewal), year of submission, province, number of units, and dollar amount for each finalized application: (a) how many applications have been received for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund since 2018; (b) how many applications have had funding agreements finalized since 2018; (c) how many applications have been declined since 2018; (d) how many applications are currently being assessed; and (e) for applications that resulted in finalized funding agreements, what was the average length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their funding agreement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 283--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity’s title: how does the minister define and measure prosperity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 284--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, since the program was launched: (a) how many loans have been approved; (b) how many loans have been funded; and (c) how many loan applications have been withdrawn after approval but before funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 285--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the instruction in the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity’s mandate letter to “ […] better incorporate quality of life measurements into government decision-making and budgeting”: (a) which quality of life indicators will the minister consider; (b) how will the indicators in (a) be measured; (c) without a definition of the middle class, as noted in the minister’s answer to question Q-89, dated December 6, 2019, how will the minister determine whether the indicators in (a) apply to Canadians in given income ranges; (d) how many of the indicators in (a) must a Canadian demonstrate to qualify as middle class; and (e) to what degree or intensity must a Canadian demonstrate the indicators in (d) to qualify as part of the middle class?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 286--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the instruction in the mandate letter of the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance to “ […] ensure that the Department of Finance has the analytical and advisory capabilities that it needs to support and measure the impact of an economic agenda focused on growing the middle class and those people working hard to join it”: (a) which income, expense and lifestyle choice factors will the minister consider in measuring the effect of measures to grow the middle class and those working to join it; (b) without a definition of the middle class, as noted in the minister’s answer to question Q-89, dated December 6, 2019, how will the minister determine whether measures to grow the middle class and those working to join it are affecting the target demographics; (c) how does the minister define “those people working hard to join [the middle class];” (d) how will the Department of Finance support measures to grow the demographic in (c); and (e) relative to what will the minister measure growth of the respective demographics in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 287--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to government advertising expenditures, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total amount spent on advertising with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation–Société Radio-Canada during the (i) 2017, (ii) 2018, (iii) 2019 calendar years; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by platform (i.e. English television, French television, online, etc.), if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 288--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government’s Connect to Innovate program: (a) how much of the $500 million committed investment has been distributed; (b) how much of the remaining funds are expected to be distributed by the end of the commitment in 2021; (c) how many applications have been made to the program; (d) how many applications have been assessed and responded to; (e) how many applicants are currently awaiting responses; (f) for each instances in (e) what are the details of all applications received to date, including (i) name of the applicant, (ii) name of the project, (iii) location, (iv) date the application was received, (v) total funding requested, (vi) description of the project; (g) how many applications have been rejected; and (h) of the 900 communities intended to be reached by the Connect to Innovate Program how many have been successfully reached?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 289--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the $120,000 sole-source contract being given to Security Council Report in relation to the bid for a UN Security Council Seat: (a) did the fact that the company is chaired by former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock factor into the decision to award the contract to the firm; (b) were other firms considered for the contract, and, if not, why not; (c) what led to the government to decide that Security Council Report was the best qualified firm for the contract; (d) which minister made or approved the decision to award this contract to this firm; (e) on what date was the decision made or approved; and ( f) what specific goods or services are expected to be provided by the firm?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 290--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to government departments and agencies which accept credit card payments: what was the total amount paid to (i) Visa, (ii) Mastercard, (iii) American Express, (iv) other credit card companies, in relation to credit card processing fees in each of the last three years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 291--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to the requirement for media organization to receive a Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization (QCJO) status from the government in order to receive certain tax credits: (a) how many applications for QCJO status were received; (b) how many applications were successful; (c) what are the names of the organizations which the government approved for a QCJO status; and (d) what are the names of the organizations which applied for QCJO status, but were denied by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 292--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the First-Time home buyer incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, between September 1, 2019, and February 1, 2020: (a) how many applicants have applied for mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (b) of those applicants, how many have been approved and accepted mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (c) of those applicants listed in (b), how many approved applicants have been issued the incentive in the form of a shared equity mortgage; (d) what is the total value of incentives (shared equity mortgages) under the FTHBI that have been issued, in dollars; (e) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that value of each of the mortgage loans; (f) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is the mean value of the mortgage loan; (g) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date; (h) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the percentage of loans originated with each lender comprising more than 5% of total loans issued; (i) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the value of outstanding loans insured by each Canadian mortgage insurance company as a percentage of total loans in force; and (j) what is the govermnent's position on expanding the FTHBI to make eligible Canadians with incomes above $120,000 a year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 293--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to videos produced by the government for usage on government websites or for internal usage, since January 1, 2019: (a) what are the details of all such videos, including (i) date, (ii) duration, (iii) title, (iv) purpose, (v) intended audience, (vi) government website on which the video was displayed, if on a public website; and (b) for each video in (a), what were the total expenditures, broken down by type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 294--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to videos produced by the government for public distribution, since January 1, 2019: (a) what are the details of all such videos, including (i) date, (ii) duration, (iii) title, (iv) purpose, (v) intended audience; (b) for each video, what were the total expenditures, broken down by type of expense; and (c) through which internet sites, social media platforms, television stations, or streaming sites was each video distributed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 295--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to classified or protected documents at Global Affairs Canada, since January 1, 2019: (a) how many instances have occurred where it was discovered that classified or protected documents were left or stored in a manner which did not meet the requirements of the security level of the documents (i) in the National Capital Region, (ii) within Canada, (iii) outside of Canada, including at missions abroad, broken down by mission; (b) how many of these instances occurred in the offices of ministerial exempt staff; and (c) how many employees have lost their security clearance as a result of such infractions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 296--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to the commitments made in Budget 2019, Chapter 3: Advancing Reconciliation of the Budget Plan: (a) what are the total expenditures to date in relation to the commitments in Chapter 3; (b) what is the breakdown of expenditures to date by each of the six parts outlined in Chapter 3; and (c) what is the breakdown of expenditures to date, by each of the programs or commitments made in Chapter 3?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 297--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Canada Child Benefit (CCB), since its creation: (a) what percentage of Manitoba on reserve First Nation families are eligible for CCB payments, broken down by reserve; (b) what percentage of Manitoba on reserve First Nation families are receiving CCB payments, broken down by reserve; and; (c) what steps the government has taken to ensure that all eligible First Nation families on reserve are receiving these payments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 298--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to government action specifically aimed at stopping money laundering in British Columbia: (a) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken since 2018; (b) for each measure in (a), what are the total expenditures or government contribution to date; (c) does the government have any statistics in relation to how large the money laundering problem is (i) in British Columbia, (ii) across Canada, and, if so, what are the details of statistics; and (d) does the Canada Revenue Agency have any statistics or projections in relation to the impact of money laundering on taxation revenue, and, if so, what are the details of the statistics or projections?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 299--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the export of plastic waste to foreign countries since 2016, broken down by year: (a) how much plastic waste has been exported to foreign countries; (b) what amount of plastic waste was exported for recycling purposes; (c) what amount of plastic waste was exported for final disposal; (d) how many permits to export plastic waste were issued in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; and (e) what is the breakdown of (a) through (d) by destination country, if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 300--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Minister of Finance’s trip to Davos for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in January 2020: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what was the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all the meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 301--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade’s trip to Davos for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in January 2020: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what was the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all the meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 302--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to advertising paid for by the government for each fiscal year from April 1, 2011, to the present date: (a) how much did the government spend on advertising; (b) what was the subject of each advertisement and how much was spent on each subject; (c) which department purchased the advertising and what are the detailed expenditures of each department in this regard; (d) for each subject and department mentioned in (b), how much was spent on each type of advertising, including but not limited to (i) television, specifying the stations, (ii) radio, specifying the stations, (iii) print, i.e. newspapers and magazines, specifying the names of the publications, (iv) the Internet, specifying the names of the websites, (v) billboards, specifying their locations, (vi) bus shelters, specifying their location, (vii) advertising in all other publicly accessible places; (e) for each type of advertising in (d), was it in Canada or abroad; (f) for the answers in (b), (c) and (d), how long did the advertisements run for; (g) for each advertising purchase, who signed the contracts; (h) for each advertisement, who was involved in the production; (i) for each advertisement, was a third party involved in its publication or did a third party coordinate other advertisements based on the government advertisements; and (j) for each advertisement, did the purchase and publication coincide with a specific event, such as a sporting event?