Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 11 of 11
View Larry Maguire Profile
CPC (MB)
View Larry Maguire Profile
2022-06-09 12:32 [p.6413]
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today to Bill C-5.
In the same month the Liberal government introduces legislation that specifically targets law-abiding firearms owners, the House is now debating a bill that eliminates mandatory minimums for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, willfully importing or exporting illegal firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences, possession of an illegal firearm and possession of a firearm obtained illegally.
As people say, we cannot make this up. No one in my constituency has called me to tell me they want mandatory minimums repealed for these serious crimes. People are furious, and rightly so.
As Sergeant Michael Rowe of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said at the justice committee, “The police in Canada support the primary objectives of mandatory minimum penalties to ensure consistency in sentencing, to protect the public and to discourage others from engaging in similar conduct.” He also mentioned that these mandatory minimums “hold significant value when addressing public safety and gang-related violence: the use of a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence”.
The government is not even listening to the recent report published by the public safety committee right here in Parliament. Recommendation 11 states:
That the Government of Canada recognize that serious crimes involving firearms and drug trafficking should bear serious penalties given the threat to public safety, and that violent offenders should be kept off our streets to protect the public, while a public health response should be adopted to deal with people suffering from substance abuse.
I have always believed that serious violent offences that are committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison time. It is astonishing that the Liberals want to weaken the punishment of these crimes in Canada. I also have grave concerns with the Liberals' proposal to allow criminals to serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including those involving sexual assault, human trafficking and kidnapping.
This bill is soft on crime and puts communities and victims at risk. The sad irony of the Liberals' plan to make our streets safer is, in fact, going after trained Canadian firearms owners, while at the same time reducing penalties for those who commit violent gun crimes and sell hard drugs. Bill C-5 is sending the wrong message to criminals and organized crime.
I doubt any of these criminals are watching CPAC at this very moment, but I can assure members that law-abiding firearms owners are watching. The government is insulting hundreds of thousands of law-abiding firearms owners, who are being blamed for the government's lack of action to tackle gun smuggling and organized crime.
Gun violence has gone up significantly over the past seven years of the Liberal government. That is a fact. It is also a fact that most guns used in violent crime are smuggled in from the United States. According to CBSA's departmental results report, almost 20,000 illegal firearms and prohibited weapons were confiscated before coming into Canada. Those are just the ones that were confiscated, and just the illegal ones we know about. No one knows how many slipped through the cracks and were used in a violent crime. Gun smugglers and gun traffickers are directly responsible for the murder of too many innocent Canadians.
As the president of the National Police Federation said at the justice committee, “Bill C-5 strikes down some mandatory minimum penalties related to weapons trafficking and firearms offences. This is inconsistent with the expressed intent of the government to reduce firearms violence in Canada.” He went on to say that if the Liberals are going to repeal these mandatory minimums, they must provide “additional deterrence measures to address criminal activity, such as providing more resources to stop the import of illegal drugs and firearms at the border.”
Through Bill C-5, the Liberals are proposing to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for the very crimes that are putting illegal firearms on our streets in the first place. Tell me how the Liberals can justify placing heavy restrictions on law-abiding citizens while removing them for violent criminals on the streets. The short answer is they cannot. Let us not forget that last year, the same Liberals voted down a Conservative bill that proposed making the punishment harsher for criminals using smuggled guns.
I received an email from John Schneiderbanger the other day, who asked me to share his comments in the House of Commons. Before any of my Liberal colleagues start smearing John as some sort of firearm lobbyist, let me tell his story.
John proudly served in the Canadian Armed Forces and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He was posted to CFB Shilo, which I am honoured to say is in my constituency, where he served as base commander. He is a firearms expert and has decades of experience and a wealth of knowledge of which we should take heed.
While Bill C-5 repeals mandatory minimums for actual criminals, the Liberals are going after sport shooters in his case. If the Liberals get their way, they will be impacting legitimate shooting sports such as Cowboy Shooting Action, International Practical Shooting Confederation, 3-Gun, IDPA and Cowboy Mounted Shooting.
Many of these competitors participate in high levels of competition, some of them around the world, and there are governing bodies at the provincial, national and world levels. They are legitimate and organized sports that are recognized around the world and would no longer exist in Canada due to the Liberal government's inability to focus on correct root causes of violent crime committed by criminals with illegal guns.
As John said, these shooting sports will wither away quickly as the current membership becomes older and leave the sport, as other sport shooters cannot replace the competition handguns over time. No new members will be able to join these activities, as there will be no legal handguns available to acquire.
If the Liberals will not take my advice, they will at least listen to one of Canada's finest, Mr. Schneiderbanger, who also knows the Firearms Act inside and out.
Along with eliminating sentences for gun crimes, this Liberal bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for serious drug-related offences. These include sentences for drug trafficking as well as importing, exporting and producing drugs such as heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth.
Canada is in the midst of an opioid crisis. We all know that. In 2020, the opioid crisis claimed the lives of 6,306 people. That is the equivalent of 17 opioid deaths per day. The volume of police calls related to suspected overdoses has also been increasing. As of right now, police services across the country are dealing with an average of 687 calls per month of suspected overdoses. One would think the Liberals would have proposed some solutions in the latest budget to help, but they did not offer a single new dollar to assist police services with this increased demand.
It gets worse. The Liberal platform promised $250 million in 2021-22 and $625 million in 2022-23 for a Canadian mental health transfer, but none of those dollars have materialized. While provinces and municipalities are in dire need of help, once again they were promised action but given platitudes. My Conservative colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has repeatedly asked why the Liberals did not keep this promise, and all he has heard back is useless talking points.
I know my Liberal colleagues care about this issue; I just do not know why they are not holding their own government's feet to the fire. Why are they letting the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance get away with this broken promise and then voting in favour of Bill C-5, which is going to lessen the penalties for the gangs and organized crime that are peddling the opioids?
I want my Liberal colleagues to know how bad drug-related offences are under their watch. Cocaine trafficking is up 24% since 2016. Trafficking of drugs other than cocaine and cannabis is up 73% since 2016.
Contrary to Liberal talking points, Bill C-5 is not about reducing mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession. In fact, mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist.
In closing, I want to say that it is unfortunate that the Liberals on the committee used their majority and turned the report into an one-page report that was void of any substance—
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, this past December, the Liberal government revived Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The government has claimed that the purpose of this act is to root out systemic racism in the criminal justice system and address the root causes of substance abuse in light of the worsening opioid crisis. Conservatives have another view. We have outlined the dangers in the government's Bill C-5 with regard to violent criminals, lessening sentences for gun crimes and the removal of mandatory minimum penalties, among other concerns.
The Liberals are eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. They are doing this because they feel these laws are unfair. They are more interested in standing up for criminals than defending our communities. Tell that to the families of victims in my own riding of South Surrey—White Rock. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia and as a mother, I know illegal drugs are a scourge in our society.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal too many mandatory minimum penalties, allowing for a greater use of conditional sentences and establishing diversion measures for simple and first-time drug offences that are already in place. B.C. already has drug courts.
Mandatory minimum sentences are not used for simple possession now; they do not exist. Despite what the Liberal government has said about Bill C-5, the Supreme Court did not declare all mandatory minimums unconstitutional. The courts have struck down some, but these punishments have been on the books for decades. In fact, a majority of the mandatory minimums were introduced under previous Liberal governments. For example, the mandatory minimum penalty repeal for using firearms in the commission of an offence dates back to the Liberal government of 1976.
While the government claims to be undoing the work of the former Conservative government, it would truly be undoing the work of many former Liberal governments as well. This Liberal government is maintaining many of the mandatory minimums were introduced or strengthened by the former Conservative government.
In Bill C-5, the government is eliminating six mandatory minimums under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that target drug dealers: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance schedule I or II, like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth. The government is claiming this is solely to help those who struggle with addictions, but instead, the government is removing the mandatory minimums for those criminals who prey on those with addictions.
Imagine what parents go through when their child is addicted to fentanyl. It is so addictive that it is only a matter of time before the person overdoses. With carfentanil, young people take it once; their first hit is their last, and their heart stops before they hit the floor.
The bill allows for greater use of conditional sentence orders, such as house arrest, for a number of offences where the offender faces a term of less than two years' imprisonment. The offences now eligible include trafficking in, or exporting or importing schedule III drugs. That includes mescaline, LSD and others.
What exactly is being done right now by the government to crack down on the drug trade? Why is the government not tackling the massive issue of supply in Canada?
According to Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, which has strategically allocated resources to investigate organized crime groups with a higher threat level, there are over 1,800 OCGs in Canada. Larger OCGs do not generally restrict themselves to one illicit substance and are importing an array of illicit substances.
Around 75% of OCGs analyzed by Criminal Intelligence Service Canada are involved in cocaine trafficking. The legalization of cannabis has done little to disrupt or displace OCGs due to the fact that 97% of them involved with importing cannabis are also involved in multi-commodity trafficking.
It was noted that organized crime in Canada has grown due to an increase in criminal entrepreneurs who have harnessed the anonymity of the Internet to perpetrate crime. In addition, the dark web has given rise to an increasing number of criminals who are operating independently to implicate themselves in the fentanyl market and rapidly growing meth market due to the relative ease of obtaining precursor chemicals used in their production and synthesis.
In addition to OCGs, there have been increasing threats observed from outlaw motorcycle gangs. For instance, the Hells Angels is an outlaw motorcycle gang with global ties to other active OCGs in Canada.
The organization has expanded across the country, and 50% of organized crime can be attributed to its operations. Hells Angels has increased the number of its support clubs from 40 to 120. This expansion has resulted in approximately double the amount of criminal activity. Hells Angels uses that coordination to ship fentanyl and methamphetamine together, contributing to the trend of polydrug trafficking.
Their operations vary in terms of sophistication but pose a threat to public safety nonetheless. Violence surrounding OCGs is increasing and is commensurate with the increase in firearms-related crime in Canada, the expansion of illicit handguns westward from Ontario and the escalating use of social media to facilitate the illicit drug trade. It was noted that many key players from the largest OCGs have been killed in the past 18 months, both domestically and while brokering drug deals abroad.
With respect to importation of illicit substances in Canada, existing OCGs with networks and smuggling routes for cocaine and heroin from Mexico are shifting focus. There has been a large increase in fentanyl and methamphetamine smuggling from Mexico. Favouring profitability, OCGs are moving away from heroin and toward fentanyl. As meth becomes less expensive to produce, its street value is declining, leading to increased demand for meth, as people who use drugs shift away from more expensive drugs to meth. Notably, Canada has been identified as a global transshipment country for fentanyl. Currently, there is a five-to-one import-export ratio, with 300 different OCGs involved in importation.
The government has this woke view of criminal justice, that if people are kept out of prison, they will reform and all will be okay. I think drug dealers need to be in prison, not on house arrest where they can continue to ruin children’s lives and families' lives and devastate communities. Those most vulnerable in our society must be protected. I believe that is not in question.
In my home province, according to preliminary data released by the B.C. coroners service, the toxic illicit drug supply claimed the lives of at least 2,224 British Columbians in 2021. Lisa Lapointe, the chief coroner, stated, “Over the past seven years, our province has experienced a devastating loss of life due to a toxic illicit drug supply. This public health emergency has impacted families and communities across the province and shows no sign of abating.” In 2021 alone, more than 2,200 families experienced the devastating loss of a loved one.
In the past seven years, the rate of death due to illicit drug toxicity in our province has risen more than 400%. Drug toxicity is now second only to cancer in B.C. for potential years of life lost. Fentanyl was detected in 83% of samples tested in 2021. Carfentanil was present in 187 results, almost triple the number recorded in 2020. Illicit drug poisoning is now the leading cause of death among B.C. people aged 19 to 39, people in the prime of their lives. For men, the toxic drug crisis has been so severe that overall life expectancy at birth for males has declined in recent years in B.C.
The townships that experienced the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths in 2021 were Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria. For me, representing and living in South Surrey—White Rock, these are not just statistics. We live it every day in B.C.
I feel for those families that have lost loved ones to drugs. For that reason, I cannot support this government bill. Members can characterize me as they will, but six lives will be lost in British Columbia to drug overdose today, and I do not think Bill C-5 does a thing to deter drug dealers from killing my constituents. It makes their lives easier while they destroy those around them.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 431—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to Canada’s involvement in the development of regulations, standards and guidelines that would enable mining in the international seabed: (a) what actions is the government taking to promote good governance, environmental stewardship and the precautionary approach; (b) why has Canada not provided written comments at six of the last 10 submission opportunities since 2015; and (c) what is the government doing to ensure that Canada is an engaged member of the International Seabed Authority?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to part (a) of the question, Canada is actively engaged internationally to advance marine conservation. This includes ensuring that the regulations for seabed mineral mining under development at the International Seabed Authority, ISA, provide effective protection of the marine environment. As a member of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, also known as the Ocean Panel, and in alignment with the recommendations from the Ocean Panel’s “Transformations for a Sustainable Ocean Economy” document, Canada advocates for regulations that provide effective protection of marine environments by applying the precautionary approach, the ecosystem approach and the use of best available science. This includes working toward the Ocean Panel’s 2030 outcome of sufficient knowledge and regulations being in place to ensure that any activity related to seabed mining is informed by science and ecologically sustainable.
Canada has also made proposals at the International Seabed Authority to increase transparency and access to information for all stakeholders. Further, Canada is engaging in the UN’s Ocean Decade 2021-2030, which is advancing transformative ocean science to support sustainable ocean policy.
In response to part (b) of the question, over the last three years Canada has increased its participation in the meetings and work of the ISA and has also supported the participation of scientists in ISA regional environmental management plan workshops to help ensure that they include sufficient scientific knowledge. Canada submitted comments in writing at various stages of the elaboration of regulations, standards and guidelines, including most recently at the 27th session of the ISA Council in March 2022. Canada continues to provide comments in advance of the next part of the ISA Council session, in July 2022, at which it will engage actively.
In response to part (c) of the question, Canada has increased its participation at the ISA sessions and has expanded the number of people working internally on the issue across Global Affairs Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Natural Resources Canada in advance of a very busy year of negotiations on the regulations for seabed mineral mining. The Government of Canada stands committed to working on the draft regulations with all stakeholders in Canada, and has been in close contact with non-governmental organizations to seek their expertise and guidance. Canada continues to provide comments on all aspects of the regulations and will be participating at upcoming ISA sessions to negotiate the text of the draft regulations and standards and guidelines.
Canada has been a member of the council, which is the executive organ of the International Seabed Authority, since 2005, and currently sits as vice-president of the council for the group of Western and other states (WEOG). Canada also holds the vice-presidency of the finance committee. In addition to its direct involvement at the ISA sessions, Canada continues to contribute between sessions through the support of workshops and scientific exchanges.

Question No. 433—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada’s report “Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD): A framework for action”, broken down by fiscal year since 2014-15: (a) what measures has the government taken to (i) develop national guidelines for screening and diagnosing FASD, (ii) expand scientific and social knowledge relevant to the prevention of FASD, (iii) build the evidence base and establish mechanisms for knowledge exchange across sectors and communities, (iv) increase awareness of FASD among professionals; (b) how much funding has been directed towards achieving these objectives; and (c) what results has the government achieved from the actions taken in (a)?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has supported efforts across the country to guide action on fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. Through the FASD initiative, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, undertakes three main activities: leadership, coordination and collaboration; development of the evidence base; and facilitation of knowledge exchange. The FASD national strategic projects fund, the NSPF, supports national, time-limited projects to support these activities. Since 2014-15, the federal government has allocated $1.5 million annually, for a total of $12 million over the past eight years.
The Government of Canada has funded projects through the NSPF to support the development of Canadian FASD diagnostic guidelines across the lifespan and of a national screening toolkit for individuals with FASD, as well as training programs for parents and caregivers, frontline service providers and health care professionals. The NSPF has also supported projects working to expand the scientific and social knowledge relevant to health promotion and prevention of FASD by funding studies on prevalence and the development of a FASD database to collect information on FASD diagnoses in Canada. The NSPF is currently supporting projects that promote education and awareness; harm reduction approaches for those at high risk of having a child prenatally exposed to alcohol and other substances; and research into the social determinants of health that impact alcohol consumption and FASD. Through the Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, PHAC is also piloting system models for FASD prevalence estimation, with a view to identifying proper surveillance approaches for FASD.
The results of these efforts include funding projects that have supported the prevention of FASD and the reduction of stigma associated with FASD. Projects funded through the NSPF reached an audience of individuals who are pregnant or may become pregnant, individuals with FASD, service providers and policy-makers.
In 2020-21, project activities included dissemination of and training on the 2016 FASD diagnostic guidelines; the continued development of a national database of FASD diagnostic data collected from clinics across Canada; the development of guidelines for practitioners to use in screening and talking to people who are pregnant or might become pregnant about alcohol use during pregnancy; the collection of longitudinal data on participant outcomes from the eight level 3 FASD holistic prevention programs across Canada; community outreach to support the development of a toolkit; modification, cultural adaptation, and translation of a school-based FASD education and prevention curriculum to be taught in Canada; the promotion of FASD prevention in Inuit communities, four land claim regions and three urban centres: Ottawa, Edmonton and Montreal; and a bilingual awareness campaign to prevent alcohol consumption during pregnancy and to address stigma associated with FASD.

Question No. 436—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to RCMP actions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, broken down by province, territory, and year since 2015: (a) excluding offenses related to cannabis, how many arrests were made for (i) possession, (ii) trafficking, (iii) possession for the purpose of trafficking, (iv) smuggling, (v) possession for the purpose of distribution, (vi) production; and (b) how many charges were laid in relation to the arrests mentioned in (a)(i) to (vi)?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP databases do not capture the number of people “arrested” but rather the charges laid. That said, the information is manually entered by police officers into our systems using a free-text field, resulting in wording discrepancies, including the omission of drug/substance-related charges and/or the use of alternate wording, for example, the use of “distribution” rather than “trafficking”. In order to respond to this question, an extensive manual search of all RCMP databases would have to be conducted, which could not be completed within the established timelines.

Question No. 438—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the reference to a "friendly foreign state" in the Foreign Enlistment Act: (a) how does the government define this term; (b) how is a citizen to know whether or not a particular state is a friendly foreign state; (c) which states are currently considered friendly foreign states; and (d) based on the answer to (c), what is the government’s rationale for determining whether (i) Russia, (ii) Ukraine, (iii) China, (iv) Azerbaijan, (v) Armenia, (vi) Israel, (vii) Saudi Arabia, (viii) Iran, (ix) the United States of America, are considered a friendly foreign state?
Response
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the Foreign Enlistment Act defines “foreign state” as including “any foreign prince, colony, province or part of any province or people, or any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province or part of any province or people.” The term “friendly foreign state” is not defined in the statute. It would be for the courts to determine, based on the evidence and arguments presented, whether a specific country is a “friendly foreign state”.
Concerning part (b) of the question, the act does not require Canada to declare whether any country is a friendly foreign state.
In response to part (c) of the question, to date, the Government of Canada has not declared any country to be a “friendly foreign state” in connection with this statute.
Regarding part (d) of the question, as a result of no declarations having been made, there is no rationale to be provided on why a country is or is not declared to be a friendly foreign state.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-210. This is a difficult bill to debate because it is a responsibility of citizenship and that is the fundamental question before us. What is a citizen? What are their duties and responsibilities? Often times, people talk about what rights they have as a citizen. They rarely address the responsibilities of a citizen.
I, like many Canadians, did not have the benefit of having been born in this country and, therefore, gifted with citizenship. I have taken an oath of citizenship to gain it and to have and enjoy all the freedoms and rights that every single citizen of Canada enjoys. However, with this comes the responsibility to vote. Our civic duty goes beyond just voting. There is much more to being a good citizen than simply voting, forgetting about it between elections, and moving on. This is where a lot of people should and could get involved.
I have concerns with the way this legislation is drafted. I have concerns also with some of the arguments I have heard here and online from advocates and academics who are pushing the idea of reducing the age of voting from 18 to 16. I want to show that I have done my homework on this and that I am approaching this thoughtfully.
The election reform committee report in late 2016 did not recommend reducing the age of voting from 18 to 16. The minority dissenting report filed with the House of Commons by the Liberal Party, the Liberal government caucus members, only asked that 18-year-olds be registered. The minority report that was filed jointly by the New Democrats and the Green Party asked that future referendums on electoral reform allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, which I guess is an idea they got from the Scottish experience.
Prince Edward Island's legislature actually considered reducing the age of voting in its provincial elections to 16 just last year, and that was voted down at the provincial legislative level.
The voting age restriction in Canada has actually been charter tested before, not at the Supreme Court of Canada level, at least not that I am aware of, but in Fitzgerald v. Alberta. It was tested in that court and the judge found that, while it was a violation of the right, he could, under section 1 of the charter, find reasonable grounds for it and explained the reasoning therein.
One of the examples I have heard was the Austrian experience. In the last federal election in Austria, the voter turnout was about 75%. If we go back 40, 50 and 60 years, voter turnout was over 90% in Austria, and that has actually been the experience until very recently, when voter turnout started to dip. It is true that before the 2019 federal Austrian election, Austria did have a voter turnout that was higher. It has gone down, so I do not think that is a good example to use, this unique situation of reducing the voting age to 16 being the cause of voter turnout going up, because it has gone down since then. Looking at it historically, it is lower than it was 40, 50 and 60 years ago.
The issue of 14- to 17-year-olds voting in partisan leadership elections in political parties has been raised. I have seen this repeatedly, so I want to address it. Typically, people have to pay to join a political party in Canada to be eligible to vote in a leadership race. They do not pay to become a citizen. Let us very much hope that people do not engineer a situation where they are essentially paying for the rights and benefits of a citizen of Canada. It was definitely not the situation in my case. That is a fundamental difference between becoming a member of a political party, and paying to vote at the age 14, and being a citizen of Canada, which comes with responsibilities and duties. I will lay claim that these duties are a lifetime of responsibilities to our democracy, our Parliament and our monarch, which every citizen of Canada bears the responsibility to protect.
I have heard the argument that it would improve voter turnout as well. I have a concern here with how the argument is being framed. It is just basic mathematics. The potential could be a million or a million and a half new voters being added onto the voter rolls. I will go into a bit more about these voter rolls and the actual Elections Canada campaigning. Unless every single 16- and 17-year-old were to vote thereafter in a federal election, effectively, voter turnout would go down if only half, or even 75%, of them voted. Everything else would be exactly the same, but because the pool would be increased and all the new additions would not all vote, the voter turnout would actually decrease. There might be a high level of enthusiasm for their first election, but it would still effectively decrease the overall voter turnout. That is just a word of caution.
I spoke about the responsibilities of citizenship. One of them is serving in our military. Some choose to take up the responsibility by wearing the uniform of our armed forces and serving Canada. People cannot join the regular armed forces at the age of 16. They can only join the primary reserves with parental consent if they can prove that they are a full-time student. They can join at age 17 with just parental consent, and at the age of 18 they can fully join any of the regular armed forces units and go through basic training in the army, navy or air force.
The age for alcohol consumption and purchase in Canada is 19 in most provinces, 18 in Quebec, 18 in Manitoba and 18 in Alberta. The age for cannabis consumption and purchase is 19 in all provinces except Alberta, where it is 18, and Quebec, where it is 21. The age to obtain a driver's licence is 16, but we get full driving rights at 19 in about half the provinces. Four provinces use 18 and two provinces use a graduated system.
We place limits on young citizens and those who are 16 and 17 in what I would call the basics of becoming a full citizen. They get all rights and benefits as they come of age and are able to take on all these extra responsibilities.
The issue is not maturity. I have met incredibly mature young people who are 16 or who are 12. In fact, I trust my 11-year-old daughter much more with my car keys to grab something out of my car and pick something up than my 13-year-old son. My 11-year-old daughter is far more mature and ready to take on way more responsibilities than my 13-year-old, who still loves to play video games, especially Minecraft, which is still a big one in the household.
Age is not a good indicator of maturity. I have met 40-year-olds and 30-year-olds who are so deeply immature that I question their ability to give a rational vote at the ballot box. However, they are allowed to; they can vote. That is the great thing about Canada. People can cast a vote for any reason once they reach that age, whether it is for a political party, for the leadership or for a single issue they care about. If it is something that strikes them as a good idea, they can do that.
I talked about some of my deep concerns with the voter rolls. Let us say the voter rolls were reduced to allow 16- and 17-year-olds. Once they make it onto the voter rolls, their contact information would be shared with political parties by Elections Canada. It would thereafter be shared with MP offices, which would then directly communicate with these new voters. We should be able to communicate with voters.
Then I wonder about a basic question on access to high schools. Should members of Parliament and candidates choosing to run for public office ensure that we have equal access to high schools to campaign there? Is that something we want? Is that a place where we want to be able to campaign? How would that work? It is the interaction between federal government legislation and practice and local rules at the high school and school district levels. That is a concern I have. It is not clear to me how this would work.
There are municipalities and cities that have considered allowing voting as early as the age of 16. I do not think that is a terribly bad idea, and it is interesting. Voting at a younger age gives an opportunity for people to practise a habit. I have heard this said, and it has been mentioned in this debate as well.
I have saved my Yiddish proverb for last. I know many members await it. “A quiet fool is half a sage.” Hopefully by rising to speak on this, I have not made a fool out of myself. I propose some caution, perhaps, as we proceed through debate and to a vote on this piece of legislation and the idea behind it. I do not believe this is something we should rush into. There are very good areas that we could debate, but things need to be more finely considered here.
Again, I hope the sage matters that I have brought to the House, including the consideration from Prince Edward Island's legislature, which voted this down in 2021, the full responsibilities of citizenship and the limits we place currently, are considered as we decide whether to lower the voting age from 18 to 16.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 357—
Ms. Louise Chabot:
With regard to the Cannabis Act: (a) what are the details of the consultations that Health Canada conducted on the production of cannabis for medical purposes, including the (i) guidelines, (ii) results and analyses, (iii) briefing notes; and (b) what are the details of the review of the Cannabis Act, including the (i) findings of the statutory review by the minister responsible that was to be conducted no later than October 17, 2021, (ii) briefing notes?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), from March 8 to May 7, 2021, Health Canada consulted Canadians on a draft guidance document on factors the department may consider when using the authorities provided by the cannabis regulations to refuse, renew, amend or revoke a registration for personal and designated production of cannabis for medical purposes.
The consultation has since concluded. Health Canada received 677 responses to the consultation through an online questionnaire or email. The department is analyzing the feedback and is currently preparing a report that summarizes the consultation comments and a final version of the guidance document, both of which will be published on the Health Canada website.
Section 151.1 of the Cannabis Act requires that the minister of health cause a review of the act and its administration and operation three years after coming into force (i.e., after October 17, 2021), and that a report, including any findings or recommendations resulting from the review, be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 18 months.
In response to (b)(i), as set out in the legislation, the legislative review must study the impact of the act on public health. In particular, it must look at the impact on the health and consumption habits of young persons with respect to cannabis use, the impact of cannabis on indigenous persons and communities, and the impact of the cultivation of cannabis plants in a dwelling-house.
The government is committed to putting into place a credible, evidence-driven process for the legislative review, which will assess the progress made towards achieving the objectives of the act. Preparations are under way for the launch of the review.
In response to (b)(ii), briefing note 21-111407-100 M2M, “Preparations for the Cannabis Act Legislative Review”, can be consulted for further detail.

Question No. 361—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the freezing of bank accounts in relation to the Emergency Economic Measures Order SOR/2022-22: (a) what specific criteria were used to determine whose bank accounts were frozen; (b) were any measures in place to ensure that family members and relatives of individuals involved in the protest did not have their accounts frozen just because of who their spouse or family members are, and, if so, what are the details of these measures; and (c) what specific measures are in place to ensure that individuals who financially supported the protests before the government declared the protests to be illegal do not have their bank accounts frozen for supporting a legal protest?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), financial service providers were responsible for implementing the measures contained in the emergency economic measures order, including ceasing to provide financial services to persons who were directly or indirectly engaged in activities that were prohibited by the emergency measures regulations.
Neither the order nor the regulations required financial service providers to inform the Department of Finance or any other federal department or agency of the specific criteria they used to determine whose bank accounts were frozen.
The RCMP issued a statement indicating that while it remained the responsibility of the financial institutions to make the decision to freeze accounts, the RCMP was diligently working with law enforcement and federal partners to disclose relevant information of individuals and companies suspected of involvement in illegal acts. The list that was provided to financial institutions included identities of individuals who were influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa, and owners and/or drivers of vehicles who did not want to leave the area impacted by the protest.
In response to (b), the emergency economic measures order required financial service providers to cease providing financial services to persons who were directly or indirectly engaged in activities that were prohibited by the emergency measures regulations.
This requirement did not extend to the family members and relatives of such persons, provided that those family members and relatives were not themselves directly or indirectly engaging in prohibited activities.
In response to (c), the emergency measures regulations and the emergency economic measures order were not retroactive. They were effective only between February 15 and February 23.
The RCMP issued a statement indicating that the list it had provided to financial institutions focused on individuals who were influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa and owners and/or drivers of vehicles who did not want to leave the area impacted by the protest; and that it did not provide a list of donors to financial institutions.

Question No. 362—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to information provided to the Minister of Public Safety, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022: (a) what are the details of all information which was provided to the minister related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including any rules of engagement contained in the information; and (b) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the minister related to the authorization of force, both lethal and non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including what was known or decided related to the authorization of force?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the operations of all police are fully independent, whether they be municipal, provincial, or federal.
This police independence is critical. The government may not attempt to influence an investigation in any way, or direct the conduct of specific police operations. Police independence, as qualified in a 1999 Supreme Court decision, Campbell and Shirose, was described as follows:
“While for certain purposes the commissioner of the RCMP reports to the solicitor general (now known as the public safety minister), the commissioner is not to be considered a servant or agent of the government while engaged in a criminal investigation. The commissioner is not subject to political direction. Like every other police officer similarly engaged, he is answerable to the law and, no doubt, to his conscience.”
Our government remains committed to ensuring that law enforcement officers have the resources they need to do their jobs and effectively address threats to public safety after years of cuts from the previous Conservative government.
From the outset, our government was focused on finding solutions that protected Canadians and affected communities and ensured the minimum risk of harm. This included consulting with officials and thoroughly assessing all federal tools and resources, including the possibility of invoking the Emergencies Act. The temporary authorities provided through the act remained in place only for the short time required to address this urgent risk to Canadians’ safety.
With regard to information provided to the Minister of Public Safety, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022, in response to (a), no information was provided to the minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.
In response to (b), no information was provided to the minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the authorization of force, either lethal or non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.

Question No. 363—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to information provided to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022: (a) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the minister related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including any rules of engagement contained in the information; and (b) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the minister related to the authorization of force, both lethal and non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including what was known or decided related to the authorization of force?
Response
Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the operations of all police are fully independent, whether they be municipal, provincial, or federal.
This police independence is critical. The government may not attempt to influence in any way an investigation, or direct the conduct of specific police operations. Police independence, as qualified in a 1999 Supreme Court decision, Campbell and Shirose, was described as follows:
“While for certain purposes the commissioner of the RCMP reports to the solicitor general (now known as the public safety minister), the commissioner is not to be considered a servant or agent of the government while engaged in a criminal investigation. The commissioner is not subject to political direction. Like every other police officer similarly engaged, he is answerable to the law and, no doubt, to his conscience.”
Our government remains committed to ensuring that law enforcement officers have the resources they need to do their jobs and effectively address threats to public safety after years of cuts from the previous Conservative government.
From the outset our government was focused on finding solutions that protected Canadians and affected communities and ensured the minimum risk of harm. This included consulting with officials and thoroughly assessing all federal tools and resources, including the possibility of invoking the Emergencies Act. The temporary authorities provided through the act remained in place only for the short time required to address this urgent risk to Canadians’ safety.
With regard to information provided to the Minister of Public Safety, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022, in response to (a), no information was provided to the minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.
In response to (b), no information was provided to the minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the authorization of force, either lethal or non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.

Question No. 364—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the information provided to the Prime Minister, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022: (a) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the Prime Minister related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including any rules of engagement contained in the information; and (b) what are the details of all the information which was provided to the Prime Minister related to the authorization of force, both lethal and non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days, including (i) who provided the information, (ii) the date and approximate time, if known, that the information was provided, (iii) an overview of the information, including what was known or decided related to the authorization of force?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the operations of all police are fully independent, whether they be municipal, provincial, or federal.
This police independence is critical. The government may not attempt to influence an investigation in any way, or direct the conduct of specific police operations. Police independence, as qualified in a 1999 Supreme Court decision, Campbell and Shirose, was described as follows:
“While for certain purposes the commissioner of the RCMP reports to the solicitor general (now known as the public safety minister), the commissioner is not to be considered a servant or agent of the government while engaged in a criminal investigation. The commissioner is not subject to political direction. Like every other police officer similarly engaged, he is answerable to the law and, no doubt, to his conscience.”
Our government remains committed to ensuring that law enforcement officers have the resources they need to do their jobs and effectively address threats to public safety after years of cuts from the previous Conservative government.
From the outset, our government was focused on finding solutions that protected Canadians and affected communities and ensured the minimum risk of harm. This included consulting with officials and thoroughly assessing all federal tools and resources, including the possibility of invoking the Emergencies Act. The temporary authorities provided through the act remained in place only for the short time required to address this urgent risk to Canadians’ safety.
In response to (a), with regard to information provided to the Prime Minister, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022, no information was provided to the Prime Minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the rules of engagement for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.
In response to (b), with regard to information provided to the Prime Minister, including through his staff, about the police action taken related to the protests in Ottawa on February 18 and 19, 2022, no information was provided to the Prime Minister by either Public Safety Canada or the RCMP related to the authorization of force, either lethal or non-lethal, for the police forces in Ottawa on those days.

Question No. 365—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the Emergency Economic Measures Order: (a) which entities made a disclosure to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, under section 5, and, with respect to each entity, how many disclosures were made, broken down by (i) existence of property, under paragraph 5(a), (ii) transactions or proposed transactions, under paragraph 5(b); (b) which entities made a disclosure to the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, under section 5, and, with respect to each entity, how many disclosures were made, broken down by (i)existence of property, under paragraph 5(a), (ii) transactions or proposed transactions, under paragraph 5(b); (c) which institutions of the Government of Canada made a disclosure, under section 6, broken down by (i) institution making the disclosure, (ii) entity to which the disclosure was made, (iii) the nature of the information disclosed; and (d) were any charges laid in relation to breaches of the order and, if so, who was charged and for what offences?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as per section 5 of the order, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, received disclosures from the following: banks established under Canada's Bank Act and regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI; co-operative credit societies, savings and credit unions and caisses populaires regulated by a provincial act and associations regulated by the Cooperative Credit Associations Act; entities authorized under provincial legislation to engage in the business of dealing in securities or to provide portfolio management or investment counselling services; and entities that perform any of the following payment functions: the provision or maintenance of an account that, in relation to an electronic funds transfer, is held on behalf of one or more end users; the holding of funds on behalf of an end user until they are withdrawn by the end user or transferred to another individual or entity; the initiation of an electronic funds transfer at the request of an end user; the authorization of an electronic funds transfer or the transmission, reception or facilitation of an instruction in relation to an electronic funds transfer, or the provision of clearing or settlement services.
In response to (a)(i) and (ii), the RCMP received information from a number of entities described in section 5 (a) and (b) of the order disclosed to the RCMP. This information was developed by those entities in a dynamic environment and, given the short period of time the Emergencies Act was in place, the information was received in an ad hoc manner, with no formal reporting mechanism established. As such, the information in the RCMP holdings may differ from information in other Government of Canada records, or numbers publicly disclosed by entities listed in part (a). The RCMP is currently evaluating information related to the invocation of the order and the mandated reporting. It would be premature to share preliminary data or additional information at this time, while analysis is ongoing to ensure accurate and fulsome reporting from the RCMP. The RCMP is committed to participating in the review of the Emergencies Act required by statute, and to ensuring that an authoritative common understanding of how the act was utilized is available.
In response to (b), given its mandate and specific operational requirements, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, does not generally disclose details related to operational activity.
In response to (c)(i), the RCMP made disclosures under section 6. The RCMP cannot provide information on other Government of Canada institutions’ disclosures.
In response to (c)(ii), the RCMP made disclosures to banks, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, the Canadian Securities Administrators, the Mutual Funds Dealers Association and credit unions.
In response to (c)(iii), the RCMP disclosed information on 57 entities, broken down into 18 individuals and 39 vehicles. As well, the RCMP identified and disseminated 170 Bitcoin wallet addresses as receiving funds linked to the HonkHonk Hodl crowdfunding campaign.
In response to (d), as there was no criminal enforcement mechanism under the emergency economic measures order, the RCMP did not lay any charges under the order.