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 303--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regards to Detention Benefits in the New Veterans Charter: (a) how was the minimum of 30 days of detention to qualify for benefits decided upon; (b) was any consideration ever given to a time limit lower than 30 days, and what was the rational for not choosing a lower minimum; (c) what are the details of all briefing notes prepared on the subject since November 4, 2015, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) recipient, (iv) date prepared, (v) internal tracking number; and (d) what are the details of all responses to the briefing notes in (c), including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) recipient, (iv) date prepared, (v) internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 304--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the closing of the Ottawa River to marine traffic during the flooding of spring 2019: (a) what are the details of any briefing notes prepared for the Minister of Transport on the subject, including (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number; and (b) what are the details of any responses to the briefing notes in (a) including (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) recipient, (iv) date prepared, and (iv) internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 305--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, for fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19: (a) what was the number of applications received; (b) what was the number of applications for which a hearing was not granted; (c) what was the number of successful appeals; (d) what was the average time between the submission of application and the appeal; (e) what was the median time between the submission of application and the appeal; (f) what was the shortest time between the submission of application and the appeal; and (g) what was the longest time between the submission of application and the appeal?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 306--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the handling of investigations and prosecutions pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act: (a) how much money was spent by Environment and Climate Change Canada on investigating violations of the act since 2015, broken down by year; and (b) how much money was spent on litigation and other proceedings against Volkswagen Canada since 2015, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 307--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to Canadian Environmental Protection Act investigations and prosecutions since 2015, broken down by year and by category of offence: (a) how many investigations were conducted; (b) how many investigations have resulted in prosecutions; (c) how many prosecutions have resulted in convictions; (d) what was the average length in days of an investigation that resulted in a conviction, from initiation to either laying of charges or discontinuation for (i) small and medium enterprises, (ii) large enterprises; (e) how much money was spent investigating violations by small and medium enterprises, broken down by industry; (f) how much money was spent on investigating violations by large businesses, broken down by industry; (g) how much money was spent prosecuting violations by small and medium enterprises, broken down by type of business; and (h) how much money was spent prosecuting violations by large enterprises, broken down by type of business?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 308--
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada, carbon emissions reduction measures undertaken by the government, and carbon emissions projections: (a) what measures did the government identify to reduce emissions; (b) what measures identified in (a) are considered to have been fully implemented; (c) for each measure identified in (b), what are the (i) anticipated emissions reductions expressed in metric tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide for each year from 2015 to 2030, (ii) emissions reductions reached expressed in Mt of carbon dioxide for each year from January 2015 to January 2020, (iii) total anticipated emissions reductions by the year 2030; (d) what measures to reduce emissions identified in (a) are considered to be in the process of being implemented; (e) for each measure identified in (d), what are the (i) anticipated emissions reductions expressed in Mt of carbon dioxide for each year from 2015 to 2030, (ii) emissions reductions reached expressed in Mt of carbon dioxide for each year from January 2015 to January 2020, (iii) what are the total anticipated emissions reductions by the year 2030; and (f) what are the projected emissions for the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project (i) upstream, (ii) downstream?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 310--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Phoenix pay system and the problems experienced by constituents in the riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in the municipalities of Langford, North Cowichan, Cowichan Valley B, Cowichan Valley C, Duncan, Cowichan Valley A, Cowichan Valley E, Cowichan Valley D, and Lake Cowichan: (a) how many cases are currently open, and was a case officer assigned to each; (b) for how long was each case open; (c) how many cases were resolved within the current prescribed service standards, dating back to the introduction of the Phoenix pay system; and (d) how many cases were not resolved within the current prescribed service standards, dating back to the introduction of the Phoenix pay system?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 311--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to federal funding investments in infrastructure, programs, and services in the Cowichan—Malahat—Langford riding: what is the total of the monetary investments for the riding across all government departments for the fiscal years (i) 2017-18, (ii) 2018-19, (iii) 2019-20, thus far?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 312--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to Public Services and Procurement Canada bid solicitation No. F7017-160056/C, emergency towing vessels (ETV) for the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), specifically with respect to the reference on page 175, DID I-005 Live Exercise Plan, “The Live Exercise Plan must define and describe in detail all aspects of how the Contractor intends to provide CCG crew with large vessel towing best practices, procedures, familiarization and education using the ETV and an additional ship in live exercises. The Live exercises, must be developed by the contractor and accepted by CCG and must provide an exercise plan utilizing the ETV and an additional ship as a 'casualty' vessel for demonstration of towing procedures and program exercises”, and on page 117, “The ETVs may be called upon to support other CCG programs and OPP initiatives such as Aids to Navigation (AtoN)”: (a) what information has been submitted to the CCG, demonstrating a Live Exercise Plan; (b) what actions has the contractor taken to demonstrate large vessel towing best practices and procedures; (c) how are the ETVs equipped to facilitate the handling of AtoN; and (d) what actions have the ETVs performed thus far to support AtoN?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 313--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to all federal programs, services, grants, transfers, contributions, and all other initiatives related to the construction, upgrading, renovation, and maintenance of all public and private housing: (a) broken down by fiscal year, province and municipality, what are all the projects that received funding; (b) through which specific fund or program was each funded; (c) what is the number of new housing units or dwellings created by each project; and (d) what was the total federal contribution to each, by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 314--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to federal funding through Fisheries and Oceans Canada from 2005-06 to present, broken down by year: (a) how much funding was allocated for the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnerships Program (RFCPP); (b) how much of the allocated funding was spent through the RFCPP; (c) how much funding was allocated for the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP); (d) how much of the allocated funding was spent through the SEP; (e) how much funding was allocated for the Coastal Restoration Fund; (f) how much of the allocated funding was spent through the Coastal Restoration Fund; (g) how much funding was allocated for the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund; and (h) how much of the allocated funding was spent through the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 315--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the mandate letter of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages: (a) broken down by date and organization or individual, did the minister or departmental staff meet with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit governments and governing bodies with regard to the appointment of a Commissioner of Indigenous Languages; (b) broken down by date and organization or individual, did the minister plan consultation meetings with regard to the appointment of a Commissioner of Indigenous Languages; and (c) when will a Commissioner of Indigenous Languages be appointed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 316--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) administered by Service Canada on behalf Employment and Social Development Canada since January 2017, broken down by year and month: (a) How many Canadians received the GIS; (b) how many eligible seniors did not receive the GIS; (c) how many GIS recipients were deemed no longer entitled to receive the GIS; (d) of those in (c), how many had their GIS reinstated that same calendar year; (e) for (a) through (d), what was the year over year percentage difference; (f) what was the average time for the reinstatement of benefits mentioned in (d); (g) were there any regulatory and/or policy changes to the process by which eligibility for the GIS is determined, and, if so, what are the details of these changes; and (h) were there any regulatory and/or policy changes to the process by which those in (c) are re-evaluated for eligibility for the GIS, and, if so, what are the details of these changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 317--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by year for the most recent 10 fiscal years for which data is available: (a) what was the number of disability benefit applications received; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) rejected, (ii) approved, (iii) appealed, (iv) rejected upon appeal, (v) approved upon appeal; (c) what was the average wait time for a decision; (d) what was the median wait time for a decision; (e) what was the ratio of veteran to Case Manager at the end of each fiscal year; (f) what was the number of applications awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year; and (g) what was the number of veterans awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 318--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) since January 23, 2018: (a) for each fiscal year, funding stream and province, as well as the sum total across Canada, (i) how many statements of interest have been received, (ii) how many statements of interest were from companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad, (iii) how many applications have been received in total, (iv) how many applications were received from companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad, (v) how many successful applicants were companies with 499 employees or fewer, headquartered in Canada and not subsidiaries of a corporation headquartered abroad; (b) what was the total amount of money disbursed by the SIF for each fiscal year, funding stream and province; (c) have any SIF recipient companies failed to complete one or more reporting requirements; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, (i) which recipients failed to do so, (ii) when did the failure occur, (iii) what has the department done to enforce its reporting policy; (e) did any recipients indicate on their statements of interest that any of the activities of their proposed project were expected to occur outside of Canada; and (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what percentage of total project cost did they expect to incur outside of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 319--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage, broken down by quarter for each fiscal year since 2011-12 to date: (a) for data collected in the Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS), broken