Question No. 367—
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the events on February 17, 2022, near Houston, British Columbia, described by the Royal Canada Mounted Police as "a violent confrontation with employees of Coastal Gaslink", which also included a road blockade: (a) does the Marten Forest Service Road and the Coastal GasLink location near it meet the meaning of "infrastructure for the supply of utilities such as ... gas", for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of "critical infrastructure" in section 1 of the Emergency Measures Regulations; (b) what are the details of the actions taken under the Emergency Measures Regulations to prevent, mitigate or respond to these acts or, if none, why were none taken; and (c) what are the details of the actions taken under the Emergency Economic Measures Order to prevent, mitigate or respond to these acts or, if none, why were none taken?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the RCMP considers that the Costal GasLink drill site would have met the definition of critical infrastructure set out in section 1 of the emergency measures regulations while they were in force, as a place or land on which infrastructure for the supply of utilities such as gas are located.
In response to part (b), no actions were taken under the emergency measures regulations to prevent, mitigate or respond to these acts. Existing authorities were sufficient. Given that an investigation is ongoing into the events, the RCMP will not comment further on this matter at this time.
In response to part (c), no actions were taken under the emergency economic measures order to prevent, mitigate or respond to these acts. Existing authorities were sufficient. Given that an investigation is ongoing into the events, the RCMP will not comment further on this matter at this time.

Question No. 370—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Canada Pension Plan's (CPP) investments in Russian state owned enterprises, or enterprises with significant ties to Vladimir Putin or the Russian oligarchy: (a) what enterprises are currently owned by the CPP, and what is the value of each investment; (b) has the government directed or advised the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) to divest such holdings, and, if so, what are the details including the date of the direction or advice; and (c) does the CPPIB have plans to eliminate all such holdings from their investment portfolio, and, if so, when will these holdings be eliminated?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CPPIB was set up by the federal, provincial and territorial governments to prudently invest surplus Canada pension plan funds. The CPPIB operates at arm’s length from Canadian governments.
Under current legislation and regulations, the government is not able to require the CPPIB to disclose its holdings in addition to the disclosure requirements to which CPPIB is subject under the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. Federal and provincial governments also do not have the authority to cause the CPPIB to divest any holdings.

Question No. 371—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the long term impact of using the Emergencies Act to freeze bank accounts of canadian citizens: has the Canada Deposit Insurance Company, the Bank of Canada, or the Department of Finance conducted any analysis on the potential impact of this measure on the long-term stability of Canadian banks, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings of the analysis?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the emergency economic measures order was in effect for only a short period of time, and it only targeted designated persons participating in the illegal blockades and occupations. As at February 21, 2022, we are aware of enforcement action taken by the RCMP under the emergency economic measures order that resulted in the freezing of approximately 280 financial products, e.g., savings and chequing accounts, credit cards and lines of credit, for a total of approximately $7,900,000, including $3,800,000 from a payment processor.
Moreover, there is a statutory obligation pursuant to the access to basic banking regulations for banks to open retail deposit accounts for consumers. Therefore, banks must continue to open retail deposit accounts for any consumer subject to the exceptions in the regulations.
With regard to the Bank of Canada, a search of the records of the Bank of Canada did not produce any results.
With regard to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, CDIC, a search of the records of the CDIC did not produce any results.

Question No. 374—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for federal public servants: (a) how many employees of the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor) have been placed on administrative leave without pay as a result of not meeting the requirement; and (b) how many FedNor employees have had their employment terminated as a result of not meeting the requirement?
Response
Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for federal public servants, information from the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario is as follows: In response to (a), the answer is one; in response to (b), the answer is zero.

Question No. 375—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the United Nations (UN) and the February 25, 2022, statement on Twitter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement that "fundamental reforms at the UN are required": (a) what specific fundamental reforms is the government seeking at the UN; (b) what action, if any, has the government taken to start making the fundamental reforms; and (c) what is the timeline under which the government would like to see each reform in (a) enacted?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to (a), UN reform and redesign are and will continue to be priorities for Canada, as a strong, well-functioning UN system helps protect Canada’s national interests and values. We are committed to a more effective, efficient, relevant and accountable UN. This commitment is reflected in the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ and Minister of International Development’s mandate letters.
Canada supports efforts at the UN to promote better use of resources and find new and innovative ways of working and delivering its mandate more effectively, all with transparency and accountability to member states. Canada also supports effective and inclusive peace operations, conflict prevention, and peacebuilding.
In response to (b), key areas of focus have included governance reform at the executive boards and governing bodies of UN funds, programs and agencies; COVID-19 recovery efforts; financing for development; climate change; promoting national and local ownership for inclusive conflict prevention and peacebuilding; and humanitarian action. Advancing gender equality and protecting and promoting human rights are cross-cutting priorities.
With the UN development system, UNDS, entities, for instance, Canada continues to advocate for more joined-up and coordinated UN responses; greater coherence and integration across UN efforts in development, humanitarian and peacebuilding, the “triple nexus”; sharper results-based approaches and member state accountability, efficiency gains and reducing UNDS overlap and duplication; and innovative financing with links to sustainable development goals, SDG, financing.
Regarding internal management reform, Canada engages in discussions on ways to improve governance and management across the UN system. Sustained efforts include those undertaken through the Geneva Group, a group consisting of contributors to the UN, where Canada continues to advocate and press for efficiencies and cost-effectiveness while aligning resources to priorities. This includes, for example, improving hiring practices to recruit and retain a diverse, gender-balanced and rejuvenated workforce, as well as ensuring proper resourcing.
Canada supports UN Security Council, UNSC, reform and participates in initiatives that seek meaningful reform, including the annual intergovernmental negotiations on UNSC reform, which take place at the UN General Assembly. Canada is also a member of the Uniting for Consensus, UfC, group, a cross-regional group of UN member states that advocates for enhanced regional representation through expanding the council in the non-permanent category only, with the addition of longer-term seats, as well as new two-year seats. UfC does not support the expansion of permanent membership with veto privileges in the UNSC, nor changing the current permanent member configuration.
Canada also supports various initiatives that aim to increase the UNSC’s effectiveness and limit the use of the veto by permanent members, including as a signatory to the political declaration on suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity, as well as the accountability, coherence and transparency group code of conduct. Additionally, Canada recently co-sponsored a new initiative that aims to convene a General Assembly debate immediately after a UNSC permanent member uses its veto on a draft resolution that is vital to the maintenance of international peace and security.
In response to (c), UN system reform is a continued, evolving, incremental process. The timeline for implementation of reforms as well as the pace of progress depend in most cases on intergovernmental processes, configuration of bodies or offices and concerted action of member states.

Question No. 378—
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to the Output Based Pricing System (OBPS): (a) how much has the federal government collected from industry; and (b) how much has the federal government paid out under the OBPS in direct rebates to businesses (excluding project-based funding and corporate welfare grants) since it first came into effect?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), pricing carbon pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions while driving innovation to provide consumers and businesses with low-carbon options. Canada’s approach to pricing carbon pollution provides flexibility for provinces and territories to implement a carbon pricing system that makes sense for their circumstances, provided that the system meets minimum stringency criteria to ensure that it is stringent, fair and efficient as defined in the federal benchmark.
The federal carbon pollution pricing system, the backstop, has two elements: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels and an output-based pricing system, OBPS, for industrial facilities. The federal OBPS is designed to minimize competitiveness and carbon leakage risks in emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries.
The federal backstop applies in jurisdictions that request it or that do not have a carbon pricing system that aligns with the federal benchmark.
The fuel charge currently applies in Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nunavut. The OBPS currently applies in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, Nunavut, and partially in Saskatchewan.
Under the federal approach, the OBPS is designed to put a price on the carbon pollution of large industrial facilities, while limiting the impacts of carbon pricing on their ability to compete in the Canadian market and abroad. Carbon costs can affect businesses that conduct activities that are emissions-intensive and highly internationally traded if they compete with similar businesses in countries that do not have carbon pricing in place. This approach minimizes the risk that businesses will move from Canada to jurisdictions that do not price carbon.
Instead of paying the fuel charge, an industrial facility in the OBPS faces a compliance obligation on the portion of emissions that exceed an annual limit. Covered facilities are required to provide compensation for GHG emissions that exceed an emissions limit and are issued surplus credits if their emissions are lower than the applicable emissions limit. Facilities can sell surplus credits or bank them for use in future years. The methods for providing compensation are one of the following or a combination of both: a) making an excess emissions charge payment electronically to the receiver general for Canada; and b) remitting compliance units, namely surplus credits, federal offset credits, or recognized units.
As of February 22, 2022, the Government of Canada had collected $396.2 million in excess emissions charge payments under the OBPS.
In response to (b), the Government of Canada has committed to return proceeds collected from the OBPS to jurisdictions of origin. Jurisdictions that have voluntarily adopted the OBPS, currently Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Nunavut, can opt for a direct transfer of proceeds collected. Proceeds collected in other backstop jurisdictions, current or past, including Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, will be returned through the two program streams of the OBPS proceeds fund.
The decarbonization incentive program, DIP, is a merit-based program that incentivizes the long-term decarbonization of Canada’s industrial sectors by supporting clean technology projects to reduce GHG emissions. Proceeds collected from most OBPS facilities will be returned via DIP to backstop jurisdictions.
The future electricity fund, FEF, stream is designed to support clean electricity projects and/or programs. Proceeds collected from OBPS-covered electricity-generating facilities, i.e., utilities, are expected to be returned through funding agreements with governments of backstop jurisdictions. An open call for project proposals is not anticipated under FEF.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, launched the OBPS proceeds fund on February 14, 2022, to return proceeds collected for the 2019 compliance period, approximately $161 million, and those collected in future years, amounts to be confirmed. The DIP stream of the OBPS proceeds fund is currently accepting project proposals that would reduce emissions across Canada’s industrial sectors. ECCC has also engaged with the governments of backstop jurisdictions to initiate negotiations of the bilateral funding agreements under FEF. Given the recent launch of the OBPS proceeds fund, ECCC has not yet returned any proceeds collected from the OBPS

Question No. 381—
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the estimated $1,235.4 millions in overpayments of income benefit payments by the government listed on page 147 of the 2021 Public Accounts of Canada, Volume I: (a) what is the breakdown of the estimated overpayments by income support program, including, for each program, the (i) dollar value of overpayments, (ii) number of Canadians who received overpayments; and (b) what are the comparative statistics for each item in (a), broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17?
Response
Ms. Ya’ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to payment accuracy figures included in note 10 of the employment insurance operating account financial statements, the payment accuracy information shared in the 2021 public accounts of Canada and included in note 10 of the financial statement represents an estimate of “potential” over/under payments, not actual established overpayments that are being collected. This note is included in the financial statements to provide users with an overview of the operations of the programs and a measure of accuracy of the benefit payments. Specifically, it should be noted that using a monetary unit sampling, MUS, methodology, the EI payment accuracy review program, PAAR, estimates the accuracy of EI benefit payments. The quality services division reviews several hundred files each year to identify undetected errors that could result in possible mispayments, which are either underpayment or overpayment. Based on the sampling method, MUS, and the observance and distribution of the mispayments across the sample, various statistics are generated for the primary goal of testing whether mispayments are below the 5% tolerance limit, with 95% accuracy set as the service standard.
In response to (a), the EI PAAR sample, or the number of files to be reviewed, is established in a manner to estimate mispayments at the overall program level. It does not include sufficient number of items for each subtype, i.e., income support program. As such, these figures are not available.
In response to (i), the actual recorded amounts are disclosed in note 3 of the audited employment insurance operating account financial statements.
The supplementary statement is in section 4, “Consolidated accounts as at March 31”, volume I, “Public Accounts of Canada 2021”, receiver general for Canada, PSPC, Canada.ca: https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2021/vol1/s4/es-ss-eng.html.
In response to (ii), the amount recorded as overpayments in the financial statements is $754 million and is based on actuals and estimated accruals. This represents potentially 388,000 claimants.
In response to (b), as indicated in the response to question (a), the EI PAAR sample is not large enough to provide this data.

Question No. 382—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the government's action following the Russian invasion of Ukraine: (a) what specific action, if any, is the government planning to take, in response to the invasion, to increase the output capacity of Canadian oil and gas so that Canada doesn't have to rely on foreign oil and gas; (b) what specific action, if any, is the Minister of Natural Resources taking to expedite the approval and construction of pipelines so that Canada doesn't have to rely on foreign oil and gas; and (c) if no specific action is being taken related to (a) or (b), why is the government favouring foreign oil and gas over Canadian oil and gas?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 2022, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Government of Canada acted decisively to ban the import of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia. Canada produces more oil than required to meet its domestic refining needs. Although Canada does still import oil for certain regional needs, since 2019 there have been no imports of crude oil from Russia. This new ban will ensure that Canada will continue not to import any crude oil from Russia going forward. During the IEA ministerial on March 24, 2022, Canada announced the incremental increase in its oil and gas production of up to 300,000 barrels per day, including 200,000 barrels per day of oil and up to 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day of natural gas, by the end of 2022. Most of this additional production is the result of producers bringing forward planned production from 2023. This comes in the context of a release of 30.225 million barrels by the U.S. from its strategic petroleum reserve earlier this month, which was followed by a March 31, 2022, announcement by the President of the United States of another 180 million barrels over the next six months.
In August 2019, the Government of Canada announced the coming into force of the new Impact Assessment Act and the Canada Energy Regulator Act: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/news/2019/08/better-rules-for-impact-assessments-come-into-effect-this-month.html. The better rules and regulations outlined in these acts have been implemented to give companies and investors more clarity and certainty, and to ensure good projects can move forward in a timely way. These acts will continue to build public confidence by ensuring that federal decisions made about pipelines, mines, and hydro dams are guided by science, indigenous knowledge, and other evidence.
The Government of Canada remains committed to completing projects currently under way in the proper manner, including the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, TMX. Once complete, pipeline capacity will increase from the current 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. The project is 50% complete and is expected to be in service by late 2023. In addition, to enhance market access for Canadian natural gas, the Government of Canada approved three significant expansion projects on the Nova Gas Transmission Limited, NGTL, system since 2020, known as the NGTL 2021, north corridor, and Edson mainline expansions. Last, Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement project has now been completed and is in service on both sides of the border. This is another vital energy infrastructure that will strengthen continental energy security, while improving safety performance, increasing indigenous involvement, and enhancing economic benefits on both sides of the border.
The Government of Canada remains engaged with key international partners, such as Germany and the U.S., on a bilateral basis and in multilateral forums, including the IEA, on providing support in the medium to long term on stabilizing energy markets and the transition to clean energy.
In 2021, the Canada-Germany energy partnership was concluded. The purpose of the energy partnership is to advance engagement on the energy transformation through exchanges on policy, best practices and technologies, as well as through co-operative activities and projects focused on five key areas: energy policy, planning and regulations; resilient electricity systems that can integrate high levels of renewables; energy efficiency; sector coupling and low-carbon fuels; and innovation and applied research.
Under the partnership, Canada and Germany are working together to leverage Germany’s appetite for hydrogen and its efforts to abate sectors. Canada and Germany look to deepen and focus their collaborative work through our energy partnership, particularly in light of the Ukraine invasion and the desire for Canada to contribute to German energy security.
Bilateral work with Germany will draw from, and align with, the work being done under the Canada-EU energy security/green transition and LNG working group. The energy partnership is building a foundation for medium-term exports of responsibly produced LNG and hydrogen. Critical minerals will be added to the energy partnership action plan, in keeping with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of Germany’s announcement on March 9, 2022, of a new bilateral dialogue on mineral security.

Question No. 385—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the Create the Path Table, formerly known as the Market Crisis Joint Working Group, led by Natural Resources Canada, since its inception: (a) what is the membership of this working group as of January 31, 2022; (b) how many meetings have been held; (c) what were the dates of the meetings in (b); (d) who was in attendance at each meeting in (b); (e) what were the topics discussed at each meeting in (b); and (f) what were the agreed-upon action items from each meeting in (b)?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, NRCan has never established or led a working group related to Question No. 385.

Question No. 393—
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to the government's response to the 2020-2021 Annual Report from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity that is subject to the act: (a) what specific action has been taken to abide by the statement from the commissioner who, on page 16 of the report, in reference to the 30-day time limit required by law, states that "The downplaying or tolerance of invalid extensions and delays must end"; (b) on what date was each action in (a) taken; (c) what specific action has been taken to address each of the other concerns raised by the commissioner in the report, broken down by each concern; and (d) on what date was each action in (c) taken?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that the access to information process supports the transparency and accountability of Canadian federal institutions.
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS, welcomes the Information Commissioner’s observations and recommendations on how the government can continue to ensure that the right of access to information for Canadians is upheld. TBS continues to work with institutions to support and share guidance, best practices, and operational solutions to help them overcome operational challenges.
The length of extensions that are taken by institutions is assessed on a case-by-case basis wherein the volume and complexity of the information for the specific request are taken into consideration. This includes time extension requirements to consult with other government institutions and/or with third parties. In addition, institutions are required to inform the Office of the Information Commissioner, OIC, when extending the initial request reply period beyond an additional 30 days. There also exists a recourse mechanism whereby a requester who feels that the extension is unreasonable may file a complaint with the OIC.
The government has made significant improvements to access to information over the years. Recent amendments to the Access to Information Act have increased government openness and transparency by requiring the online publication of more government information. In addition, summaries of completed access to information requests are currently published every 30 days on the Open Government portal and removed after a period of two years. TBS is working on extending the retention of these summaries beyond two years.
The Government of Canada remains focused on improving the systems that support access to information and privacy requests, helping institutions to address outstanding requests and continually improving ATI program performance. In budget 2021, the government invested $12.8 million to support further improvements to the online access to information and personal information request service, to accelerate the proactive release of information to Canadians, and to support completion of the Access to Information Act review.
This review is an opportunity to explore how new tools and approaches could improve efficiency and make information more open and accessible to Canadians. The review will further examine the legislative framework, identify improvements to proactive disclosure to make information openly available, and assess processes and systems to improve service and reduce delays.
A list of key actions, implemented, planned or under way, to improve access to information and transparency is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/reviewing-access-information/the-review-process/key-actions-access-information.html.
Access to information requestsBank accountsBanks and bankingBloc Québécois CaucusBritish ColumbiaCanada Pension PlanCanadian investments abroadCannabisCannabis ActCarbon pricingChabot, Louise ...Show all topics
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am deeply honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-216, the health-based approach to the substance use act.
I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, for introducing this legislation and for his tireless efforts to advance compassionate and evidenced-based drug policy in this country.
In the shadow of COVID-19, the overdose epidemic has rapidly worsened across Canada, and it is hard to believe that could have happened. In British Columbia, 2,224 died from overdoses in 2021 alone. This represents the deadliest year on record in Canadian history, and a 26% increase from 2020. December 2021 was also the deadliest month on record in British Columbia, with 215 people losing their lives that month alone from an opioid-poisoned drug death. That is the equivalent of about seven deaths per day. Across Canada, over 25,000 Canadians have lost their lives to the overdose epidemic in the last six years alone.
Although COVID-19 has fuelled this crisis, it did not create it. Decades of criminalization; a toxic, poisoned, illicit supply; and a lack of timely access to harm reduction, treatment and recovery services have caused this ongoing catastrophe.
The Liberal government claims that its response to COVID-19 has been evidenced-based and informed by science and the advice of public health experts. It is time to apply that approach to Canada's other epidemic. It is time to treat substance use addictions as the health issues they truly are. The legislation before the House today would do exactly that.
The health-based approach to the substance use act would comprehensively address Canada's overdose epidemic as follows: It would decriminalize personal drug possession; it would provide for record expungement; it would ensure a low-barrier access to a regulated, safe supply; and it would expand access to harm reduction, treatment and recovery services across Canada while also focusing on prevention and education.
Decriminalization is one of those issues on which I believe voters are far ahead of politicians. It is a policy area where public opinion more accurately reflects the empirical data than our laws do. That is because not a single community across Canada is untouched by addiction. Everyone has a mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, grandparent, partner, friend, neighbour, coworker, child who has struggled with problematic substance use or substance use disorder, or maybe it is even they themself. Indeed, Canadians understand intuitively something that is critically important to acknowledge in the House tonight: Those who are suffering are not criminals. Rather, they are vulnerable people experiencing tremendous pain.
In his years working in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, Dr. Gabor Maté, whom I consider to be an expert of global stature and a great Canadian, has found that childhood trauma and emotional pain lie at the root of addiction. Dr. Maté said, “This is not a war on drugs. This is a war on drug addicts.”
Addiction can never be understood if looked at through the lens of moralism and judgment. It is time, as a society, that we ask not why the addiction but instead why the pain. Indeed, if we accept that pain and trauma are at the root of addiction, then criminalization can only be seen as cruel and counterproductive, because it compounds the very problem it seeks to correct. Stigma, shame and abuse are the core emotional issues for those suffering from substance disorder, and criminalizing their behaviour exacerbates and deepens that shame and stigma. This is obvious.
Criminal sanctions are society's way of imposing maximum trauma on individuals. They get harassed by the police; they go through the indignity of arrest; they go into the very serious, intimidating context of a court; they go through a trial; they go to jail. This system is designed to impose the most serious pressure society can possibly impose. In other words, when we criminalize substance use, we retraumatize people who are already struggling to cope with trauma.
Moreover, decades of evidence have demonstrated that criminalization serves to keep people who use drugs away from prevention and early treatment health services due to fear of being arrested, labelled or outed. Criminalization also pushes people who use drugs to rely on an illicit and obviously toxic drug supply.
If criminalizing drug use worked, we would have eliminated it years ago, but instead we have spent billions of dollars, harmed millions of people, torn families and communities apart, ruined individuals' lives and achieved nothing. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. If that is the case, decades of lawmakers in the House have been and are insane.
Part 1 of this legislation would end Canada's war on drugs once and for all by striking the prohibition against personal possession from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It would end the insanity of the war on drugs.
Furthermore, criminal records amplify the harms of criminalization by exposing people who use drugs to ongoing discrimination and create barriers to housing, gainful employment, travel and community involvement. This in turn leads to further stigmatization and marginalization.
The disproportionate impact of criminal records on racialized and indigenous communities has also been well documented. That is why part 2 of this legislation is so essential to a health-based approach to drug use. It would ensure that criminal records from previous offences related to personal possession would be fully expunged, so that someone does not carry stigmatization for the rest of their lives. Unlike the current Liberal government's failed policy on cannabis pardons, the process outlined in this bill would provide for an automatic, cost-free and complete deletion of records.
Finally, part 3 of this legislation would require the development and implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to address the harm caused by problematic substance use. It would get at the real cause of the deaths. This strategy would be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders, including advocacy organizations, frontline health care providers; and, importantly, individuals with lived experience. It would address the root causes of problematic substance use; ensure access to a safe, regulated supply; provide universal access to recovery, treatment and harm reduction services; and reduce the stigma associated with substance use. There is an urgent need for low-barrier access to a safe supply of pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to illegal street drugs of all types for everyone now. Given that the main driver of the overdose crisis is the fact that the illicit, poisoned drug supply is toxic and unpredictable, experts have been clear that the death toll cannot be abated without this evidence-based measure.
Although limited access to safe supply has been provided in some jurisdictions, existing programs do not come anywhere even close to meeting demand across the country. To emphasize, it is the toxic, poisoned street supply of drugs run by criminalized manufacturers with no regulation that is killing Canadians by the thousands. Any law that does not address this reality is not health-based; it is contributing to fatalities.
Some in the current government say they believe in treating addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one. I have heard three consecutive Liberal health ministers and a Liberal Prime Minister say this many times, but they refuse to act on this claim. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the law that criminalizes drug use and addiction, and it is a federal law.
I am calling out every member of the House, especially Liberals, on that contradiction tonight, because this is a contradiction that kills. They cannot say they treat drug use and addiction as a health issue and leave it criminalized on the federal books to continue to kill people.
I hope all parliamentarians stop the insanity. Let us start treating drug use and addiction as the health issue that it really is.
View Adam van Koeverden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a sense of sadness but also profound gratitude. Last month, we lost a political giant. Julian Reed, a long-time Liberal MPP and MP for Halton, passed away at Georgetown Hospital on January 6 at the age of 85. With a career in politics that spanned nearly three decades, Reed was a larger-than-life personality and a hard-working, dedicated public servant. Although most knew him as a politician, he was much more. He was a salesman and a pig farmer and even worked in show business as an actor.
Mr. Reed was a pioneer. He was talking about renewable energy, cannabis decriminalization and greenhouse gas emissions over 20 years ago. His fierce advocacy for environmental protection has certainly been an inspiration to me, and I will continue his work and honour his legacy by fighting to protect the green spaces here in my riding of Milton.
Like my dad, Julian lived with Parkinson's disease. His life and legacy strengthens my resolve to be a better advocate for Canadians fighting Parkinson's disease.
Reed is survived by his wife Deanna, his children Chris, Rob and Melanie, his four grandchildren and his brother and my friend Laurie.
I thank Julian for his service. May he rest in peace.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 1—
Mr. Denis Trudel:
With regard to government investments in housing, for each fiscal year since the introduction of the National Housing Strategy in 2017, broken down by province and territory: (a) what was the total amount of funding allocated to housing; (b) how many applications were received for (i) the National Housing Strategy (NHS) overall, (ii) the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, (iii) the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iv) the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (v) the Rapid Housing Initiative under the projects stream, (vi) the Rapid Housing Initiative under the major cities stream, (vii) the Federal Lands Initiative, (viii) the Federal Community Housing Initiative, (ix) A Place to Call Home, (x) the Shared Equity Mortgage Providers Fund, (xi) the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, (xii) the NHS’s Solutions Labs Initiative; (c) of the applications under (b), for each funding program and initiative, how many were accepted; (d) of the applications under (c), for each funding program and initiative, what was the amount of federal funding allocated or committed; (e) of the amounts in (d) allocated in the Province of Quebec, for each funding program and initiative, what is the breakdown per region; (f) of the amounts in (b)(v), what is the breakdown per project and per region; and (g) of the applications in (b)(v), what criteria were used for project selection?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 2—
Mr. Mario Beaulieu:
With regard to the $10-a-day national child care program that would provide universal access to all Canadian families as of 2026 and the bilateral agreements that the federal government has signed with the various provinces and territories regarding this program: (a) do the eight agreements already signed with British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec include language clauses to protect the rights of linguistic minorities in a minority situation; (b) how many spaces are reserved for francophone minorities and what percentage of the total number of spaces that the federal government plans to create are reserved for francophone minorities, broken down by province and territory; (c) of the $30 billion over five years to fund this national program in the government’s latest budget, how much of the budget, broken down by province and territory, is earmarked to meet the needs of francophone minorities; and (d) with regard to the agreement with Quebec specifically, is the agreement conditional on any kind of measure for English-language institutions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 4—
Mr. Mario Beaulieu:
With regard to federal source revenue of post-secondary institutions in Quebec over the last 10 years, broken down by year: (a) what is the total revenue from federal sources, broken down by institution; (b) what share of the revenue in (a) came from (i) the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, (ii) Health Canada, (iii) the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, (iv) the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, (v) the Canada Foundation for Innovation, (vi) the Canada Research Chairs program, (vii) other federal sources; and (c) in detail, how does the funding system for research chairs operate and what variables determine the funding that each chair receives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 8—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to recruiting in the Canadian Armed Forces from January 2019 to the present, broken down by month: (a) how many individuals who showed an interest in joining the Regular Force or the Primary Reserve contacted the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centres or the Primary Reserve units, online or in person; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many were male and how many were female; (c) of the individuals in (a), how many began the enrollment process, broken down by sex; and (d) how many of the individuals in (c) completed the enrollment process, broken down by sex?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 9—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to retention and attrition in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) what was the retention and attrition rate in the CAF, broken down by year since 2015; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) regular and reserve forces, (ii) diversity representation (women, Indigenous peoples, visible minorities, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 11—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the Rapid Housing Initiative: (a) which organizations and communities in Northern Ontario applied for funding through the Initiative; (b) which organizations and communities in (a) received funding; (c) how much funding did each organization and community in (b) receive; and (d) what was the specific criteria or formula used to determine which applications were accepted and how much funding each successful applicant would receive?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 12—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to long-term funding to the Centre for Equitable Library Access (CELA) and the National Network for Equitable Library Service (NNELS) for providing accessible reading services for those with reading disabilities: (a) how will the government ensure a permanent funding solution is implemented to support services that ensure equitable access to reading and other published works for Canadians with print disabilities; (b) does the government continue to believe there should be a full transition to industry, or does it now believe in a collaborative solution between industry and non-profits such as CELA and NNELS; (c) what data does the government have to show the transition cost of industry to take over the role that CELA and NNELS currently play in the industry providing materials for Canadians with print disabilities; (d) does the government have a commitment from industry that they are willing to make the necessary investments to take over this role; (e) knowing the cost of the transition, is the government committing to funding the transition to an industry led solution if industry is unwilling to commit to funding the transition; and (f) will the government commit to supporting smaller publishers unable to make this transition?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 13—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to Canada’s National Housing Strategy: (a) how much money has been allocated to Calgary since 2017, broken down by year (i) through the Rapid Housing Initiative, (ii) through the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, (iii) through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (iv) through the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (v) in total through National Housing Strategy Funding Programs; (b) how much money is targeted to Calgary in total and through each of the National Housing Strategy Funding Programs in Budget 2021; (c) how many units have been supported in Calgary in total and through each of the funding programs since 2017; (d) how many units will be supported in Calgary in total and through each of the funding programs through Budget 2021; (e) how do the funding and units allocated to Calgary through the National Housing Strategy compare per capita to the funding and units allocated to other major Canadian cities, including Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Montreal; and (f) is any money being allocated towards adaptive reuse of Calgary’s vacant office spaces through the National Housing Strategy, and, if so, (i) through which funding programs, (ii) how much money is allocated, (iii) how many units will be created, (iv) when will units be created?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 14—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard and Clean Fuel Regulations: (a) what is the estimated cost of compliance for fossil fuel suppliers; (b) what is the difference between the cost of compliance per tonne of emissions reductions through the Clean Fuel Standard compared to the cost per tonne of emissions reductions through the government’s market-based carbon pricing plan; and (c) what is the estimated increase in price borne by liquid fuel consumers (industry users and households) under (i) the Clean Fuel Standard, (ii) the carbon pricing plan between now and 2050, (iii) cumulatively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 16—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the government’s price on carbon: (a) how much has been paid by the average household each year since its introduction in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; (b) how much has been returned to the average household in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; (c) what has been the average reduction in emissions for households as a result of the price on carbon introduction in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations; and (d) what is the overall price for households per tonne of emissions reductions in (i) each province and territory, (ii) urban, suburban, and rural locations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 17—
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the economic impact of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test requirement for fully vaccinated travellers on the tourism industry in the Niagara Region: (a) what was the number of foreign international travellers who arrived at the land border crossings in the Niagara Region, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travellers who arrived at each point of entry in the Niagara Region, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; and (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in the Niagara Region as a result of the PCR requirement for vaccinated travellers and, if so, what is the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 18—
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Alberta: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Alberta that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Alberta for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c), by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 20—
Mr. Chris Lewis:
With regard to the economic impact of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test requirement for fully vaccinated travellers on the tourism industry in Southwestern Ontario: (a) what was the number of foreign international travellers who arrived at the land border crossings in Southwestern Ontario, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travellers who arrived at each point of entry in Southwestern Ontario, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; and (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in Southwestern Ontario as a result of the PCR requirement for vaccinated travellers and, if so, what is the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 21—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to programs which provided money or financing to businesses, sectors, or communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy, the Tourism Relief Fund, and others, and broken down by program: (a) for each program, what is the total amount distributed to date in the riding of Calgary Shepard; (b) what was the total number of applications received from Calgary Shepard; and (c) of the applications in (b), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 22—
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in New Brunswick: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in New Brunswick that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a), by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in New Brunswick for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c), by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 24—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to the Fish Harvesters Benefit and Grant Program, broken down by each phase of the program: (a) what was the total number of applications for benefits that were (i) accepted, (ii) denied; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of applicant, including (i) self-employed commercial fish harvesters, (ii) those who held limited entry commercial licence eligibility (Pacific), (iii) self-employed freshwater fish harvesters, (iv) Indigenous harvesters who were designated by their community under a communal commercial fishing licence, (v) share persons crew, (vi) Indigenous harvesters who are crew members, who earn a share of the revenue; (c) what was the total number of grants for benefits that were (i) accepted, (ii) denied; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by type of applicant, including (i) self-employed commercial fish harvesters, (ii) those who held limited entry commercial licence eligibility (Pacific), (iii) freshwater fish harvesters (subject to provincial agreement to provide licensing information), (iv) Indigenous harvesters who were designated as Vessel Masters by their community under a communal commercial fishing licence; (e) what is the total dollar amount provided through the program to date; (f) of the applications which were denied, how many and what percentage of applicants appealed the decision; (g) how many and what percentage of the appeals in (f) were (i) granted, (ii) denied; (h) how many recipients have received claw back notices, broken down by type of applicant; (i) how many appeals has the government received related to the claw back notices; and (j) how many of the appeals in (i) were (i) granted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 25—
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to gain-of-function virology research: (a) what is the government's position on (i) funding such research, (ii) such research taking place in Canada; (b) has the government conducted any such studies since January 1, 2016, and, if so, what are the details of each study, including (i) who conducted the research, (ii) the location of the laboratory where research was conducted, (iii) the purpose or goal of the study, (iv) the findings; and (c) what are the details of any such studies or research funded by the government since January 1, 2016, including the (i) amount of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) date of the funding, (iv) description of the project, (v) project start and end dates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 26—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Ontario: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Ontario that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Ontario for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 27—
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in British Columbia: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in British Columbia that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in British Columbia for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 29—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Saskatchewan: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Saskatchewan that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Saskatchewan for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 31—
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Manitoba: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Manitoba that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Manitoba for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 32—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to privacy breaches that occurred since March 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many breaches have occurred; and (b) what are the details of each breach, including (i) the date, (ii) the number of individuals whose information was involved, (iii) the summary or description of the incident, (iv) the government program or service that was impacted by the breach, (v) whether or not the individuals whose information was involved were contacted, (vi) the date and method of how the individuals were contacted, (vii) whether or not the Privacy Commissioner was notified, (viii) the description of any measures provided to individuals impacted, such as free credit monitoring services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 34—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to the VIA rail station in Cornwall, Ontario: (a) what are the details of all capital investments which have occurred at the station since 2010, including the (i) date of the investment, (ii) project completion date, (iii) project description, (iv) amount of the investment; (b) what was the daily train schedule, including the (i) numbers and times of all stops at the station, since January 1, 2010, (ii) dates and details of all changes to the schedule; and (c) how many individual departures and arrivals were made at the station, broken down by month, since January 1, 2010?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 35—