down by program component for all departmental programs, what is the processing time for grants and contribution applications between the time the program acknowledges receipt of the application and the time the department makes a decision on the application for funding; (b) for the departmental executive committee responsible for reviewing the results of the processing time data collected in GCIMS, (i) who are the members of this executive committee, (ii) how often do they meet, (iii) what is the budget allocated for its operation, (iv) what were its recommendations to the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (v) what were its recommendations to deputy ministers, (vi) what were its recommendations to assistant deputy ministers, (vii) what were its recommendations to directors general, (viii) what were its recommendations to program managers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 320--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator; (b) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the average number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by (i) job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (c) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total cost of overtime, further broken down by (i) job title, including national first level appeals officer, national second level appeals officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (d) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of disability benefit claims, further broken down by (i) new claims, (ii) claims awaiting a decision, (iii) approved claims, (iv) denied claims, (v) appealed claims; (e) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many new disability benefit claims were transferred to a different VAC than that which conducted the intake; (f) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the number of (i) case managers, (ii) veterans service agents; (g) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many case managers took a leave of absence, and what was the average length of the leave of absence; (h) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, accounting for all leaves of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many full-time equivalent case managers were present and working, and what was the case manager to veteran ratio; (i) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were disengaged from their case manager; (j) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the highest number of cases assigned to an individual case manager; (k) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were on a waitlist for a case manager; (l) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, for work usually done by regularly employed case managers and veteran service agents, (i) how many contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the duration of each contract, (iii) what was the value of each contract; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by VAC office, what were the service standard results; (n) what is the mechanism for tracking the transfer of cases between case managers when a case manager takes a leave of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave; (o) what is the department’s current method for calculating the case manager to veteran ratio; (p) what are the department’s quality assurance measures for case managers and how do they change based on the number of cases a case manager has at that time; (q) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many individuals were hired by the department; (r) how many of the individuals in (q) remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (s) of the individuals in (q) who did not remain employed beyond the probation period, how many did not have their contracts extended by the department; (t) does the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what are the reasons for which employees were not kept beyond the probation period; (u) for the individuals in (q) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office; (v) during the last five fiscal years for which data is available, broken down by month, how many Canadian Armed Forces service veterans were hired by the department; (w) of the veterans in (v), how many remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (x) of the veterans in (v) who are no longer employed by the department, (i) how many did not have their employment contracts extended by the department, (ii) how many were rejected on probation; (y) if the department tracks the reasons why employees are not kept beyond the probation period, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what are the reasons why veteran employees are not kept beyond the probation period; (z) for the veterans in (v) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what were the reasons for their departure, broken down by VAC office; (aa) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many employees have quit their job at VAC; and (bb) for the employees in (aa) who quit their job, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 321--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the transport of the CCGS McIntyre Bay and CCGS Pachena Bay from the east coast to the west coast: (a) who paid for the transport of the ships; (b) which company provided the transport; (c) was the company reimbursed to bring the ships out; (d) did the government go to public tender to provide the transport; (e) was transport included in the Request for Proposal for the tugboats (Emergency Towing Vessels RFP – F7017-160056/c), and, if so, were points awarded to the winning bid given to the company that provided the transport; (f) did Atlantic Towing produce certification confirming output after all required engine driven consumers (shaft generators, etc.) were taken into account; (g) were there competing bids to bring the two ships out by truck or another method, and, if so, what were they and the associated bid costs; (h) what was the cost to load the McIntyre Bay and Pachena onto the Atlantic Raven; and (i) what was the cost to unload them once reaching their final pacific destination?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 322--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the Employment Insurance (EI) adjudication process and the current status of EI applications: (a) what is the current backlog of adjudications waiting in the queue; (b) what is the current average time between the beginning of an adjudication process and its completion; (c) what percentage of the applications are removed from the automated process after 28 days and sent to manual adjudication; (d) what percentage of EI applications are handled automatically (i.e. without manual intervention); (e) what percentage of applications are handled by the automated system and is that close to the original estimate of 85%; and (f) what action is the government taking to address the delays and backlog in the adjudication system?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 323--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and its research report entitled “Tax Gap: A Brief Overview”, which estimated that the tax gap for the 2014 tax year was between $21.8 billion and $26 billion: (a) what is the estimated tax gap, broken down by each of the last five years; and (b) for each of the last five years, what is the (i) federal tax gap estimate before audit, (ii) percentage of corresponding revenues, broken down by tax gap component?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 324--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway 17 between Kenora and the Manitoba border: (a) what is the total amount of money the government has allocated to date for the project; (b) when was each amount in (a) allocated, and under what program; (c) if no money has been allocated to date, will the government be allocating funding for the project, and, if so, how much money; and (d) will the government commit to the formula that was used in the past, whereby the federal government provides 50% of the funding, while the provincial government of Ontario provides the other 50%, and, if not, what funding formula will the government commit to in relation to this project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 325--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the government’s administration of section 42.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (a) how many applications have been received under this section, since 2013, broken down by year; and (b) what is the status of each application in (a), including (i) date the application was received, (ii) date a decision was made, (iii) decision, (iv) number of days between the date the application was received and the date a decision was made?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 326--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to the media at CropConnect in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in February 2020, stating “I already had data from the department last fall or earlier this winter”, in reference to the impact of the carbon tax on farmers: (a) what data did the minister receive from the department; and (b) on what date was the data received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 327--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the government’s AgriStability Program: (a) what was the actual or estimated cost to administer the program, for each of the last five years, broken down by year; and (b) how many employees or full-time equivalents at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have been assigned to administer the program, broken down by each of the last five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 328--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the Efficient Grain Dryer Program announced by the government on February 10, 2020: (a) what is the projected cost to administer the program, broken down by type of cost; and (b) how many employees or full-time equivalents at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have been assigned to administer the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 329--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Prime Minister's trip to Germany in February 2020: (a) with the exception of security personnel and journalists who accompanied the Prime Minister, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title, in total, how much did this trip cost taxpayers, and if the final cost is not yet known, what is the best estimate of the cost of this trip to taxpayers; (b) what were the costs related to (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each of these expenses; (c) what are the details of all meetings attended by the Prime Minister and others who took part in the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (d) did any spokespeople, consultant lobbyists or corporate representatives accompany the Prime Minister and, if so, what are their names and on behalf of which corporations did they accompany the Prime Minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 330--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to data, information or privacy breaches in ministers' offices and the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO), since November 2015: (a) how many breaches have occurred in total, broken down by (i) minister's office, including the PMO, (ii) number of individuals affected by the breach, (iii) year; (b) of those breaches identified in (a), how many have been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, broken down by (i) minister's office, including the PMO, (ii) number of individuals affected by the breach, (iii) year; and (c) how many breaches are known to have led to criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft, broken down by (i) minister's office, including the PMO, (ii) year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 331--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Minister of Finance's trip to Calgary to speak to members of the Economic Club of Canada on February 10, 2020: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what was the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all the meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 332--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to expenses on photographs or photography services by Canadian Heritage, or any other department, for visits of members of the British royal family from the month of November 2015 until now: (a) what is the total of these expenses; (b) what is the name of each supplier; (c) what were the date and duration of each photography contract; (d) what were the initial and final values of each contract; (e) what is the file number of each contract; and (f) what were the costs of each photography session?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 333--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages' trip to Edmonton to participate in a funding announcement to help western Canadian companies, in February 2020: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what was the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) the participants, (iv) the topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 334--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to government advertising between fiscal years 2011-12 and 2018-19, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how much has each department, agency and Crown corporation spent on advertising (i) on Facebook, (ii) on Xbox, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, (iii) on YouTube, (iv) in sponsored tweets on Twitter, (v) on Instagram; (b) for each advertisement, what was its (i) nature, (ii) purpose, (iii) target audience or demographic profile, (iv) cost; (c) what was the media authorization number of each advertisement; and (d) what are the reference numbers of the documents, reports and memoranda concerning each advertisement or its after-the-fact evaluation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 335--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Local Journalism Initiative: (a) how many stories were distributed to media organizations through the initiative’s Creative Commons license; and (b) what were the details of all stories in (a), including (i) date written, (ii) title, (iii) author?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 336--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to online advertising and digital spending by the government: (a) how does each department or agency currently track and verify the placement of its online advertising or digital spending; (b) what was the total amount spent on online advertising or digital spending last year; (c) of the amount in (b), how much was (i) trackable, (ii) non-trackable or non-verifiable; and (d) for each non-trackable or non-verifiable advertisement placed last year, (i) what was the title or description of the advertisement, (ii) how did the government confirm that the supplier had successfully placed the advertisement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 337--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the government’s purchase of subscription packages for SiriusXM Satellite and Internet radio since January 1, 2016, broken down by department or agency and by year: (a) what are the total expenditures; (b) how many subscriptions were purchased, broken down by length and type; and (c) what was the price of each type of subscription in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 338--
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals to the ISS have been heard in person in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals to the ISS have been heard by teleconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) are currently assigned to the ISS; (k) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (l) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2018-19, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (u) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS in 2018-19, in total and broken down by month; (v) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed in 2018-19; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed in 2018-19; (x) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed in 2018-19 (y) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (dd) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD in 2018-19; (ee) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2018-19; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2018-19; (gg) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2018-19; (hh) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2018-19, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (nn) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (oo) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness in 2018-19, broken down by (i) month, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship in 2018-19, broken down by (i) month, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted;
(rr) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ss) how many casefiles have been reviewed by the special unit created within the department to review backlogged social security appeals; (tt) how many settlements have been offered; (uu) how many settlements have been accepted; (vv) how much has been spent on the special unit within the department; (ww) what is the expected end date for the special unit within the department; (xx) for 2018 and 2019, what is the average amount of time for the department to reach a decision on an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month; and (yy) for 2018 and 2019, what is the average amount of time for the department to reach a decision on the reconsideration of an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 339--
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the government's objective of reducing poverty by 50% by 2030 compared to the poverty rate in 2015: (a) how many annual projection scenarios have been established by Employment and Social Development Canada; (b) for each of the scenarios in (a), what are the annual projections of the evolution of this objective, for the years (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, (vi) 2023, (v) 2024, (vi) 2025, (vii) 2026, (viii) 2027, (ix) 2028, (x) 2029, (xi) 2030; (c) how many annual projection scenarios have been established by Employment and Social Development Canada for the evolution of the poverty rate; and (d) for each of the scenarios in (c), what are the targets and the results of the scenarios of annual projections of the rate of poverty, for the years (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, (iv) 2023, (v) 2024, (vi) 2025, (vii) 2026, (viii) 2027, (ix) 2028, (x) 2029, (xi) 2030?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 340--
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security program call centers, broken down by fiscal year and by call center for each fiscal year between 2011-12 and 2018-19: (a) what is the annual allocated funding; (b) how many full-time call agents have been allocated; (c) how many calls could not be routed to a call agent; (d) what is the speed target set by the department; (e) what is the actual performance against the speed target; (f) what is the average waiting time before speaking to an agent; (g) what is the call volume threshold established by the department beyond which callers are diverted to the automated system; (h) what is the error rate of the information transmitted by the call agents to the callers; and (i) what is the method used by the department to assess the error rate of the information transmitted by the call agents to the callers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 341--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the status of projects funded by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor) since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all projects funded to date, including (i) recipient, (ii) project description, (iii) location, (iv) program under which funding was delivered, (v) total federal commitment, (vi) total federal funding actually delivered to date, (vii) current status of project; (b) for each project in (a), is the project ahead of schedule, on schedule, or behind schedule; (c) for each project in, (a) what was the (i) original projected completion date, (ii) current projected completion date; and (d) for each project that is behind schedule, what is the reason for the delay, broken down by project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 342--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs entitled “A Path to Growth: Investing in the North”, tabled in the House in April 2019: (a) what directives has the (i) Minister of Northern Affairs, (ii) Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, (iii) Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, given to the departments for which they are responsible to fulfill each of the six recommendations, broken down by recommendation; (b) what funding streams have been allocated to fulfill each of the six recommendations, broken down by recommendation; and (c) what plans and timelines have been established by the (i) Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, (ii) Department of Infrastructure Canada, (iii) Department of Innovation and Economic Development Canada, to fulfill each of the six recommendations, broken down by recommendation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 343--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the government’s response to the report of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic entitled “Northern Lights: A Wake-Up Call for the Future of Canada” tabled in June 2019, and broken down by each of the 30 recommendations: (a) what directives has the government given to fulfil each of the 30 recommendations; (b) what funding streams have been allocated to fulfill each of the 30 recommendations; and (c) what plans and timelines have been established by the government to fulfill recommendations each of the 30 recommendations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 344--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regards to the Budget 2019 commitment to build or expand northern infrastructure projects “through a doubling of the federal municipal infrastructure commitment in 2018-19”: (a) what is the breakdown of this funding by project; (b) what are the details of all projects in (a), including the (i) name, (ii) description, (iii) amount of federal contribution, (iv) projected completion date; and (c) how much of this funding has been delivered to date, broken down by individual project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 345--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the CCGS McIntyre Bay and CCGS Pachena Bay: (a) what is the bollard pull of each ship; (b) does the bollard pull for each ship meet the stated minimum requirements as listed in the Public Services and Procurement Canada Request for Proposal; (c) what is the certified bollard pull of each ship after all required engine driven consumers (i.e. shaft generators, cranes, etc.) are taken into account; and (d) did Atlantic Towing produce certification confirming output after all required engine driven consumers were taken into account?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 346--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to government-owned disabled ships since January 1, 2016: (a) how many ships have been disabled; and (b) of the ships in (a), how many required an emergency tow vessel off of the Pacific Coast, broken down by year and by shepherd displacement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 347--
Mr. Scott Duvall:
With respect to harassment complaints, workplace violence complaints, and disclosures of wrongdoing related to harassment and discrimination in federal organizations (departments, agencies, Crown corporations, etc.), between fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2018-2019, broken down by federal organization, by fiscal year, and for each type of complaint mentioned: (a) how many decisions were made by the organization without conducting an initial assessment; (b) how many complaints were dismissed; and (c) how many complaints were accepted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 348--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the Canadian Experiences Fund: (a) what is the total amount of approved funding; (b) what is the complete list of approved projects; and (c) for each project in (b), what are the details, including the (i) value of the approved project, (ii) total amount of federal financing, (iii) location of the project, (iv) project description, (v) status of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 349--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to government travel, from November 4, 2015, to February 20, 2020: (a) how many visits to First Nations reserves were made by (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, (iii) the Minister of Justice, (iv) the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, (v) the Minister of Finance, (vi) the Minister of Canadian Heritage, (vii) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, (viii) the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, (ix) the Minister of Natural Resources, (x) the Minister of Health, (xi) the Minister of Indigenous Services, (xii) the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, (xiii) the Deputy Prime Minister; and (b) what are the details of each visit in (a), including the (i) date of visit, (ii) reserve?