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to federal government statistics on labour shortages in Quebec: (a) what are the government's estimates on the percentage and number of businesses in Quebec that encountered a labour shortage in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector and industry; (c) what is the projected labour shortage in Quebec for (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by sector and industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 36—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in British Columbia: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 37—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Newfoundland and Labrador: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 38—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government’s Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) pandemic support program for businesses: (a) did the government consult with financial institutions to ensure they had the capacity to support the ongoing changes or expansion to the program before announcing these changes, and, if so, what are the details, including the dates of the consultation; (b) how many formal complaints were launched into the program and what system or process is in place to deal with complaints; (c) how many applicants were denied due to application issues, and what was the average success rate of applicants; (d) between December 4, 2020 and June 15, 2021, how many inquiries did the CEBA call centre receive, broken down by month and daily average; (e) what was the (i) shortest wait time, (ii) longest wait time, (iii) average wait time on the CEBA call centre inquiries line; (f) how many, and what percentage, of inquiries were considered resolved during the initial phone call to the CEBA call centre; and (g) what specific information is the CEBA call centre able to access from the processing department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 40—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the constitutionality of the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal employees and travellers announced on October 6, 2021: (a) has the government sought and received legal advice as to whether the provisions contained in the government’s announcement are compliant with its obligations under (i) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (ii) the Canadian Human Rights Act, (iii) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (iv) the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (v) other laws or treaties prescribing human rights-related obligations on the government of Canada; (b) does the government intend to share any of the legal advice it has received as referenced in (a) publicly, and, if so, what are the details regarding how it will be shared; (c) does the government intend to table a Charter Statement with respect to the announcement referred to in (a); and (d) are organizations challenging the government’s policies respecting vaccination eligible for funding under the Court Challenges Program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 43—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) culture change and dealing with sexual harassment and violence: (a) did the Department of National Defence (DND) provide a formal response to (i) the June 2019 Standing Committee on the Status of Women's report, “A Force for Change – Creating a Culture of Equality for the Women in the CAF”, (ii) the May 2019 Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence's report on “Sexual Harassment and Violence in the CAF”; and (b) what were the formal responses and what specific actions did the DND take in response to these reports?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 44—
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Quebec: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 45—
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in New Brunswick: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 46—
Mr. Scott Aitchison:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Northern Ontario: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 47—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Manitoba: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 48—
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to the Prime Minister's itinerary, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many times and on what dates did the Prime Minister's published itinerary contain inaccurate information regarding meetings, travel, or locations, respecting information that was known at the time the itinerary was published; (b) in each case where the itinerary contained inaccurate information, (i) why did inaccurate information appear, (ii) was the inaccurate information corrected, and, if not, why not; (c) which staff, including exempt staff, in the (i) Office of the Prime Minister, (ii) Privy Council's Office are responsible for reviewing the Prime Minister's itinerary before it is published; and (d) what criteria is used for determining whether meetings are labeled "private" or specifically identified?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 49—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Alberta: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 50—
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Saskatoon and Central Saskatchewan: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 51—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the economic impact of the COVID-19 negative molecular test requirement for fully vaccinated travelers on the tourism industry in Eastern Ontario: (a) what was the number of foreign international travelers who arrived at the land border crossings in Eastern Ontario, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travelers who arrived at each point of entry in Eastern Ontario, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; and (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in Eastern Ontario as a result of the test requirement for vaccinated travelers and, if so, what is the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 52—
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Northern Saskatchewan: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 53—
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Regina and Southern Saskatchewan: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 54—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Nova Scotia: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 55—
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy“ plan, and the government’s 30% absolute emissions reduction target for on-farm fertilizer use by the year 2030: (a) what fertilizer and agriculture industry groups were consulted before the government announced this approach, and what are the details of when and how they were consulted; (b) did the government consider the implementation by 4R Nutrient Stewardship by the agricultural industry before they made this announcement, and, if not, why not; (c) what specific studies or findings, if any, did the Minister of Environment and Climate Change use to determine that a 30% absolute emissions reduction target for on-farm fertilizer use by the year 2030 would be achievable without causing hardship for farmers; (d) what are the government’s, including Farm Credit Canada’s, projections on the impact that a 30% reduction will have on Saskatchewan canola production, processing and export markets; (e) what specific metrics will be used to determine if the 30% emissions reduction target is achieved; (f) how will the government monitor the impact of the 30% absolute emissions reduction target for on-farm fertilizer use by the year 2030 on Canada’s contribution to international food security; and (g) how will the government offset the loss of additional canola production required to increase biofuels in its Clean Fuel Standard?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 56—
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the October 6, 2021, announcement by the Prime Minister mandating vaccination for the federal work force and the federally-regulated transportation sectors: (a) what is the policy objective of the vaccine mandate; (b) did the government seek advice as to whether any of these policies infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, if so, what are the specific details, including (i) which individuals, groups, or organizations provided the advice, (ii) who was the advice provided to, (iii) on what dates was the advice received, (iv) what are the titles and internal tracking numbers for any documents containing the advice; (c) did any of the advice find that sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were being infringed upon, and, if so, what are the details of such advice; (d) were the infringements in (c) (i) found to be justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (ii) was the principal of minimal impairment adhered to?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 58—
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to the costs associated with the Phoenix Pay System between February 2016 and October 2021, broken down by month: (a) what were the total costs incurred; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of expense and by Treasury Board Object Code?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 59—
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to federal contracts awarded to former public servants as defined in the Financial Administration Act, since January 1, 2020, and broken down by department or agency: (a) how many such contracts were awarded; (b) what is the total value of such contracts; and (c) what are the details of each contract, including (i) the date, (ii) the description of the goods or services, (iii) the amount, (iv) the vendor, (v) whether or not ministerial authorization was required for the contract to be awarded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 63—
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), broken down by province and region: how many Canadians experienced a reduction in a GIS payment since January 2020, as a result of receiving income from a COVID-19 related financial relief program, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 68—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the relationship between prevailing wages and the rate of inflation in 2021 exceeding the Bank of Canada's annual target: for each of Employment and Social Development Canada's National Occupation Classification, how have prevailing wages (i) increased, (ii) decreased, (iii) remained stable between 2019 and 2021 inclusively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 69—
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Nova Scotia; (b) what was the 2018-base MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 70—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Southwestern Ontario: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 71—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in British Columbia; (b) what was the 2018-base MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 72—
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the requirement that an area must not have an unemployment rate above 6% in order for certain businesses in that area, including those in the hospitality sector, to qualify for the Temporary Foreign Workers Program: (a) has the government, including Destination Canada, done any studies or analysis on the impact of this requirement on the ability for hotel or restaurant owners to hire enough staff; (b) if the government has done any studies or analysis related to (a), what are the details, including the findings; and (c) what specific measures, if any, will the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance take in order to alleviate this burden on the hospitality sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 73—
Mrs. Anna Roberts:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in the Greater Toronto Area: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 75—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Saskatchewan; (b) what was the 2018-base MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 76—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to programs which provided money or financing to businesses, sectors, or communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy, the Tourism Relief Fund, and others, and broken down by program: (a) what is the total amount distributed to date in the riding of Simcoe North; (b) what was the total number of applications received from Simcoe North; and (c) of the applications in (b), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 79—
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in New Brunswick; (b) what was the "2018-base MBM" for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 80—
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, their administration of the Community Futures (CF) Program and the delivery of the CF program through the Community Futures Development Corporations (CFDCs): (a) what is the most recent investment fund balances for each of the 36 CFDCs in Southern Ontario; (b) what is the breakdown of the 1144 loans which were approved by CF between April 2020 and March 2021, broken down by category; and (c) between April 2019 and March 2021, how many of the 36 CFDCs in Southern Ontario were given permission to access their investment capital to cover operating expenses?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 81—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB): (a) how many individuals received support from these programs in total, broken down by each electoral district; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many were (i) Canadian citizens, (ii) permanent residents, (iii) temporary foreign workers, (iv) foreign students, (v) foreign nationals eligible for employment in Canada, (vi) foreign nationals who are no longer eligible to work in Canada because of either delays by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or because their International Experience Canada work permit has expired; (c) what is the breakdown of (i) CERB, (ii) CRB recipients by the amount of eligibility periods the recipients received benefits for; (d) how many CERB or CRB recipients (i) were investigated for potential ineligibility, (ii) were required to reimburse any payments, (iii) paid back any required reimbursements, (iv) have outstanding reimbursements owing; (e) what is the total dollar value of reimbursements (i) received, (ii) outstanding related to CERB and CRB; and (f) how many investigations are currently ongoing related to CERB or CRB fraud?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 83—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Ontario; (b) what was the 2018-base MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 84—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to delayed federally funded infrastructure projects in Central and Eastern Ontario: what are the details of all projects which have yet to be completed, and have had their original expected completion date delayed by more than six months, including, for each, (i) the project location, (ii) the project description, (iii) the original expected completion date, (iv) the revised expected completion date, (v) the original total projected budget of project, (vi) the most recent total projected budget of project, (vii) the original federal contribution, (viii) whether or not the federal contribution has been or will be increased, and, if so, to what amount, (ix) the specific reason for the delay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 86—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to all contracts signed by the government for the Centre Block rehabilitation project: (a) how many contracts have been awarded; and (b) what are the details of each contract, including the (i) date, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of the vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 87—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) owned and managed small craft harbours: (a) how many exist in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound; (b) what is the condition of each small craft harbour in the federal riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, including the (i) last inspection date, (ii) recommendations for repair or reconditioning from these inspections; (c) what are the estimated costs to repair the Wiarton, Ontario, small craft harbour; (d) are there open, closed, planned tenders, or decisions to defer the repairs to the Wiarton, Ontario, small craft harbour; and (e) what is the department’s lifecycle management plan regarding all DFO owned and managed small craft harbours?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 91—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Alberta; (b) what was the “2018-base MBM” for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; and (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; (e) what are the government’s estimates or projections where the poverty lined in (b) will be by end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024; and (f) what are the government’s projections on the number and percentage of Alberta seniors whose income levels will fall below the poverty line in each of the next three years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 92—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the procurement of supplies related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what is the number and percentage of contracts and the total amount and percentage of the total amount of all spending on supplies that went to organizations owned by (i) women, (ii) Indigenous people, (iii) people of colour, broken down by region; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 95—
Mr. Rob Morrison:
With regard to the economic impact of the COVID-19 negative molecular test requirement for fully vaccinated travellers on the tourism industry in British Columbia: (a) what was the number of foreign international travellers who arrived at the land border crossings in British Columbia, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travellers who arrived at each point of entry in British Columbia, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; and (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in British Columbia as a result of the test requirement for vaccinated travellers and, if so, what is the estimate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 97—
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the processing of applications by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many applications has IRCC processed each year since January 2017, according to the most recent available data, broken down by visa category and type of application; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) in each province and territory where applicants intend or intended to settle; (c) what are the current processing times and application inventories, in addition to the service standard, for each visa category and type of application; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) in each province and territory where applicants intend or intended to settle; (e) what were the processing times and application inventories, in addition to the service standard, for each visa category and type of application as of October 1 for each year between 2016 and 2021; (f) what is the breakdown of (e) in each province and territory where applicants intend or intended to settle; and (g) how has the Afghanistan crisis in the summer of 2021 specifically affected IRCC’s ability to process applications, and what percentage of staff were reallocated to process Afghan nationals’ files on a priority basis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 98—
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the processing of study permit applications by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in the last five years where the requested data are available: (a) for all of Canada, excluding applications for study permits for institutions located in Quebec, how many applications were (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) approved, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (iv) denied, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (v) withdrawn, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent; (b) of the applications in (a), how many came from the following group of countries with a high percentage of French speakers, broken down by country: Algeria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Côte d’Ivoire, France, Guinea, Haiti, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Switzerland, Senegal, Tunisia; (c) of the applications in (a), how many came from the following group of countries with a high percentage of English speakers, broken down by country: South Africa, Australia, Botswana, China, South Korea, the United States, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, the Republic of Ireland, Singapore, Sudan, Zimbabwe; (d) for all applications to come study at an institution located in Quebec, how many applications were (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) approved, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (iv) denied, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (v) withdrawn, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent; (e) of the applications in (d), how many came from the following group of countries with a high percentage of French speakers, broken down by country: Algeria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, the DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, France, Guinea, Haiti, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Switzerland, Senegal, Tunisia; (f) of the applications in (d), how many came from the following group of countries with a high percentage of English speakers, broken down by country: South Africa, Australia, Botswana, China, South Korea, the United States, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, the Republic of Ireland, Singapore, Sudan, Zimbabwe; (g) for all applications to come study in an anglophone post-secondary institution (McGill University, Bishop’s University, Concordia University, Champlain College – St. Lawrence, Champlain College – Lennoxville, Champlain College – Saint-Lambert, Dawson College, John Abbott College, Vanier College, Heritage College) located in Quebec, how many applications were (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) approved, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (iv) denied, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (v) withdrawn, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent; and (h) for all applications to come study in a francophone post-secondary institution (meaning any institution not listed in (g)) located in Quebec, how many applications were (i) received, (ii) processed, (iii) approved, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (iv) denied, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent, (v) withdrawn, and what percentage of the total number of applications processed does that represent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 99—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to government procurement contracts signed since January 1, 2020, by the government, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many contracts were cancelled, suspended, or disputed; and (b) what are the details of each such contract in (a), including the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) original amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) date of cancellation, suspension or dispute, (vi) details of the reason for cancellation, suspension or dispute, (vii) current status of cancellation, suspension, or dispute, (viii) details of any amount recovered or lost by the government as a result of cancellation, suspension, or dispute?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 100—
Mrs. Dominique Vien:
With regard to programs which provided money or financing to businesses, sectors, or communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, broken down by program: (a) for each program, what is the total amount distributed to date in the riding of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis; (b) what was the total number of applications received from the riding of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis; and (c) of the applications in (b), how many were (i) accepted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 101—
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to pipeline safety and the government's reaction to David Suzuki's recent comments about pipelines blowing up: (a) does the Prime Minister denounce Mr. Suzuki's comments and, if not, why not; (b) does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change denounce Mr. Suzuki's comments and, if not, why not; (c) what is the government's policy regarding future meetings, events, or dealings with Mr. Suzuki; and (d) in light of the comments, is the government planning to add specific measures to ensure that pipelines are protected and, if so, what are they?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 103—
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the Canadian delegation at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow: (a) who were the members of the delegation, including, for each, what organization they represented, if applicable; (b) what are the total costs incurred to date by the government related to the delegation; and (c) what are the total costs incurred by the government to date related to the delegation for (i) air transportation, (ii) land transportation, (iii) hotels or other accommodations, (iv) meals, (v) hospitality, (vi) room rentals, (vii) other costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 104—
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay:
With regard to projects funded in British Columbia through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund: what are the details of all projects projected to be completed in over the next five years, including the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) expected completion date, (iv) total project cost, (v) total federal funding commitment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 105—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the impact of inflation on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and the poverty line: (a) what is the current, or latest, MBM for the reference family and various poverty lines in each of the MBM geographic areas in Manitoba; (b) what was the "2018-base MBM" for the reference family and various poverty lines in each geographic area in (a); (c) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) were below each poverty line in 2018; (d) what percentage of individuals living in each area in (a) fall below each poverty line based on the current, or latest, MBM; and (e) what are the government's estimates or projections for where the poverty lines mentioned in (b) will be by the end of (i) 2022, (ii) 2023, (iii) 2024?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 106—
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to both funding streams of the Rapid Housing Initiative (the Projects Stream and the Major Cities Stream): (a) what was the (i) total number of approved projects, (ii) total number of approved housing units, (iii) total dollar value of each housing project, (iv) dollar value of the federal contribution of each housing project, (v) dollar value of any other contributor of each housing project; (b) what is the breakdown of each part of (a) by (i) municipality and province or territory, (ii) federal electoral constituency; (c) what is the breakdown of funds committed in (a) by (i) individual application, (ii) contributor source (i.e. federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous government, non-profit, other agency or organization), (iii) province or territory; and (d) what are the details of all applications in (a)(i), including the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) number of proposed units, (iv) date the application was submitted to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (v) date the project was announced publicly?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 107—
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the government's National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCIF): (a) what is the total number and dollar value of housing projects resulting from the NCFI; and (b) for each project resulting from the NHCIF, what is (i) the status of their progress, broken down by the Canada and Mortgage Corporation's four tracking and reporting phases (conditional commitment, financial commitment, construction or repair underway, completed), (ii) the number of units, (iii) the federal funds committed, (iv) the partners' funds committed, (v) their location by municipality and province or territory, (vi) their location by federal electoral constituency, (vii) their project description, (viii) the date the application was submitted, (ix) the date the contribution agreement was signed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 108—
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the government's National Housing Strategy: (a) what is the total number of housing units that have resulted from the strategy, broken down by program, funding envelope, and project; and (b) for each project in (a), what is the status of their progress, broken down by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's approach for tracking and reporting on a project through its four different phases, including (i) conditional commitment, (ii) financial commitment, (iii) construction or repair underway, (iv) completed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 109—
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to government projections on the impact of inflation and rising interest rates on homeowners: (a) what are the government's projections and analysis related to the impact that higher prices on essential goods, due to inflation, will have on the ability of homeowners to make mortgage payments; (b) does the government have any estimates on how many homeowners won't be able to make their mortgage payments as a result of inflationary pressures, and, if so, what are the estimates; (c) does the government or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have any projections related to the average increase in mortgage payments as a result of future interest rate increases, and, if so, what are the projections; and (d) does the government have any estimates related to the number of homeowners who will be unable to afford their mortgages as a result of future interest rate increases and, if so, what are those estimates?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 110—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the government’s decision to “set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers,” as laid out in Environment and Climate Change’s 2020 plan entitled “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy“: (a) what is the full list of “manufacturers, farmers, provinces and territories”, as defined by the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy“ plan, that were consulted about this decision prior to the release of the plan; (b) what are the details of all consultations which were held regarding the economic impact of this decision prior to the release of the plan, specifically on the agricultural sector and food production; and (c) what is the full list of “manufacturers, farmers, provinces and territories”, as defined by the “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy“ plan, that have been consulted regarding the economic impact of this decision from December 2020 to the present?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 111—