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 350--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the planned February 2020 trip to the Caribbean by the Prime Minister which was cancelled: (a) what is the total of all costs incurred in relation to the planned trip, including any cancellation fees or lost deposits; and (b) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) location, (v) description of goods or reason for expenditure (e.g. lost deposit, goods purchased but not used, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 351--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the February 2020 trip to Ethiopia, Senegal, and Germany taken by the Prime Minister and other ministers: (a) what is the total of all costs incurred to date related to the trip; and (b) what are the details of all contracts and invoices related to the trip, including (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number, (vi) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 352--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to all expenditures on hospitality (Treasury Board Object Code 0822), since November 1, 2019, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number, (vii) number of government employees in attendance, (viii) number of other attendees, (ix) description of related hospitality event, (x) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 353--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to counterfeit goods discovered and seized by the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other relevant government entity, during the 2019 calendar year: (a) what is the total value of the goods discovered, broken down by month; (b) for each seizure, what is the breakdown of goods by (i) type, (ii) brand, (iii) quantity, (iv) estimated value, (v) location or port of entry where the goods were discovered, (vi) product description; (c) what percentage of the estimated total value of counterfeit imported goods are intercepted by the government; and (d) what is the government’s estimate for the value of counterfeit goods that enter Canada annually and avoid seizure by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 354--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to ministers' regional offices (MRO), as of February 2020: (a) broken down by location, what is the number of employees or full-time equivalents working in each MRO; (b) broken down by location, what is the number of exempt departmental staff working in each MRO; (c) how many government employees, excluding exempt departmental staff, currently work in each office; (d) what is the annual budget for each office; (e) what is the purpose of these offices; (f) what criteria are used to determine the location of these offices; (g) what sections or programs are administered from these offices; and (h) what are the projected annual operating costs for each office over the next year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 355--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the approximately 20,000 Atlantic salmon that escaped from the Robertson Island pen fire on December 20, 2019: (a) how many of the fish were reported recaptured to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) by Mowi ASA as of February 20, 2020; (b) how many independent reports of caught Atlantic salmon were reported to the DFO, broken down by date and location of catch; (c) how many of the escaped fish were infected with Piscine orthoreovirus; (d) how much funding has the government provided to assist with recapture; and (e) how much compensation has the government provided to Mowi ASA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 356--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to ministers' office expenses in the National Capital Region: (a) what was the total amount spent on taxis by each minister’s office for each fiscal year since 2015-16, including the current fiscal year; (b) how many employees at each minister's office have access to taxi vouchers; (c) what is the overtime cost for each minister's driver for each fiscal year since 2015-16, including the current fiscal year; (d) what was the total amount spent on Uber for each minister’s office for each fiscal year since 2015-16, including the current fiscal year; and (e) how many employees at each minister's office have access to Uber vouchers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 357--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the government’s response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: (a) what is the estimated amount the government has spent to date in response to the outbreak; (b) what is the total amount spent to date on (i) flights, (ii) other mode of transportation, (iii) quarantine facilities, (iv) other expenditures, broken down by type; (c) what are the details of all expenditures over $5,000 related to the response, including (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) location, (iv) date, (v) description of goods or services, including volume, if applicable; (d) what is the government’s policy regarding reimbursement to the Crown for Canadians who utilized the government’s evacuation flights or services; and (e) how many individuals to date has the government placed under quarantine in (i) government facilities, broken down by facility, (ii) the individual’s own residence, (iii) other facilities, broken down by facility?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 358--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the government’s approach to the proposed Frontier mine project by Teck Resources Ltd.: (a) what specific steps, if any, did the government take in order to save the project; (b) why did the government delay its decision on approval for the project for over six months; and (c) did anyone in the government propose intentionally delaying the decision until the application was withdrawn, and, if so, what are the details of the proposal, including who made the proposal?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 359--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the government’s subsidy to VIA Rail Canada: will the government be increasing its subsidy as a result of rail blockades and the subsequent shutdown of VIA Rail service, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) original projected subsidy amount, (ii) amount of increase, (iii) increased subsidy amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 360--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to monitoring and policing of as well as litigation against lndigenous peoples, broken down by fiscal year since 2010-11: (a) how much has been spent on litigation involving First Nations; (b) how much has been spent on policing operations targeting lndigenous land defence movements; and (c) how much has been spent on surveillance, monitoring or intelligence-gathering operations targeted at lndigenous peoples by any government department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 361--
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to the commitment on page 30 of the 2019 Liberal election platform to plant two billion trees: (a) what is the projected breakdown of how many trees will be planted in each of the next 10 years; (b) what is the projected breakdown of how many trees will be planted in each province or territory; (c) how many of the trees will be planted in the riding of Fundy Royal; and (d) of the trees in (c), what is the breakdown by community or geographical area?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 362--
Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to the economic impact of the blockades and rail service disruption in 2020: what is the government’s estimate of the economic impact of the disruption, including a breakdown of the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 363--
Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to communication, directives or advice received so far in 2020 by the RCMP from the government in relation to rail blockades: what are the details of all such communication, directives or advice, including (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) form of communication (phone, email, memorandum, etc.), (iv) date, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 364--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to government contracts valued between $24,000.00 and $24,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 365--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF): (a) how many filled fighter pilot positions were there in each year from 2011 to 2020; (b) how many fighter pilot positions in total were available to fill in each year from 2011 to 2020; (c) how many combat ready CF-18 flying positions were available to fill in each year from 2011 to 2020; (d) how many flying positions were available that were not combat ready (i.e. Squadron 410 OTU, Squadron 419, wings, Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment, etc.) in each year from 2011 to 2020; (e) how many combat ready flying positions were available on each operational squadron and wing in each year from 2011 to 2020; (f) how many fighter pilot positions were available to fill in each year from 1997 to 2001; (g) how many combat ready fighter pilots were released each year from 2011 to 2020; (h) how many fighter pilots in total were released annually from 2011 to 2020; (i) what are the estimated projections for 2020 to 2034 for (i) filled fighter pilot positions, (ii) fighter pilot positions, (iii) combat ready CF-18 flying positions, (iv) flying positions that are not combat ready, (v) combat ready flying positions available on each operational squadron and wing; (j) what is the estimated production rate of CR fighter pilots for each year from 2020 to 2034; (k) what is the estimated attrition rate for fighter pilots for each year from 2020 to 2034; (l) how many fighter pilot positions and personnel in the RCAF are pre-FPC (students); (m) what is the Trained Effective Strength or operational functional point for fighter pilots; (n) what is the combat ready point for fighter pilots; (o) where and when does the combat ready point for fighter pilots take place; (p) what is the minimum, maximum and mean time, in months, between recruitment and combat ready status for fighter pilots; (q) how many fighter pilots are greater than TIP 2 in CF-18 flying positions; (r) how many fighter pilots are two-ship leads in the CF-18 flying positions; (s) how many fighter pilots are four-ship leads in the CF-18 flying positions; (t) as of February 25, 2020, how many fighter pilots are (i) combat ready, (ii) non-combat ready, (iii) wingman, (iv) fighter electronic warfare instructors, (v) fighter weapons instructors; and (u) are fighter pilot students (e.g. at Squadrons 419 and 410) included in fighter pilot positions PML or TES?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 366--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Chief Executive Officer of Invest in Canada and his performance agreement with the Invest in Canada Board of Directors, broken down by performance cycle since the inception of Invest in Canada: (a) what are the objectives based on the corporate business plan and related performance measures; (b) what are the objectives that reflect the government's priority areas of focus and related performance measures; (c) what are the objectives based on financial management priorities and related performance measures; (d) which objectives are based on risk management priorities and any other management objectives set by the board of directors (infrastructure, marketing, governance, public affairs, etc.); (e) which objectives are based on the government's priorities for financial management and related performance measures (infrastructure, marketing, governance, public affairs, etc.), and related performance measures; (f) what are the detailed results of the performance measures for each of the objectives in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); (g) what were the details of the CEO's compensation, including salary and performance-based variable compensation; (h) how many times was the performance agreement amended during each performance cycle and what was the rationale for each amendment; (i) what was the CEO's performance rating recommended to the responsible minister by the Board of Directors; (j) what performance objectives were met; (k) what performance objectives could not be assessed and why; (l) what performance objectives were not met; (n) did the CEO receive an economic increase, and, if so, why; (o) did the CEO receive a salary range progression, and, if so, what was the rationale; and (p) did the CEO receive a lump sum payment, and, if so, what was the rationale?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 367--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the government's fire management program around the Municipality of Jasper in Jasper National Park: (a) what specific measures have been identified as necessary to prevent wildfires; (b) of the measures in (a), which (i) are currently being implemented, (ii) are planned for implementation; (c) of the projects which have yet to be implemented, when is implementation expected; and (d) what are the details of all contracts issued since January 1, 2018, in relation to the program, including, (i) date and duration of contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 368--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the government's commitment to combat gang violence, since January 1, 2016: (a) how much federal funding has been committed, broken down by program or project; (b) for each commitment in (a), how much funding has actually been delivered, as opposed to simply announced; and (c) what are the details of all funding which has been delivered, including (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) date funding was actually transferred, (iv) purpose of funding or project description, including location?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-431-260 Non-disclosure agreements s ...8555-431-261 Canada 150 commemorative plaques8555-431-262 Vehicles purchased by the g ...8555-431-263 Department of National Defe ...8555-431-264 Funding to support Alberta ...8555-431-265 Clean Growth Hub8555-431-266 Consultations on medical as ...8555-431-267 Effectiveness of measures i ...8555-431-268 Bovine spongiform encephalo ...8555-431-269 Response to question Q-1438555-431-270 Gifts for diplomats in rela ... ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I am ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on February 25 by the member for Fundy Royal and on February 27 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the premature disclosure of two bills.