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the economic impact of the COVID-19 negative molecular test requirement for fully vaccinated travelers on the tourism industry in Alberta: (a) what was the number of foreign international travelers who arrived at the land border crossings in Alberta, broken down by month since the border opened for non-essential arrivals on August 9, 2021; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by point of entry; (c) what was the number of international travelers who arrived at each point of entry in Alberta, broken down by month in the year prior to the border closure in March 2020; (d) does the government have an estimate on the amount of lost tourism revenue in Alberta as a result of the test requirement for vaccinated travelers and, if so, what is the estimate; and (e) what estimates or projections does Parks Canada or Destination Canada have related to the lost revenue as a result of the test requirement on tourism and revenue levels in Banff National Park, in particular as it relates to the 2021-22 ski season?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 112—
Mr. Joël Godin:
With regard to the labour shortage problem and delays in obtaining work permits for foreign workers: (a) how many foreign workers are waiting for a response (i) in Canada, (ii) for the province of Quebec, (iii) in the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier; (b) what time frame does the government deem acceptable for ensuring that a work permit is obtained for a foreign worker; (c) what is the current time frame for work permits for foreign workers in each province; (d) has the government found solutions to its major breakdown with Service Canada that is causing significant delays in the delivery of work permits for foreign workers and, if so, what are they; (e) what is the cause of Service Canada’s computer glitches with foreign worker files; and (f) does the government have any analysis of changes in the labour shortage and, if so, what is the government’s estimate of the labour shortage over the next 10 years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 113—
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the impact of labour shortages on Canadian fruit growers and fruit processors: (a) what are the government's estimates on the shortage of workers during the 2021 fruit harvesting season, broken down by region; (b) what was the estimated loss of yield or production in the Canadian fruit industry in 2021 as a result of labour shortages, broken down by region and crop; and (c) will (i) Immigration and Refugees and Citizenship Canada, (ii) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, take specific actions to ensure that the Canadian industry doesn't face another labour shortage in 2022 and, if so, what are they?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 115—
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to all contracts signed by the government where advance payments were made since February 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many such contracts were awarded; (b) what is the total value of those contracts; and (c) what are the details of each contract with advance payment, including the (i) date, (ii) description of the goods or services, including the volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of the vendor?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 118—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) audit programs for businesses and particulars, since November 2015, broken down by year and by program: (a) how many audits were completed; (b) what is the number of auditors, broken down by category of auditors; (c) how many new files were opened; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files closed in (d), what was the average time it took to process the files before they were closed; (f) of the files closed in (d), what was the risk level of each file; (g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (j) how many reassessments were issued; (k) what is the total amount recovered; (l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (m) of the investigations in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (n) of the investigations in (m), how many resulted in convictions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 120—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), broken down by province and region and constituency: (a) how many Canadians experienced a reduction in their GIS in 2021, as a result of receiving income from a COVID-19 related financial support program, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; (b) how many Canadians have applied for a reassessment of their GIS since their assessments were released in July 2021; and (c) how many GIS reassessment applications for 2021 have been successful, or are still in the process of review?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 121—
Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin:
With regard to international transfers of Canadian prisoners detained abroad: (a) how many applications has Canada approved over the past 10 years, broken down by year and by country where the applicant was being detained at the time of application; (b) how many applications has Canada denied over the past 10 years, broken down by year and by country where the applicant was being detained at the time of application; (c) how many applications for transfer to Canada were denied by the country where the applicant was being detained over the past 10 years, broken down by year and by country of origin of the application; (d) what are the conditions for applying for a transfer from Japan; (e) which article of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons states that a sentenced person must have served one third of their sentence to be granted a transfer to Canada from Japan; (f) for all the transfer applications over the past 10 years, how much time, on average, elapsed between the transfer application and the transfer; (g) over the past 10 years, how many times has Global Affairs Canada intervened in favour of an accelerated transfer for a transfer application from a Canadian sentenced abroad; (h) over the past 10 years, how many administrative arrangements for transfer have been approved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Public Safety; and (i) over the past 10 years, how many administrative arrangements for transfer has Canada signed with convention signatory countries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 122—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the government's plan to set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers: (a) does the government accept MNP's analysis from September 2021 that cumulative lost production of canola could total approximately 151 million tonnes between 2023 and 2030, and if not, why not; (b) does the government have any analysis which is contrary to MNP's analysis, and if so, what are the details, including the findings; (c) what are the projected economic impacts on the domestic production of biofuels related to the lost production of canola or other biofuel crops for the period between 2023 and 2030; (d) has the government carried out any impact analysis study of absolute reductions of fertilizer (i) prior to making the announcement, (ii) after making the announcement, and if so, what are the details, including findings; (e) has the government carried out any impact analysis study of emissions intensity reduction from fertilizer prior to making the announcement, and if so, what are the details, including findings; and (f) will the government carry out an impact analysis study related to absolute reduction and emissions intensity reduction from fertilize before any such target or restriction is imposed, and if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 123—
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the importation of batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) into Canada and the government's concerns about current and future shortages of batteries for EVs: (a) what specific plans does the government have to improve the battery shortage faced by Canadian EV manufacturers; (b) does the government have any plans to ensure that more EV batteries are manufactured in Canada, and if so, what are the details of the plans, including the projected increase in the number of domestically manufactured batteries; (c) does the government's plan include an industry reliance on foreign produced EV batteries for Canadian manufactured vehicles, and if so, what percentage of the batteries in new Canadian EVs are expected to be foreign produced, broken down by each of the next five years; (d) what standards are in place to ensure that EV batteries imported to Canada are not made (i) from child labour, (ii) from forced labour, (iii) with materials mined by children or exploited workers; (e) have any EV batteries destined for Canada been intercepted by Canada Border Services Agency in the last five years due to concerns related to labour standards, and if so, what are the details; (f) what are the government's current assessments related to problems with the global supply chain associated with EV batteries; (g) what is the government's assessment of the impact that the United States' Buy American policy has on the shortage of batteries for Canadian EV plants; (h) what are the government's projections related to the number of new electric vehicles expected to be produced in Canada in each of the next five years; and (i) what are the government's projections related to the number of EV batteries which will be available to Canadian EV manufacturers in each of the next five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 124—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the government's decision to "set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers," as laid out in Environment and Climate Change Canada's 2020 plan entitled "A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy": (a) has Farm Credit Canada done any analysis related to the impact that lower fertilizer amounts will have on crop production, and if so, what are the details, including findings of the analysis; (b) what is the projected increase in both demand and federal budget for business risk management (BRM) programs like AgriStability and AgriRecovery, as a result of this decision; (c) what new measures are proposed to adjust for the decline in crop yields, specifically pertaining to the historical reference period used for determining eligibility for BRM programs; (d) what new insurance programs or financial assistance programs will be available for farmers whose crop yields rely disproportionately on their ability to use fertilizer, and will be disproportionately affected by mandatory reductions in fertilizer use; (e) what are Farm Credit Canada's projections regarding yield gaps, broken down by each different type of Canadian crop, each year from now until 2030; and (f) has Health Canada or any other government department or agency done any analysis on the ability of Canadians to pay more for food at the grocery store as a result of lower yields by Canadian farmers, and if so, what are the details, including findings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 125—
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe:
With regard to the Chinook tool used by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in the processing of study permits and temporary visas: (a) why has the use of Chinook not been publicly disclosed; (b) who developed this tool and why; (c) how does the tool work; (d) what are the different steps in its use; (e) has the tool been subject to one or more cybersecurity audits and, if so, by which firm or individual; (f) why is its use not disclosed directly to immigration applicants; (g) why can’t details of decisions made using the tool be saved or retained in some way; (h) what oversight does IRCC provide to ensure that immigration officers use the tool correctly; (i) what data is processed using the tool; (j) how are immigration applications ranked and based on what indicators; (k) what efficiency gains does Chinook provide; (l) what keywords or indicators are most likely to increase the risk level of an application; (m) what keywords or indicators are most likely to lead to a refusal of an application; (n) what do we know about the algorithms used by the tool; (o) why have refusal rates for study permit applications increased significantly since the tool was implemented in March 2018; (p) what guidance is provided to IRCC staff about using the tool; (q) what visa offices, in Canada and abroad, use Chinook, broken down by office; (r) in (q), what version of Chinook is used; (s) what visa offices processing study permit and temporary visa applications, in Canada and abroad, do not use Chinook; (t) in (s), why; and (u) was the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship at the time of Chinook’s implementation consulted about its implementation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 126—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Special Immigration Measures for Afghans who assisted our Canadian Armed Forces as interpreters or locally engaged staff, since July 22, 2021, to present: (a) how many of these Afghans have reached Canada; (b) how many of these Afghans have been referred by the Department of National Defence (DND) to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and received an invitation to apply; (c) how many of these Afghans have been referred by DND to IRCC, but have not received an invitation to apply; (d) of the Afghans referred by DND to IRCC who have not been invited to apply, (i) what database are their names being held in, (ii) who is responsible for making the decision to put their names into the Global Case Management System, assign them an application number, and send an invitation to apply; and (e) what criteria are being used to determine which Afghans should receive an application number and an invitation to apply and when, and are these Afghans being tiered based on the severity of their individual security circumstances?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 127—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) reserves applying to transfer to become full active members of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by each branch applied for: (a) what is the number of reservists who have applied to become members of the Army, Navy or Air Force; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were successful; (c) what was the average time between when an application by a reservist was received and a final decision was made; and (d) what are the CAF's service standards related to the length it takes to make a decision on such transfers, and what percentage of applicants received a decision within the service standard timeline?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 128—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to complaints received by the Canada Revenue Agency related to its various assistance by telephone lines and numbers: (a) what is the number of complaints received since January 1, 2019, broken down by month; and (b) of the numbers in (a), what is the breakdown by type of complaint, including (i) line not working or out of service, (ii) dropped calls, (iii) long hold times, (iv) other, broken down by type?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 129—
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to documents sent by or received by Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada related to COVID-19 vaccines, drugs, or treatments and excluding correspondence from the general public, since March 1, 2020: what are the details of each such document including the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) title, (iv) date, (v) file number or tracking number, (vi) type of document (memorandum, application, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 130—
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the processing of applications by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many applications has IRCC received and processed since January 2021, broken down by month; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by visa category and type of application; (c) how many applications did IRCC receive each month in 2020, broken down by month; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by visa category and type of application; (e) how many of the applications received since January 2021 are considered in backlog; (f) how many of the applications received in 2020 were considered in backlog; (g) since January 2021, what is the average visa processing time, broken down by category; and (h) in 2020, what was the average visa processing time, broken down by category?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 131—
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the applications and resettlement of refugees from Afghanistan submitted to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) what is the number of applications of Afghan refugees broken down by stage of processing; (b) what is the average processing time for an Afghan refugee application under the special immigration program; (c) how many Afghan refugees who applied to IRCC are in third countries; (d) what is the country breakdown of refugees in (c); (e) how many Afghan interpreters have submitted a refugee application; (f) how many Afghan interpreters' applications have been processed; (g) how many Afghan interpreters' applications have been denied; (h) what is the breakdown of (g) by reason for denial; (i) how many Afghan refugee applications have been made by refugees who identify as a targeted religious minority; and (j) what is the timeline for IRCC to resettle all 40,000 Afghan refugees in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 132—
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the allegations of racism and discrimination reported by employees of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in the IRCC Anti-Racism Employee Focus Groups Final Report by Pollara Strategic Insights delivered in June 2021: (a) how many complaints of racism and discrimination have been made by employees at IRCC since January 2019; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by month since January 2019; (c) how many of the complaints made by employees were referred to or handled by the Office of Conflict Resolution; (d) what is the number of complaints of racism and discrimination handled by the Office of Conflict Resolution since its creation, broken down by month; (d) what authority and recourse does the Office of Conflict Resolution have to respond to complaints of racism and discrimination; (e) how many members of the anti-racism task force at IRCC identify as racialized; (f) what measures, other than the IRCC Code of Conduct, have been implemented to combat racism and discrimination in IRCC; (g) how are these measures, and the IRCC Code of Conduct, being enforced by IRCC management; and (h) what is IRCC doing to ensure that racism and discrimination does not affect the processing and review of immigration, refugee, and citizenship applications, and the approval or denial of these applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 133—
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to vehicles provided for the use of ministers and the federal executive vehicle fleet, as of November 29, 2021: (a) what is the total number of vehicles provided for the use of ministers; (b) what was the total cost of procuring the vehicles currently in use by ministers; (c) for each ministerial vehicle, what was the (i) date purchased, (ii) make and model, including the year, (iii) purchase price, (iv) whether it was manufactured in Canada; (d) what is the total number of vehicles in the federal executive vehicle fleet; (e) what was the total cost of procuring vehicles for the fleet; (f) for each vehicle in the fleet, what was the (i) date purchased, (ii) make and model, including the year, (iii) purchase price, (iv) whether it was manufactured in Canada; and (g) what is the government’s official policy related to buying vehicles manufactured in Canada for ministerial vehicles and the federal executive vehicle fleet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 134—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, from September 1, 2019, to date: (a) how many applicants have applied for mortgages through the FTHBI program, broken down by province and municipality; (b) of those applicants, how many have been approved and accepted mortgages through the FTHBI program, 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 program 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 that mean value of the mortgage loan; and (g) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 136—
Mr. Martin Champoux:
With regard to federal public servants who have been placed on unpaid leave due to their vaccination status: (a) how many are there in total; (b) of the total in (a), what is the breakdown by federal department and agency; and (c) for each federal department and agency in (b), what percentage of total employees do the employees who have been placed on unpaid leave account for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 137—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and proposed changes by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, including the Draft Conservation Network Design for the Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Bioregion: (a) for each proposed change or additional MPA, what would be the impact to the lobster fishery and lobster quotas; (b) what would be the impact in Lobster Fishing Areas (LFA) 27 through 34, broken down by LFA; and (c) what are the details of all memorandums, briefing notes, reports, or correspondence related to the MPAs or the proposals since January 1, 2016, including (i) the date, (ii) the type of document, (iii) the sender, (iv) the recipient, (v) the title, (vi) the summary of the contents, (vii) the internal file or tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 139—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the job posting which closed in October 2020 where the Privy Council Office was looking for a storyteller to join the Prime Minister and Visual Communications team: (a) how many storytellers are currently working for the Privy Council Office or the Office of the Prime Minister; (b) what is the organizational structure for the storytellers, such as is there a lead storyteller that the other storytellers pitch their stories to; (c) who decides whether or not a story is worth telling; (d) what is the yearly budget of the storytelling department; (e) who does the lead storyteller report to; (f) of the storytellers currently employed, how many have prior experience writing fictional stories; (g) what metrics are used to judge the quality of the storytelling; (h) what is itemized breakdown of the storytelling budget; (i) how many stories have been told by the storytellers; and (j) of the stories in (i), how many were fictional?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 140—
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to legal costs incurred by the government in relation to its legal application launched in June 2021 against the Speaker of the House of Commons, as well as any subsequent legal action related to this case: (a) what is the total number of billable hours incurred by outside legal counsel to prepare this application and subsequent legal action; (b) what is the total amount (i) paid out, (ii) scheduled to be paid out, by the government to outside legal counsel to prepare this application and subsequent legal action; (c) what is the total number of federal civil servants that were assigned to assist in the preparation of this application, broken down by department or agency; (d) which ministers, ministerial exempt staff, or senior government officials participated in the preparation of this application; (e) which ministers, ministerial exempt staff, or government officials had outside legal expenses covered by the government in relation to this application or the related order of the House of Commons; (f) what was the total amount (i) paid out, (ii) scheduled to be paid out, in legal expenses related to (e); and (g) which departments or agencies allocated resources to prepare the legal application, and what specific resources did each department or agency allocate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 142—
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille:
With regard to the funding granted in 2020 to United Way Centraide Canada, through the Emergency Community Support Fund, to increase response capacity and expand 211 service coverage to all Canadian residents, with said funding coming to an end on March 31, 2021: (a) what amount was spent to expand coverage of the 211 service across Quebec; and (b) how many referrals were made through the 211 service broken down by (i) each region of Quebec, (ii) month, between March 2020 and March 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 143—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, broken down by province and territory, and fiscal years from 2018 to present: (a) how many work permits have been processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and are expected to be processed for 2021-22; (b) of the permits in (a), how many of those migrants have come to Canada to fill jobs; (c) what employment sectors have those jobs been in; (d) what is the expected duration of the work permits for the migrants in (b), in each sector; (e) what was the average processing time for work permits in each employment sector; (f) what was the average wait time between application, processing and arrival time in Canada to begin employment, for each economic sector; and (g) is the government providing new opportunities for these migrants to become permanent residents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 144—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, broken down by province and territory, and fiscal years from 2018 to present: (a) how many Labour Market Impact Assessments has Employment and Social Development Canada (i) undertaken, (ii) completed; (b) what was the average processing time for the applications in (a); (c) how many jobs has the program filled within the heavy trucking sector by class of license; and (d) how many of the temporary foreign workers in (c) became permanent residents of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 145—
Mr. Bob Benzen:
With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircrafts, since January 1, 2021: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 146—
Mr. Bob Benzen:
With regard to usage of the government's Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, since January 1, 2021: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 147—
Mr. Bob Benzen:
With regard to the Ottawa quarantine hotel set up for the Prime Minister and the delegation that travelled with him to Europe in June 2021: (a) what was the total amount paid to the hotel to accommodate the Prime Minister and his entourage for the purpose of quarantining; (b) how many individuals quarantined at the hotel; (c) of the individuals who quarantined at the hotel, how many received their initial COVID test results back and were permitted to leave the hotel in (i) less than 12 hours, (ii) 12 to 24 hours, (iii) 24 to 48 hours, (iv) more than 48 hours; (d) are the quarantine hotel travel expenses incurred by the Prime Minister and his exempt staff posted under proactively published travel expenses, and, if so, on what date were these expenses posted; (e) what costs were incurred to transform the hotel from a regular hotel to a designated quarantine hotel, and what is the itemized breakdown of the costs; and (f) how many returning international travelers not associated with the Prime Minister's trip were permitted to use this Ottawa hotel as a designated quarantine hotel upon arriving in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 148—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to COVID-19 vaccines procured by the government: (a) what are the government's estimates regarding how many vaccine doses were not administered; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by reason (expired, wasted, improperly stored, etc.) and by vaccine manufacturer (Moderna, Pfizer, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 149—
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the government's renovation project of the former United States Embassy building at 100 Wellington Street in Ottawa: (a) what are the total costs incurred by the government since January 1, 2016, related to renovating the building; (b) what is the itemized breakdown of the costs in (a); (c) what is the projected total budget for the renovation project; (d) what is the timeline of the renovation project, including the expected completion date; and (e) what will the renovated building be used for once the project is complete?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 151—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to interactions between the government and social media companies since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each time the government flagged or made a request to remove or put a warning on a social media post, broken down by department or agency, including the (i) date of request, (ii) platform (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), (iii) description of post or content, (iv) reason for flagging or removal request, (v) name of account or handle associated with the post subject to the removal request, (vi) whether or not the social media company removed the post, (vii) whether or not the social media company put a warning on the post, (viii) title of government official or exempt staff member who made the request?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 152—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to government spending on COVID-19 vaccine production facilities: (a) what is the amount actually spent to date on such facilities; and (b) what are the details of each facility which received funding, including the (i) location, (ii) company name, (iii) how much funding has been received, (iv) how many COVID-19 vaccines are currently being produced at the facility each month, (v) what is the status of the facility, (vi) when will the facility start producing vaccines, if it is not yet producing vaccines, (vii) on what date did the facility start producing COVID-19 vaccines, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 153—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to any contracts or businesses dealings between any government department, agency, Crown Corporation, or other government entity and Global Health Imports Corporation, since the company was incorporated in April 2020: (a) what are the details of any contracts with the company, including the (i) date, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) description of goods or services, including the volume, (iv) reason the contract is not listed through proactive disclosure, if applicable; and (b) what are the details of all submissions, proposals or inquiries received by the government from the company, including the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) summary of response?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 154—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the development of Snapchat filters by or for the government, including agencies, Crown corporations, and other government entities, since January 1, 2018: (a) what amount has been spent developing the filters; (b) what is the description or purpose of each filter; and (c) for each filter developed, what are the details, including the (i) amount spent on development, (ii) date of launch, (iii) analytic data or usage rates, (iv) campaign for which the filter was developed, (v) locations where filters were available?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 156—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to government funding for fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21 allocated within the constituency of Winnipeg Centre: what is the total funding amount, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) department or agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 160—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) since January 1, 2020, how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected, (iv) are in inventory, broken down by month, stream (e.g. Home Child Care Provider, citizenship, etc.), and whether the application was inland or outland; (b) how many applications have passed eligibility, criminality and security, but do not have a final decision since January 1, 2020, broken down by month, stream, and whether the application was inland or outland; (c) for applications in (b), what is the average time that has passed since passing the most recent of those steps, broken down by stream, and whether the application was inland or outland; (d) how many first-stage decisions on applications for the Home Child Care Provider and Home Support Worker pilots have been issued between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021; (e) broken down by year and reason for refusal (including reason for not passing eligibility), what is the number of Humanitarian and Compassionate applications that were refused since 2015; (f) for how many applications in (e) did an officer request additional information from an applicant prior to issuing a refusal; (g) broken down by stream, how many applications submitted to bilingual streams (Stream A, Stream B and International Graduates) of the temporary resident to permanent resident pathway were issued refusals for failing to submit French language test result; and (h) how many applications in (g) received a positive eligibility assessment following a reconsideration?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 161—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy, broken down by type of applicant (e.g. non-profit, for-profit, Indigenous organization), stream (e.g. new construction, revitalization), stage (e.g. letter of intent, finalized agreement, servicing), date of the submission, province, number of units, number of units for Indigenous households, whether or not construction has been completed, and the dollar amount (for grants and loans): (a) how many applications have been received under the National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) since 2018; (b) for NHCF applications that resulted in finalized funding agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their funding agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting the NHCF affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting the affordability criteria; (c) how many applications have been received under the Rental Construction Financing initiative (RCFi) since 2017; (d) of the applications in (c) that resulted in loan agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their loan agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting RCFi affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting the affordability criteria; (e) how many applications have been received for the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI) since 2020; and (f) of the applications in (e) that resulted in loan agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 162—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the government’s response to the crisis in Afghanistan: (a) under the special measures for people in Afghanistan, broken down by month, how many people have (i) applied, (ii) been provided with a Canadian visa or confirmation of Canadian citizenship, (iii) received invitations to go to an airport, (iv) been approved to be a permanent resident; (b) under the special measures for Afghan nationals outside of Afghanistan and their dependents, broken down by inland and outland origin of requests and by month, how many applications have (i) been received, (ii) been approved, (iii) resulted in the applicant landing in Canada; (c) what are the details of any briefing notes on Afghanistan provided to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship since 2019, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number; (d) what are the details of any briefing notes on Afghanistan provided to the Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2019, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number; (e) what are the details of any briefing notes on Afghanistan provided to the Minister of National Defense since 2019, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number; and (f) what are the details of any responses to the briefing notes in (c), (d) and (e), including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) recipient, (v) internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 164—
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to government public awareness or advertising campaigns related to potential harms associated with cannabis use, excluding those focused on the dangers of drug impaired driving: what are the details of each such campaign launched by the government since January 1, 2019, including the (i) campaign title and description, (ii) date campaign was launched, (iii) start and end date of the campaign, (iv) campaign budget, (v) targeted age range or other demographics, (vi) names of the traditional and social media outlets or platforms used by the campaign, (vii) specific potential harms of cannabis highlighted by the campaign?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 165—
Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to relations between Canada and the United States, broken down by minister: (a) how many meetings has each minister had with their American counterpart since being sworn in on October 26, 2021; and (b) what are the details of all such meetings, including the (i) date, (ii) type (in person, Zoom, etc.), (iii) agenda items, (iv) titles of American counterparts participating, (v) results from the meeting, if any?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 167—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to Prairies Economic Development Canada (PrairiesCan): (a) how many projects have received funding through PrairiesCan since the announced creation of the agency on August 12, 2021; (b) what are the details of each project in (a), including the (i) date of the announcement, (ii) project description, (iii) project location, (iv) funding recipient, (v) projected total project cost, (vi) amount of federal contribution towards the total project cost, (vii) expected completion date of the project; (c) what are the addresses of the PrairiesCan service locations in (i) Lethbridge, (ii) Fort McMurray, (iii) Grande Prairie, (iv) Regina, (v) Prince Albert, (vi) Brandon, (vii) Thompson; (d) for each location in (c), is the location currently in operation, and, if not, when will the location be in operation; (e) for each location in (c), what is the (i) 2021-22, (ii) 2022-23, operating budget; and (f) how many full-time equivalents have been assigned to work at each location in (c)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 169—
Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin:
With regard to the International Aerocity of Mirabel, managed by Aéroports de Montréal (ADM): (a) how many times has the minister responsible been consulted on the real estate development of this site since 2000; (b) for which projects involving the leasing of land on this site has the minister responsible given his approval since 2000, broken down by year; (c) for which projects involving the construction of buildings on this site has the minister responsible given his approval since 2000, broken down by year; (d) which projects involving the leasing of land on this site has the minister responsible refused to approve since 2000, broken down by year; (e) which projects involving the construction of buildings on this site has the minister responsible refused to approve since 2000, broken down by year; (f) based on what criteria does the minister responsible make the decision to approve or refuse a lease or construction project on this site; (g) in total, what is the amount of rent collected by ADM for land leases on this site for which the minister responsible has given his approval since 2000, broken down by year; (h) what foreign companies have established themselves on land on this site since 2000; (i) what steps has the federal government taken to transfer unused land on this site to the City of Mirabel, as indicated on page 28 of ADM’s 2019 annual report; (j) what are the terms and conditions of the lease between ADM and the federal government with respect to the development of this site; and (k) in what locations and in what official documents are the terms and conditions of ADM’s mission for the real estate development of industrial and commercial lands of this site, other than for its airport operations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 170—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Department of National Defence, since August 10, 2021: (a) how many existing contracts and procurements have been (i) cancelled, (ii) modified to change the order, (iii) modified with a cost increase; and (b) for all the items in (a), what are the details, including the (i) contract or procurement number, (ii) supplier, (iii) product or service being ordered, (iv) date ordered, (v) date cancelled, (vi) original cost, (vii) modified cost, (viii) reason for cancellation, (ix) reason for cost increase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 172—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Department of Health, and the regulations to the Statutes of Canada 2014, Chapter 24, also known as Vanessa’ s Law, which came into effect on December 16, 2019: (a) how much has been spent on initiatives informing medical professionals of the new mandatory reporting requirements; (b) what is the breakdown of the spending in (a), including the (i) date and the duration, (ii) type of initiative, (iii) number of recipients, (iv) amount spent, (v) description of the initiative; (c) since the regulations came into force, how many reports of adverse drug interactions and medical device incidents has the government received; and (d) what is the breakdown of each report in (c), including (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the product or drug being reported, (iv) the type of interaction or incident, (v) whether the interaction or incident resulted in a fatality?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 173—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program from municipalities in Ontario that have a Canadian Armed Forces installation, since March 2020: (a) has the government received any correspondence on issues with the PILT Program from municipalities in Ontario that have a Canadian Armed Forces installation, and, if so, what are the details of each correspondence, including (i) the municipality, (ii) the recipient, (iii) the date received by the government, (iv) whether the government responded to the correspondence; (b) for each government response to correspondence in (a), what are the details, including the (i) date of the response, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) author, (v) internal tracking or file number; and (c) what are the details of all briefing notes written since March 2020 related to the PILT Program, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date, (iv) recipient, (v) summary of content, (vi) internal tracking or file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 174—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Department of Indutry’s Innovation Superclusters Initiative, since May 24, 2017: (a) what is the total amount spent on the initiative, broken down by (i) supercluster, (ii) year; (b) what are the number of jobs created by the initiative, broken down by (i) supercluster, (ii) project invested in, (iii) province of investment, (iv) year; (c) what is the total economic output created by the initiative, broken down by (i) supercluster, (ii) project invested in, (iii) province of investment, (iv) year; and (d) what is the total number of intellectual property (IP) assets created, broken down by (i) supercluster, (ii) project invested in, (iii) type of IP asset, (iv) province of investment, (v) year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 175—
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the acquisition or purchase of data sets, such as mobility data, on Canadians from websites, search engines, telecom providers, or other data providers, by any government department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity since March 1, 2020: what are the details of all instances where data was purchased or acquired, including (i) the date, (ii) the amount paid, if applicable, (iii) the company or organization that provided the data, (iv) the description and type of data provided, (v) whether the government requested the data or was the data offered by the company or organization, (vi) summary of data contents, (vii) how the government used the data?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 176—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program: (a) for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 fiscal years, what are the details of all project expenditures which have been made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under this program, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary, (v) constituency; (b) what is the amount of fixed annual funding allocated to each harbour, broken down by location; and (c) what are the specific criteria and metrics used to determine how much funding is allocated to each harbour?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 180—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to companies funded by the Natural Resources Canada’s Emissions Reduction Fund: (a) what are the names and addresses of the headquarters of all companies which received funding from the Offshore or Onshore Program; and (b) broken down by company funded, what are the details of each grant, including (i) the date signed, (ii) the start and end date, (iii) the total dollar amount, (iv) the list of outcomes or metrics the company must report to the government with respect to emissions reduction, (v) what are the deadlines for which the company must meet any specific metrics or outcomes, broken down by target or requirement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 181—
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to the offices of the Minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations, Minister for Indigenous Services, and Minister of Northern Affairs from July 1, 2016, to December 8, 2021: (a) how much was spent on contracts for (i) temporary employment, (ii) consultants, (iii) advice; (b) what are the details of all contracts related to (a), including for each (i) the date and duration of the contract, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the value of the contract, (iv) the description of services provided, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bid process, (vi) the file number; and (c) what are the names of the individuals who provided the services to the minister’s office in relation to the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 182—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the February 9, 2021, announcement from the government that self-employed individuals who applied for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and would have qualified based on their gross income will not be required to repay the benefit, provided they also met all other eligibility requirements: (a) how many CERB recipients had their repayment obligations waived related to this decision; (b) what is the estimated cost to the Treasury of the decision announced on February 9, 2021; (c) how much money did the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada return to individuals who had already repaid the amounts owing related to this criteria before the government made this announcement; and (d) how many individuals were returned money related to (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 184—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the government's hotel quarantine being run by a third party at the Hilton Toronto Airport Hotel and Suites for certain returning international travellers: (a) what company or organization is the third party running the quarantine operation; (b) how much is the company or organization being paid to run the hotel quarantine; (c) how much was this Hilton Toronto Airport and Suites paid by the government to have their hotel used as a quarantine facility; (d) why were some mothers staying at the facility denied access to formula for their infants; (e) on what date did the government become aware that some mothers were being denied access to infant formula; (f) what specific steps did the government take to rectify the situation in (d), and on what date was each step taken; (g) why were individuals with food allergies and other dietary restrictions not allowed access to food that they can eat at the quarantine hotel; (h) on what date did the government become aware that certain individuals did not have access to food to which they were not allergic to; (i) what specific steps were taken to rectify the situation in (g), and on what date was each step taken; (j) what specific measures were included in the terms of the government's agreement with the quarantine facility operator related to access to fresh air for travellers; (k) why did some travellers experience delays of over 24 hours between when they received a negative test result and when the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) allowed them to leave the facility; and (l) what specific steps did the PHAC take to address the delays in (k), and on what date was each step taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 186—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) recipients who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit: (a) what are the details, including the findings, of any studies, analyses, estimates or projections of the impact of reducing the monthly amount of the CCB; (b) for the documents in (a), what are their titles and dates; (c) have any projections been made of the impact of the monthly reduction in the CCB on families with incomes below the low income cutoff; (d) of the projections referred to in (c), what are their titles and dates; and (e) what are the findings of the projections referred to in (c)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 187—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Canada Workers Benefit (CWB) recipients who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB): (a) how many CWB recipients received the (i) CERB, (ii) CRB, (iii) CRCB, (iv) CRSB; (b) of the applicants in (a), how many single individuals reported income over the adjusted net income in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted net income in the 2019 tax year; (c) of the applicants in (a), how many single individuals reported adjusted net income over $24,573 in the 2020 tax year compared to the higher adjusted net income in the 2019 tax year; (d) of the applicants in (a), how many families reported income over the adjusted family net income in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted family net income in the 2019 tax year; (e) of the applicants in (a), how many families reported income over the adjusted family net income of $37,173 in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted family net income in the 2019 tax year; (f) of the applicants in (a), how many had their monthly CWB amount reduced in 2021 compared to 2020, broken down by (i) single individuals, (ii) families; (g) of the applicants in (f), what was the average monthly reduction in their CWB payment, broken down by each month in 2021; (h) of the applicants in (f), how many receive the disability supplement; (i) of the applicants in (g), how many single individuals reported income over the adjusted net income in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted net income in the 2019 tax year; (j) of the applicants in (g), how many single individuals reported adjusted net income over $30,511 in the 2020 tax year compared to the higher adjusted net income in the 2019 tax year; (k) of the applicants in (h), how many families reported income over the adjusted family net income in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted family net income in the 2019 tax year; (l) of the applicants in (h), how many families reported income over the adjusted family net income of $43,118 in the 2020 tax year compared to the adjusted family net income in the 2019 tax year; (m) of the applicants in (h), how many had their monthly disability supplement payment reduced in 2021 compared to 2020, broken down by (i) single individuals, (ii) families; and (n) of the applications in (m), what was the average monthly reduction in their disability supplement payment, broken down by each month in 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 188—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the Canada Workers Benefit (CWB), broken down by province: (a) how many recipients had their CWB reduced because they received income support from a COVID-19 financial assistance program, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; and (b) of the applicants in (a), what was the average monthly reduction in their CWB payment, broken down by each month in 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 189—
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to government agreements related to the development or production of COVID-19 vaccines in Canada: (a) what companies or organizations currently have agreements with the government related to developing or producing made-in-Canada vaccines in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) what are the details of each agreement, including the (i) date of the agreement, (ii) name of the company or organization, (iii) location of the development or production, (iv) amount of government contribution, (v) type of the contribution, (grant, repayable loan, etc.), (vi) expected date of approval, (vii) date when production is expected to begin, (viii) amount of vaccine expected to be produced each month, (ix) timetables agreed to?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 190—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the opioid crisis in Canada: (a) what are the government's estimates on the number of opioid related deaths in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021 to date; (b) for each estimate in (a), how many of those deaths were accidental; (c) what is the estimated number of total overdose deaths in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021 to date; (d) for each estimate in (c), what percentage of those deaths involved opioids; (e) what are the government's targets related to reducing the number of opioid related deaths in (i) 2022, (ii) 2023; and (f) what specific measures will the government implement in 2022 to reduce the number of opioid deaths and on what date will each measure be implemented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 191—
Mr. Matt Jeneroux:
With regard to the sale of federal properties since January 1, 2020: what are the details of each federal property sold, including the (i) province or territory, (ii) city, (iii) street address, (iv) type of listing (residential, office, etc.), (v) asking price, (vi) sale price, if different than the asking price, (vii) buyer, (viii) future use of the property, if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 192—
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the $50 million to support Indigenous tourism initiatives as part of the Tourism Relief Fund announced in Budget 2021: (a) what was the policy rationale for administering these funds through regional economic development agencies rather than through an Indigenous organization; (b) for each regional economic development agency, how many Indigenous tourism operators have applied and how many have received funding to this date; (c) what are the names, locations and amounts contributed to the recipients in (b); and (d) have there been any complaints regarding the application process?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 193—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy and the statement by the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion on December 7, 2021, that the government's National Housing Strategy has a rural lens to it: (a) what are the details of the rural lens applied to the National Housing Strategy; (b) when and how was the rural lens developed; (c) who was responsible for developing the rural lens; (d) what is definition of "rural community" when using a rural lens for the program; (e) what specific criteria is used for determining which communities are included as a rural community; (f) how did the government calculate that 38% of Rapid Housing Initiative projects are in rural and Indigenous communities; (g) what is the breakdown of (f) by type of community, including the amount of money that has been spent in communities that fit under the definition in (d); and (h) what are the government's targets for the number of houses built through the Rapid Housing Initiative, by type of community?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 195—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to dealings between the government and foreign law enforcement or security bodies: (a) what agreements are currently in place related to security and intelligence sharing with foreign states which have not ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UN CAT); (b) does the government ever share the personal information of Canadian citizens with security or intelligence units of states that have not ratified the UN CAT, and, if so, under what circumstances; (c) what steps does the government take to ensure that security and intelligence information shared with other states does not lead to acts of torture abroad; (d) which members of the government, government caucus or public service have met with members or representatives of security or intelligence organs of a state that had not ratified the UN CAT, in the last 12 months; (e) what are the details of each of meeting referred to in (d), including the (i) date, (ii) attendees, (iii) purpose of meeting, (iv) meeting outcome, (v) agenda items; (f) is the government examining or considering any changes to existing security or intelligence sharing agreements with nations that have not ratified the UN CAT, and, if so, what changes are being examined or considered, and is the government contemplating the signing of new agreements in this area with such states; and (g) did the government raise issues respecting human rights in general or the treatment of detainees in particular during any meetings referred to in (d), and, if so, during which meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 196—