Allow me first to recapitulate the arguments presented by the two members.
On February 25, 2020, the member for Fundy Royal raised a question of privilege regarding a Canadian Press article published online on February 24 that detailed specific information contained in Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying, even before it was introduced in the House by the Minister of Justice. The member quoted from the article in question, which mentioned that anonymous sources allegedly discussed the contents of the bill with the journalist while knowing full well that doing so contravened the practices of the House. The member for Fundy Royal feels that this premature disclosure of the bill constitutes a breach of his privileges and contempt of the House.
On February 27, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a question of privilege also concerning the premature disclosure of a bill.
During this intervention, the parliamentary secretary said that a bill entitled “an act to amend the Criminal Code (unlawfully imported firearms)”, put on notice on February 21 by the member for Markham—Unionville, was also the subject of an article published on February 24 in iPolitics before it was introduced in the House. On February 25, the member put another bill on notice, one with a slightly different title, “an act to amend the Criminal Code (possession of unlawfully imported firearms)”. The bill became Bill C-238 after it was introduced on February 27.
The parliamentary secretary feels that the provisions of Bill C-238 correspond to what was described in the iPolitics article, and he presumed, therefore, that the two bills are in large measure the same. The parliamentary secretary suggested that this disclosure contravenes the principle that members are the first to know the contents of a bill. Since a breach of privilege was apparently committed, he suggested referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
On February 28, the member for Markham—Unionville apologized and admitted that he had indeed discussed the contents of the first bill with fellow members and journalists. He said that he had acted in ignorance of the rule prohibiting discussion of bills on notice before they are introduced in the House. He also explained the reasons for the change in title between the two bills.
The same day, the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House presented his most sincere apologies for the premature disclosure of Bill C-7, saying in passing that no one within the government had been authorized to discuss the bill before its introduction in the House.
I believe that the whole matter can be summarized as follows.
First, based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House.
Second, in his apology, the member for Markham—Unionville made it clear that his two bills on firearms were substantially the same, apart from the slightly different titles. It seems clear to the Chair, therefore, that the member also discussed a bill before its introduction. It matters little that the bill in question was subsequently withdrawn and never introduced in the House.
The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one’s intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.
In this case, it is clear that the content of the bills, both the private member's bill and the government bill, were revealed to the media before their introduction and first reading. The question now is to determine whether the disclosure of these bills was a breach of the House’s privilege and whether mitigating circumstances should be considered.
In this instance, I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the member for Markham—Unionville when he says that he was unaware of the rules regarding the confidentiality of bills on notice. I believe that his remarks were sincere and that he believed he was advancing his cause in a legitimate fashion.
My analysis is different for the question of privilege raised by the member for Fundy Royal concerning government Bill C-7. Permit me to quote a part of the article at the heart of this matter:
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details of the bill prior to its tabling in the House of Commons this afternoon.
Everything indicates that the act was deliberate. It is difficult to posit a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules in this case.
On April 19, 2016, my predecessor, faced with a similar situation regarding the premature disclosure of Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying, found a prima facie case of privilege in a decision that can be located on pages 2442 and 2443 of the Debates.
In light of the information provided by the member for Fundy Royal, the precedents and the current practice in this matter, the Chair notes the existence of sufficient grounds to conclude that there was a prima facie breach of the privilege of the House and the members and their right to be the first to know the contents of Bill C-7.
Consequently, I now invite the member for Fundy Royal to move the appropriate motion.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
View Rob Moore Profile
2020-03-10 15:19 [p.1892]
moved:
That the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your finding that a breach of our privileges did exist in this case in the leaking of the contents of Bill C-7 to the media before members of the House could see the bill.
There is a reason we have rules in this place to protect the rights and the privileges of members of Parliament in this place on all sides of the House, so that we are able to do the job that we were elected to do, which is to represent our constituents, to pass legislation and to debate. Those are the things that we have been given the ability to do by our constituents. When we have government departments, government members that do not abide by the rules of the House, it undermines not just those members in the opposition; it undermines all of us.
It is well-established practice in the House that when a bill is on notice for introduction, the House has the first right to the contents of the bill. Everyone in the House knows this. We know that the House is paramount when it comes to the introduction of the legislation, but if there is any one department in the whole of government that we would expect would know the rules around the laws and procedures in the House, that department would be the justice department, the department tasked with making laws that impact the lives of all Canadians. That department knows better. That is a department filled with hundreds if not thousands of lawyers and legal minds that know better.
Let us say they did not know better. Just like with any one of our children, sometimes if they make a mistake, we correct them. Maybe if they make a second mistake, we will correct them again. By the third time around, we expect that they know the rules.
This is the fourth time there has been found a breach of our privileges in the House that was made by the Department of Justice. In fact, the last ruling on this matter was also on the previous legislation around medical assistance in dying. It was even the same legislation.
The article that was put forward within The Canadian Press had very detailed and specific information contained in the bill. That is why this breach of privilege has been found.
The reporters and those who were leaking know that contempt has occurred by revealing later in the article that, "The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details of the bill prior to its tabling in the House of Commons this afternoon."
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that those who were leaking this information from the Department of Justice or some other arm of government knew exactly what they were doing when they did it. What they thought about this place is not much, because we have rules, and they thumbed their nose at the rules that we have.
After the sources indicated to the reporter that they were aware of their guilty actions, they boldly and defiantly continued their affront to Parliament by providing even more detail of the bill. Quoting again from that article, “Sources say today's bill will not deal with broader issues that were excluded in the new law and that must be considered as part of a parliamentary review of the law that is to begin this summer.” Again, bang on with what was in the bill.
We saw the news articles and we thought we knew what had happened, another leak from the Department of Justice, another affront to this Parliament, another breach of all of our collective privileges, but again we had to read the bill to find out whether in fact that was the case.
We carefully reviewed the contents of Bill C-7 following its introduction in the House. When I and other members of Parliament got to see the bill for the first time, others in the media had seen the bill in its entirety for hours before.
The details reported by The Canadian Press hours earlier were indeed contained in Bill C-7. Ironically, over and over, the first precedent that I had quoted earlier was from the last Parliament, brought to the Speaker's attention on April 14, 2016, and in regard to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying).
The department in question is being absolutely recidivist. It is not taking seriously the consequences and the rulings of Speakers. The Speaker in 2016 found that there was, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege regarding Bill C-14 and said:
As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.
The Speaker's concluding remarks in 2016 were as follows:
In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.
On October 4, 2010, on page 4711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken noted:
It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.
This all goes back to my point about the Department of Justice not taking seriously the rules of this House. The one department that ought to know best about the rules of this House is now a four-time offender, with breaches of privileges found by successive Speakers over the last several years, sometimes over the same bill subject matters. The House, and the rules of the House, are being completely ignored.
The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, after, and members are not going to believe this, the Department of Justice briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House.
Maybe, in this minority House, members can finally take this department and this Minister of Justice's office to account and to task for their continuous disrespect of the privileges and the rights of this place, and the rights of all Canadians who send us as members of Parliament to do good work on their behalf.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, there is one thing I have learned since being elected, and that is that what the left says never means what people might think it means.
When Liberals talk about unity, what they really mean is “My way or the highway.” When they talk about diversity, they never mean diversity of opinion. When they talk about truth and reconciliation, they have no intention of respecting elected band councils unless it is convenient. When they talk about consultation, what they really mean is, “Let me tell you what I think.” When they say “dying with dignity”, they only mean euthanasia.
Canadians look to this House for compassion, truth and leadership. In light of this week's debate on Bill C-7, let us ensure that when we say we are committed to quality palliative care, we truly mean what we say we mean.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-02-28 12:10 [p.1750]
Madam Speaker, in light of an apology from the member for Markham—Unionville with respect to the premature disclosure of his bill, I too, would like to apologize unreservedly for the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, medical assistance in dying.
I would like to state categorically that no one from the government was authorized to speak publicly on this bill prior to its introduction.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I appreciate the additional information. The comments from the parliamentary secretary will certainly be taken into consideration as we bring the decision before the House.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, we are debating a bill today that strips away safeguards from the existing regime for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Debate started yesterday, and I want to continue in the line I was talking about.
Yesterday, I spoke about some of the philosophical problems underlining the government's desire to remove safeguards. Those philosophical ideas are clearly best understood in the realities of life under legal euthanasia and assisted suicide, in the experience of people and families who have been affected by it and in the concerns of people who will be further impacted by the proposed expansion of the practice and removal of safeguards.
The fact is that the expectation at the time of the Carter decision was for a legal regime that would apply narrowly. However, we have seen the alarmingly rapid process of expansion at the level of policy and practice continuing with this legislation. Given that this bill comes ahead of a scheduled statutory review, it looks like the pace of expansion of removal of safeguards and enlarging eligibility will continue apace even after this. Rates of identified euthanasia and assisted suicide have gone up dramatically every year since legalization, from about a thousand in 2016 to over five times that in 2019. Those rate increases show no sign of abating.
More and more horror stories are coming out about how the current regime has already changed the dynamics of our health care system. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, so I know about the long-standing traumatic effects that stay with many survivors for the rest of their lives. One instance of euthanasia at the Louis Brier nursing home in Vancouver, a Jewish facility that has Holocaust survivors among its clientele, was particularly traumatic for residents and staff.
Doctor Ellen Wiebe met with Barry Hyman and his family in the spring of 2018 and determined that he met all the criteria. She later went to the nursing home and closed his door without informing or consulting with nursing home staff. Hyman was killed by Dr. Wiebe on the evening of June 29, without any consultation with his primary caregivers at the nursing home. Perhaps Dr. Wiebe had good intentions, but someone sneaking into a nursing home and then asking us to trust her own notes as evidence of consent raises serious concerns.
Dr. Keselman, CEO of the Louis Brier nursing home, agrees. He said:
Imagine the implications for our staff and our residents and their families. We have a lot of Holocaust survivors. To have a doctor sneak in and kill someone without telling anyone. They’re going to feel like they’re at risk when you learn someone was sneaking in and killing someone.
Clearly Dr. Wiebe, in this case, was pushing the envelope. I doubt most doctors would behave in such a fashion, but we do see from analyses that have taken place in other countries that a small number of activist, pro-euthanasia physicians are overrepresented in cases with problems. A majority of doctors are trying to do the right thing, but a lot of death can flow from the choices of a small number of envelope-pushers.
In a paper studying cases of euthanasia in Holland between 2012 and 2016, bioethicists David Miller and Scott Kim of the U.S. National Institutes of Health noted significant problems in the application of these laws for vulnerable people, if the screws were not tightened properly.
During that period, Miller and Kim found 33 cases in which doctors had broken at least one rule while killing someone, though apparently none of these justified prosecution. Miller and Kim specifically identified the overrepresentation of certain activist doctors in cases that raised red flags.
I spoke in the House in 2016 about another case in Canada, where a physician declared a depressed person eligible for euthanasia even before examining that person, because the patient “could easily get bed sores and then die of infection”. A person's death was, prior to examination, declared reasonably foreseeable because the person could theoretically die from an as-yet-uncontracted bedsore infection.
It is striking that we have these cases to look to at all in Canada, given the massive data collection gaps. There is no requirement for advance legal review to determine if criteria are being met. There are no national standards on tracking data. In fact, in many cases when a patient dies as a result of euthanasia, their death certificate will not even indicate that as the cause of death.
People who have had bad experiences cannot tell their stories in most cases. The data that the government refers to is severely constrained by these realities. We tried, during the debate on the last euthanasia bill, to push for mechanisms for better data collection and reporting to ensure evaluation and protection was possible, but at the time unfortunately the government did not listen.
Those who have had negative experiences and have lived are understandably reluctant to speak out. However, I want to share one story, with permission, of someone close to me who had a negative interaction with the system after this regime began. This is Taylor's story.
Taylor Hyatt is a twentysomething former member of my staff. She has cerebral palsy. She is vibrant, accomplished and full of life. She went to the hospital a couple of years ago with cold symptoms. She was told that she would probably need some oxygen and was asked if she wanted that. She replied, “Yes, of course”, but then the doctors pressed her on the point by asking if she was sure. Taylor was asked if she was sure she wanted oxygen. She just had pneumonia.
When we look at the government's proposal to further expand euthanasia and assisted suicide, and to expand eligibility criteria and remove the small number of safeguards that exist, we need to ask the same question: Is it sure?
As these cases illustrate, we have particular reason to be concerned about cases in which people receive euthanasia or assisted suicide immediately or alone. If multiple family members and health care staff can see, over a period of time, that a person is clear in the desire to have life end, then there is less risk of vulnerability or abuse.
Imagine a case, though, in which children visit their mother in hospital on a Monday. It seems like she is having a good day and she makes no mention of wanting to die. She is experiencing some pain, but the nurse says she has promising ideas about how to manage that pain. The nurse says she thinks she needs to adjust the levels of a few things that should settle the pain down, and she will work on that as soon as the doctor has a chance to see her. The children leave on Monday feeling reassured.
Then the children are informed on Wednesday that their mother is dead. They are told that when she met with the doctor, she was in extreme pain and expressed the desire to die, so she was killed right away. They did not get a chance to say goodbye and they do not know if the doctor got it right or wrong.
Perhaps their mother really wanted to die, but maybe she was just experiencing a temporary low point from which she would have recovered. Her children will never know the details or the situation. Because of the absence of witnesses and legal review, there is very little evidence left behind. If their mother really wanted to die, she could, but would it be so unreasonable for the doctor to have given it a few days for the children to have been able to talk to her about her wishes?
This particular case is exactly where we should focus our concerns as we look at this legislation. The current legal system requires at least two independent witnesses who are not paid personnel, and there is a 10-day reflection period. I would underline, as members have said and as the government has generally failed to acknowledge, that there is already a mechanism by which the 10-day reflection period can be waived.
However, the 10-day period sets out a rule of general practice that is open to variation. It establishes the general and important principle that people should not have their lives taken as a result of a fleeting sense of hopelessness or because their medication levels are off for a period of time.
It makes no sense, as the government is proposing to do, to reduce the number of witnesses and remove the reflection period when there are already provisions for waiving it and managing that effectively in different situations.
Other members may have had these same experiences. I can tell them I had a close friend dealing with depression a few years ago and his state of mind would fluctuate dramatically from day to day. On certain days, he could not imagine going on, while on other days he would feel, in his words, like himself again.
Recognizing the realities of fluctuations and the development of people's experiences, it is horrifying to me that someone could opt for, and receive, euthanasia or assisted suicide within a few hours without independent witnesses or any reflection period. Therefore, the government must remove the clauses of this bill that reduce witnesses and eliminate that reflection period.
The government has included a clause in this bill dealing with so-called advance consent. The mechanism is that I, as a patient meeting the criteria, might ask to die on June 1, even if I had lost capacity. My consent right now would suffice for the taking of my life on June 1. However, the legislation contains no requirement that I be asked how I feel on June 1.
Suppose that I am facing a loss of capacity and I am afraid of the implications of that loss of capacity, not knowing what it would be like to mentally regress in the way that doctors have predicted that I will. Suppose that, in light of this fear, I sign on to advance consent but then, on June 1, while I have indeed lost substantial capacity, I actually have a much higher quality of life than I expected to have.
Should the advance consent that I have provided, in ignorance of my future circumstances, overrule my feelings in that moment? This is not just idle speculation.
Let me read from an article in The Washington Post about a Dutch case involving an advance directive. It states:
The patient, referred to in official documents only as “2016-85”, had made an advance directive requesting euthanasia in case of dementia. But the directive was ambiguously worded, and she was no longer able to clarify her wishes by the time she was placed in a nursing home—though her husband did request euthanasia for her.
Despite the lack of a clear expression from the patient, a physician concluded her suffering was unbearable and incurable—though there was no terminal physical illness—and prepared a lethal injection.
To ensure the patient's compliance, the doctor gave her coffee spiked with a sedative, and, when the woman still recoiled from the needle, asked family members to hold her down. After 15 minutes were spent by the doctor trying to find a vein, the lethal infusion flowed.
The government has tried in this legislation to avoid this most extreme case by saying that advance consent would only apply to a particular date and that the procedure should not proceed if the patient was clearly refusing euthanasia. Unfortunately, the space left for abuse is still massive.
In the case just given, suppose the patient was given stronger sedatives so she was completely unaware of what was happening, and therefore offered no resistance. That would be allowed under the framework established by this legislation. It does not require that patients be informed or consulted at the time of their death. If they have provided advance consent, that is considered sufficient.
In virtually every case, the requirement for contemporaneous consent is important in our law and is a necessary part of autonomy. If I am to be truly free, then I must be free from the directives of my past self. My past self should not irrevocably be able to bind my future actions.
Even so, it may be possible to still allow advance consent, but to have some mechanism through an amendment to ensure that a patient, even with limited capacity, is informed and consulted at the time when his or her life is to be taken. I would encourage the government to consider that.
The government should be open to considering these problems and these fixes, taking out sections of the bill that dangerously remove safeguards and strengthening the section on advance consent to ensure a patient is informed and consulted contemporaneously.
Finally, on the point of safeguards, let us go back and reflect on what the purposes of safeguards are.
Some members will feel that meaningful safeguards are not necessary because we should trust medical professionals and patients to get it right. The parliamentary secretary has used general data about trends in this area to suggest that there are no problems with abuse.
Let us be very clear that the reason we have safeguards is not to deal with general cases, but is precisely to deal with exceptional cases. Even if there are not problems in the vast majority of cases, we try to introduce reasonable verification mechanisms, because those verification mechanisms will catch instances of abuse and cases where vulnerable people might be pushed toward a death they do not want.
The reason we need law enforcement is not because most people are lawbreakers, but because some people are lawbreakers. The reason we have fire departments and expansive rules and protocols around fire prevention is not because most houses are on fire, but it is because some houses could catch fire.
I hope we will see through this debate that the safeguards in the current legal region really are a minimum and that we can provide reasonable safeguards like a short reflection period that can be waived and a requirement for independent witnesses which, like sprinkler systems in this room and security guards watching over us, insulate us against the possibility of something going very wrong.
For the sake of the vulnerable, let us not fire the security and rip the sprinklers out of our system just to make an ideological point.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-02-27 10:38 [p.1652]
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out four matters and lower the tone a bit. We need to talk about facts as opposed to emotional arguments.
My first point is to clarify that depressed individuals are not subject to this regime. We have specifically included a carve out for mental illness as a sole condition.
My second point is that the data collection the member seeks is being beefed up by this very bill.
My third point is that hyperbole has entered into this debate about people being “killed right away”. The notion of having a written consent witnessed by an independent witness and then the eligibility being verified by two independent practitioners, and that occurring in a matter of minutes or hours, is categorically false. That is not the way the system currently operates.
My fourth point is that it is an absolute red herring to raise a case based in Holland, which as has advance directives for ailments such as dementia. We do not have dementia within the penumbra of ailments subject to this regime. We are also not proposing advance directives; we are proposing advance consent.
The member has raised, in some instances, concerns about what he perceives to be patients who are suffering or doctors who are acting aggressively. Those are important cases. If the member has cases, he should have those cases brought to the attention of either disciplinary bodies, regulated physicians or to law enforcement, because those should be enforced.
In fact, what we have is evidence to the contrary, that doctors are not practising this overly aggressively. In fact, there is a small pool of doctors that—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the last legislation included a good faith exception, that a doctor who did not follow all the rules, but still acted in “good faith” would escape prosecution. Cases have been referred to disciplinary bodies, but there is a limited capacity to actually prosecute people who are, in the case, described as going into a nursing home and taking someone's life, without any consultation with the surrounding staff. These cases raise significant concern.
The member says that we should lower the tone and avoid hyperbole and then criticizes me for bringing up specific cases in Canada and in other countries that have similar legal regimes. The government should look at these cases and consider them before moving forward.
It is right to bring up the Dutch case, and I acknowledge the differences in the proposed regime in Canada from the Dutch regime. However, I pointed out very specifically that there was no requirement in the existing legislation for the person to be asked in the moment. I would beg the government to introduce that additional requirement for some contemporaneous consultation with the patients. After all, what does it have to lose? There very much is the possibility of someone being killed right away under the proposed legislation.
If the parliamentary secretary is so opposed to that characterization of the legislation, then why not leave in some waiting period? If he says that because of all the administrative requirements, inevitably there would be some delay, then leave the waiting period to consider—
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
View Louise Chabot Profile
2020-02-27 10:41 [p.1653]
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's remarks.
I have some important questions for him. I felt like his remarks were unrelated to the bill before us.
In my former life, I was a nurse. As I listened to the member, I got the sense that his stories were designed to appeal to our emotions. They seemed to suggest that health professionals are malicious rather than benevolent, but that is not true. I heard the member talk about doctors sneaking into care facilities to kill people. That seems a bit far-fetched to me. If something that terrible really happened, I hope my colleagues brought it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
That is not at all what this bill sets out to do. The bill was improved thanks to two people who went to court. We are looking at how we can broaden the scope of the bill to include people who are suffering but are not necessarily at the end of their lives.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, simply put, the record will show that the member's characterization of my remarks is not at all accurate.
Let me just re-emphasize a point that I made. The very purpose of safeguards is to deal with the exceptional case. I agree that the vast majority of health care practitioners are not only well-intentioned, but also are not trying to push the envelope in any way. However, the data I cited suggests that in other jurisdictions we have seen how a relatively large number of problematic cases can emerge from the actions of perhaps also well-intentioned but definitely envelope-pushing physicians, who go beyond the intention of the legislature with respect to this bill.
The parliamentary secretary had some points that I wanted to get back to very quickly.
It is true that the legislation excludes depression as a sole condition, but it does not exclude people who suffer from depression from accessing it. In a previous Parliament, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton tried to introduce an amendment, whereby if someone was suffering from depression as well as other conditions, there would at least be a psychiatric assessment—
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I need some clarification from my colleague. He finished his speech by talking about final consent. The act currently requires final consent at the time people are assessed and then they have to give final consent when that order proceeds. This has forced patients to make a cruel choice.
Once patients are assessed as being eligible for medical assistance in dying, they have to decide if they should do it right away, while they have the competence and can give an answer, or if they set a date in the future to allow themselves and their families to do all the things they want to do, but then risk that they are not competent and cannot answer and the procedure would not go ahead. I have a friend having to make that cruel decision.
Therefore, could the member clarify his statement about fixing advance consent?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I have two points in response.
In the context of advance consent, it is important to note that people do not know precisely what their experience will be. They may get a prognosis and think they will feel a certain way about things at that point in time. It is important to underline that the reason we generally do not have advance consent is because people do not always know what their experience of that will be.
Nonetheless, I want to be very clear. What I would propose as a middle way between having no advance consent and the advance consent regime proposed in the legislation is to allow people to give advance consent, but to still require, even at the point at which they may have lost capacity, some contemporaneous consultation with them, so even at a point of reduced capacity they are told what is happening and will be given the opportunity to assent or not. Even at the point at which they have lost capacity, it is still fair to them to give them some information about what is happening in order to give them the ability to express their objection, if they are able to in the context of limited capacity.
Results: 1 - 15 of 250 | Page: 1 of 17

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

For more data options, please see Open Data