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the agreements entered into by the government signatories for procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, or vaccine candidates, that were provided to the Standing Committee on Health in June 2021: (a) did the government delay or defer its provision of the agreements to the committee for the purpose of providing a copy of each agreement to the committee simultaneously; (b) why were the provisions of the Access to Information Act used as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee; (c) which other standards were considered and rejected as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee; (d) did feedback from any of the counterparties influence which standards were used or rejected as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee, and, if so, which counterparties provided such feedback and what was the feedback in summary; (e) for each agreement, after the effective date, (i) how many, on what dates, and under what authorities has the government received requests or orders for disclosure of the agreement, in whole or in part, (ii) on what date did the government signatory first engage the counterparty relating to the disclosure of the agreement to the committee, (iii) on what date was the final agreement between the government signatory and the counterparty reached relating to the disclosure of the agreement to the committee, (iv) what were the actions taken by the government, pursuant to the agreement, in order to disclose the agreement to the committee, (v) which sections of the agreement were engaged for the purpose of disclosing the agreement to the committee; and (f) with regard to the sections of the agreements relating to confidentiality and disclosure, including but not limited to section 16 through 16B (Sanofi), section 22 through 22.4 (Medicago), section 16 through 16.8 (AstraZeneca), section 7 through 7.6 (Moderna), section 10 through 10.4 (Pfizer), section 13 through 13.6 (Novavax), and section 17 through 17.8 (Janssen), (i) is Parliament, including any of its powers or constituent or subsidiary parts, explicitly included, or should be reasonably understood to be included, in any exclusions to the sections and, if so, to what extent or, if not, why not, (ii) did the government signatory seek or receive legal advice on the applicability of the sections with respect to orders or powers of Parliament, including any of its constituent or subsidiary parts and, if so, what were the conclusions and recommendations of that advice in summary or, if not, why not, (iii) did the government signatory seek or receive legal advice with respect to a potential conflict between the rights and powers of Parliament, or its committees, and the requirements of the sections and, if so, what were the conclusions and recommendations of that advice in summary or, if not, why not, (iv) were the terms of the sections initially proposed by the government signatory and, if so, from what document, policy, or other source did the terms of the sections originate, (v) in the course of negotiating the contract or agreement, did the government signatory propose or seek agreement for less stringent terms in the sections and, if so, what was the response of the counterparty in summary, (vi) were the Governor in Council, the designated minister, or the head of the institution consulted on the terms of, or agreement to, the sections, (vii) was agreement to the sections approved by the Governor in Council, the designated minister, or the head of the institution, (viii) what are the reasons the government signatories agreed to the terms of the sections, (ix) was the government signatory aware, at or before the effective date, of the text or terms of analogous sections agreed to by foreign governments in analogous contracts or agreements and, if so, to what extent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 198—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the Chemical Management Regime as found under the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment and the Public Health Agency of Canada in the Supplementary Estimates (A) 2021-22: (a) what were the planned and actual expenditures of the Chemicals Management Plan from 2018-19 to 2020- 21, broken down by fiscal year and by program activity; and (b) what are the transfer payments following the reclassification of the Chemical Management Plan to the Chemical Management Regime in 2021-22?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 199—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) recipients who have received payments from any support program related to COVID-19 and have experienced a reduction in GIS or become ineligible for GIS: (a) on what date did the government become aware of the risk of a GIS reduction or loss by recipients; (b) how many internal memos, presentations or other similar documents have been prepared by the government on the risk of GIS ineligibility; (c) of the documents in (b), what are their titles and dates; (d) how many meetings were held between ministerial offices and departments, including the (i) date, (ii) name and title of participants, (iii) format (in-person, Zoom, etc.); and (e) how much correspondence has been received by the government on the issue of recipients who experience a reduction or loss of their GIS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 200—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to renovations made by the government at the residences used by the Prime Minister, including Harrington Lake, Rideau Cottage, and 24 Sussex Drive: (a) what are the details of all renovations completed since July 1, 2020, including, for each project, the (i) name of the property, (ii) detailed description of renovations or work completed, (iii) items or features added to the property or renovated at the property, (iv) date of completion, (v) total cost of the project, (vi) itemized breakdown of costs; and (b) what are the details of all renovations which started after July 1, 2020, and are still ongoing, including, for each, the (i) name of the property, (ii) detailed description of renovations or work completed, (iii) items or features added to the property or renovated at the property, (iv) anticipated date of completion, (v) total cost of the project, (vi) itemized breakdown of costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 201—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the Governor in Council appointments and the appointment of the Clerk of the House of Commons: (a) is the clerk, as a Governor in Council appointee, subject to the Privy Council Office's Ethical and Political Activity Guidelines for Public Office Holders, and, if so, (i) is the position considered, for the purposes of the guidelines, to be a quasi-judicial one which is subject to a much more stringent standard and should generally avoid all political activities, (ii) is the clerk subject to the general principle of refraining from participating in political activity, including expressing partisan views in a public setting where this may reasonably be seen to be incompatible with, or impair the ability to discharge, the office holder's public duties, (iii) are the guidelines considered to be a term and condition of appointment, (iv) did the current clerk certify that he will comply with the guidelines; (b) is the clerk, as a Governor in Council appointee, eligible for a Governor in Council appointee performance pay, and, if so, (i) what was the maximum performance pay he was eligible for, since 2017-18, broken down by fiscal year, (ii) what performance award was he provided (did not meet, succeeded, surpassed, etc.) each fiscal year since 2017-18, (iii) what performance pay was he provided each fiscal year since 2017-18, broken down by fiscal year, (iv) is the clerk required to deliver on the government's objectives and corporate commitments in order to receive a performance award, and, if so, what objectives and commitments, (A) was the clerk required to meet, (B) did the clerk meet, broken down by fiscal year since 2017-18, (v) who provided input or feedback, or was otherwise consulted, on the clerk's performance, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18, (vi) who approved the clerk's performance awards, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 202—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to federal funding for housing construction since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of funding for the construction of housing in Canada, broken down by (i) year, (ii) program; (b) what is the total amount of housing construction announced by the government using the funds identified in (a), broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) municipality, (iv) program, (v) type of residence; and (c) what is the total actual amount of housing actually built using the funds identified in (a), broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) municipality, (iv) program, (v) type of residence?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 203—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), since June 22, 2017: (a) what is the total amount of federal funding given to the CIB, broken down by year; (b) what are the details of all infrastructure investments made by the bank, including, for each project, the (i) name, (ii) location, (iii) description, (iv) date the agreement was signed, (v) total agreed expenditure by the CIB, (vi) total expenditures to date by the CIB, (vii) agreed completion date, (viii) current expected completion date; and (c) what is the yearly amount spent by the CIB on (i) salaries, (ii) bonuses, (iii) consulting fees, (iv) rent or lease payments, (v) travel, (vi) hospitality, (vii) infrastructure programs, (viii) other expenses, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 204—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the level of government investments in mental health since 2017 through the Shared Health Priorities and the bilateral agreements between the federal government and provinces and territories, since 2017: (a) what is the status of the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s (CIHI) development and release of additional mental health and substance use health indicators to track system performance on an annual basis beyond 2022; (b) what is the status of CIHI developing a comprehensive dataset capturing public and private mental health and substance use health spending, by province and territory and category of spending; and (c) what amount of funding have Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada invested directly in community mental health and addictions organizations, programs and services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 205—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to government investments in Indigenous mental health, since 2015: (a) what steps has the federal government taken to (i) establish measurable goals to identify and close the gaps in mental health and addictions outcomes with Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples, (ii) adopt common investment models and deepened integration among federal funding bodies and between federal, provincial and territorial funding bodies; and (b) what steps has the government taken to (i) reorient investments in support of Indigenous community wellness plans, (ii) increase the mental health and substance use workforce serving Indigenous communities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 206—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to government action towards addressing the opioid epidemic: (a) what concrete steps has the government taken to (i) increase the number and accessibility of supervised consumption sites, (ii) decriminalize simple drug possession, (iii) increase access to diversion programs and alternative justice strategies for people accused and convicted of drug crimes, especially for First Nations, Métis and Inuit persons; and (b) since 2015, how much funding has the government disbursed to provinces, territories and community-based organizations for substance use treatments and supports?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 207—
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to Canada Child Benefit (CCB) recipients who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) and Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB): (a) how many CCB recipients received (i) CERB, (ii) CRB, (iii) CRCB, (iv) CRSB; (b) how many reported income above the adjusted family net income in fiscal year 2020-21 compared to fiscal year 2019-20; (c) of the recipients in (a), how many experienced a reduction in their monthly CCB payment in 2021 compared to 2020; (d) of the recipients in (c), how many have a net family income of less than (i) $40,000, (ii) $30,000, (iii) $20,000; (e) of the recipients in (c), what was the average monthly reduction in their CCB payment, broken down by month in 2021; and (f) of the recipients in (c), how many are receiving the (i) CCB young child supplement, (ii) child disability benefit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 208—
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) recipients, broken down by province and territories: (a) how many recipients have experienced a decrease in their CCB since July 2021 because they received payments from a COVID-19 financial support program, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; and (b) of those recipients in (a), what was the average monthly reduction in their CCB payment, broken down by each month in 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 209—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to the backlog of cases at Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) what is the number of backlog applications for disability benefits as of December 8, 2021; (b) what is the current backlog in terms of time between when an application for benefits is made and the veteran finally receives the benefits; (c) what specific steps have been taken to address the backlog, and when was each step implemented; and (d) what are the government's precise targets for the amount of the backlog that will be reduced by (i) April 1, 2022, (ii) July 1, 2022, (iii) October 1, 2022, (iv) January 1, 2023?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 211—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to proposed Marine Refuge Areas and Marine Protected Areas, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, such as the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge: what are the details of each proposed refuge and area, including the (i) area description, size and location, (ii) scientific justification, (iii) list of species, ecosystems, or other organisms in need of protection, (iv) proposed level of control (i.e. up to no take zones), (v) current stage of proposal, (vi) stage of the consultation or development process, (vii) projected timeline for when a decision will be made on the proposed refuge?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 213—
Mrs. Rachael Thomas:
With regard to the impact of COVID-19 measures on private companies and organizations that rent commercial space from the government in the National Capital Region (NCR): (a) what is the total amount of rent collected each month since January 1, 2020; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of company or organization (retail, non-profit, etc.); (c) what is the total number of clients that paid rent to the government each month since January 1, 2020; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by type of company or organization; (e) how many clients terminated their lease with the government since March 13, 2020, broken down by type of company or organization; (f) how many new clients have signed leases since March 13, 2020, broken down by type of company or organization; (g) how much commercial space owned by the government is currently vacant and available for lease, broken down by type of space; and (h) for each answer in (a) through (g), what is the breakdown on the (i) Ontario side, (ii) Quebec side of the NCR?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 215—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the claim that “[s]ince 2015, the Government of Canada has made available over $7.2 billion to close this unacceptable gap in service” contained in the document entitled "Canada’s Rural Economic Development Strategy: Progress Report", August 2021 related to connectivity for rural Canadians: (a) what is the breakdown of the $7.2 billion by initiative or program; and (b) what are the details of all projects which received more than $10,000 of the $7.2 billion, including the (i) amount of federal contribution, (ii) start and end dates of the project, (iii) project description, (iv) project location, (v) funding recipient, (vi) company involved in the project, if different from the funding recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 216—
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, between January and November 2021: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (viii) project description or purpose of funding; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex by recipients tasked with subgranting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 217—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, between December 2020 and December 2021: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay by organizations tasked with sub granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 218—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to fully vaccinated travelers being forced to quarantine due to issues with the ArriveCAN application, including not pre-registering on app: (a) how many such individuals returning from the United States by land were required to quarantine between (i) November 22, 2021 and November 29, 2021, (ii) November 30, 2021, and December 7, 2021, (iii) since December 7, 2021; (b) were the travellers in (a)(ii), who were still under quarantine as of December 7, 2021, informed that their quarantine requirement had been removed following the minister's additional guidance to CBSA regarding ArriveCAN usage by travellers, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) how they were told, (ii) on what date they were told; (c) what was the average amount of time impacted quarantined travellers were unnecessarily in quarantine between the time the guidance was issued and when they were informed they were no longer required to quarantine; and (d) have any such individuals returning from the United States by land been required to quarantine since December 7, 2021, despite the additional guidance from the minister, and, if so, how many?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 219—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the statement in the Chamber on December 9, 2021, by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development, and Disability Inclusion that "my office and my department follow up on every allegation of fraud, and this would be no exception": what specific actions did the (i) minister's office, (ii) department take to follow up on the allegation made on a Calgary radio station about the member from Calgary Skyview, and when was each action taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 221—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement by the department of Justice Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: how much has been spent on settled cases, requests for direction, and other proceedings where Canada has been either the plaintiff or defendant before appellate courts (such as the Ontario Superior Court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia) related to survivors of St. Anne’s Residential School between 2013, and December 1, 2021, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 222—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to new housing constructions in Canada under federal housing programs since 2015, broken down by year, province, stream, and units: (a) how much funding has been committed under pre-National Housing Strategy (NHS) programs (i) in total, (ii) to projects that have reached finalized agreements, (iii) to projects that have conditional commitments without a finalized agreement; (b) how much funding has been committed under the NHS (i) in total, (ii) to projects that have reached finalized agreements, (iii) to projects that have conditional commitments without a finalized agreement; and (c) how many units funded under pre-NHS and NHS programs have completed construction?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 223—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to federal housing programs: (a) since 2015, broken down by year, province, program and units, how many social housing operating agreements receiving federal funding (i) were active on January 1st for each year, (ii) have ended, (iii) have been renewed; (b) since 2015, broken down by year, province, program and units, how much federal funding has been provided through social housing operating agreements; (c) broken down by province and program, how many units of social housing under the National Housing Strategy (i) are expected to be built, (ii) have finalized agreements and (iii) have conditional commitments; and (d) broken down by year and program, how many units of social housing have been built since 1946?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 224—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to Canadian citizens and permanent residents returning from travel from countries subject to quarantine orders due to variant B.1.1.529, since November 2021: (a) how many travelers were not allowed to leave their quarantine facility upon receiving a negative test result; (b) of the travelers in (a), what was the average length of stay before being allowed to leave the quarantine facility; (c) for what reasons were travelers in (a) not permitted to leave their facility upon testing negative; (d) for travelers in (a), what measures of the Public Health Agency of Canada protocol were not followed; (e) for how many travelers were the Public Health Agency of Canada unable to verify compliance with quarantine orders, as a proportion of total arrivals; and (f) of the total number of tests conducted under these new quarantine orders, how many were missing or unable to be matched to a traveler?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 226—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Universal Broadband Fund and the government's commitment to provide high-speed Internet services to 98% of Canadians by 2026 and 100% by 2030, broken down by province and territory: (a) how many applications for funding were received; (b) of those applications in (a), how many were approved; (c) what is the total amount distributed by the fund since its official launch; (d) how many applications were classified as coming from a local government district; (e) what are the details of all funds awarded, including the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary; (f) of the details in (e), how many jobs were created, broken down by (i) federal riding, (ii) municipality, (iii) census agglomeration, (iv) census metropolitan area, (v) economic region; (g) of the jobs in (f) how many are directly related to (i) the Universal Broadband Fund, (ii) provincial government initiatives, (iii) municipal initiatives; and (h) what is the percentage of Canadians with access to high speed internet service to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 227—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the government's $49 million investment in Mastercard's Intelligence and Cyber Centre in Vancouver made through the Strategic Innovation Fund, since January 23, 2020: (a) to date, what is the actual number of jobs (i) created directly by this investment, (ii) maintained directly by this investment; (b) for the jobs in (a), where are they located and how many are (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) permanent, (iv) temporary; (c) what method was used to estimate that 380 jobs would be maintained and created through this $49 million investment; (d) how is the government ensuring that its $49 million investment meets the objectives of its National Cyber Security Strategy; (e) to date, what are the objectives of its National Cyber Security Strategy that this investment has achieved; (f) what are the conditions attached to this investment; (g) which of the conditions in (f) have not been met; and (h) until what date must the conditions in (f) be respected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 228—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) since March 2020, including both the total number as well as change from the previous month or quarter, how many staff members has the PHAC employed in each month or quarter; and (b) in each month or quarter, how many of each of the following kinds of employee did PHAC employ, including both the total number as well as change from the previous month or quarter, (i) medical professionals and experts, (ii) communications personnel, (iii) administrative and operations personnel, (iv) policy personnel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 229—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Fall 2020 Economic Statement which promised more urban parks to protect nature and designating or creating ecological corridors to provide connectivity across landscapes and investing in more natural infrastructure to protect against climate change and the management of Ojibway Shores in Windsor, Ontario: (a) what are the government’s plans to transfer Ojibway Shores from (i) the Windsor Port Authority to Transport Canada, (ii) Transport Canada to Parks Canada, to begin the establishment of a new National Urban Park in Windsor; and (b) is the government planning to work with the Province of Ontario, Indigenous Peoples, local environmental groups and land trusts to connect the federal lands like Ojibway shores and Point Pelee with Rondeau and other protected areas and to ensure that they remain well managed for biodiversity, climate change and the benefit of Ontarians and all Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 230—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE): (a) how many complaints have been received; (b) how many complaints have been investigated, broken down by status or outcome (e.g. review is ongoing, referred to arbitration, allegation determined to have been unfounded); and (c) how many times has the CORE provided advice to the Minister on any matter relating to their mandate (i) in total, (ii) broken down by month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 231—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canada’s vaccine procurement and international vaccine commitments: (a) how many COVID-19 vaccines has Canada accessed through COVAX, broken down by month; (b) how many COVID-19 vaccines does Canada currently have access to in general; (c) how many COVID-19 vaccines has the government committed to donating through COVAX or other initiatives; (d) how many COVID-19 vaccines has the government donated to date, broken down by country and initiative (e.g. COVAX); and (e) what timelines has the government committed to for fulfilling its COVAX commitments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 233—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) broken down by country and year since 2015, how many Temporary Resident Visa applications have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) refused, (iv) refused under 179(b); (b) which immigration streams use the Chinook tool for assessing applications; (c) at which stages in the application step is the Chinook tool used; (d) what measures are in place to ensure that immigration officers are able to provide the same consideration with the Chinook tool on the circumstances of an application as they would without the tool; (e) broken down by year and stream, how many applications that have had the Chinook tool used in the assessment process since the tool has been put to use have been (i) accepted, (ii) refused; (f) for the streams and time period identified in (e), broken down by year and stream, how many applications that have not had the Chinook tool used in the assessment process have been (i) accepted, (ii) refused; and (g) broken down by year since 2015, what are the details of any briefing notes on the Chinook tool provided to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship since 2015, including the (i) title, (ii) author, (iii) date prepared, (iv) internal tracking number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 234—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canadian humanitarian and development funding in Afghanistan: (a) what is the total amount of development funding Canada has committed to Afghanistan for 2021-2025; (b) how much of this funding in (a) is allocated through Canadian organizations, and what is the breakdown by (i) organization, (ii) date, (iii) project, (iv) status; (c) what is the total humanitarian funding Canada has allocated to Afghanistan for 2021 and 2022; (d) how much of this is allocated through Canadian organizations, and what is the breakdown by (i) organization, (ii) date, (iii) project, (iv) status; (e) how many current signed contracts does Canada have with Canadian organizations for humanitarian or development programming in Afghanistan; (f) what is the status of all contracts with Canadian organizations working in Afghanistan (i.e. operational, on hold, cancelled); and (g) what is the current guidance given by the government to Canadian organizations working in Afghanistan regarding risk and exposure to criminal liability?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 235—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the government's existing commitment to the eradication of HIV/AIDS: (a) what actions are being taken to accelerate the eradication of the virus; (b) how much federal funding has been allocated and spent so far, broken down by year and government department; (c) how many HIV self-test kits have been purchased by the government and how are they being distributed, broken down by province and territory; (d) what is the amount of federal funding being spent on funding anti-retroviral medications and delivery programs, broken down by province and territory; and (e) what specific programs are in place to ensure there is access to HIV testing and treatment for rural, remote, Indigenous, racialized, and marginalized Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 236—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to tugboats under 15 gross tons registered with Transport Canada, since 2015 and broken down by year: (a) how many safety inspections undertaken by Transport Canada officials have occurred to ensure compliance with the Canada Shipping Act and related regulations; (b) for inspections undertaken in (a), how many registered vessels were found to not be in compliance, broken down by safety issue; and (c) how many such vessels have been involved in marine incidents reported to Transport Canada or the Transportation Safety Board, broken down by year and type of accident?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 237—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the end of the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB): (a) what are the details, including the conclusions, of any studies, analyses, estimates or projections of the impact of the decision to end the CRB; (b) of the documents mentioned in (a), what are their titles and dates; (c) has an impact study or studies been conducted to assess its effect on self-employed workers, including (i) independent contractors, (ii) workers on online platforms, (iii) workers on contracted businesses, (iv) on-call workers and temporary workers; (d) of the documents mentioned in (c), what are their titles and dates; (e) what are the findings of the studies referred to in (d); (f) what are the anticipated impacts on low-income workers; (g) what are the findings of the projections referred to in (f); (h) has a gender-based analysis been conducted as part of this decision and, if so, what are the findings; and (i) does the government have any figures or projections on the financial impact of the end of the CRB on low-income individuals and, if so, what are the findings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 238—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to Canada Child Benefit (CCB) recipients who received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canadian Economic Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB), and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB), broken down by province and territory, since July 2021: (a) how many beneficiaries experienced a reduction in their monthly CCB payment compared to the monthly payments in the corresponding months of the benefit years (i) 2019-20, (ii) 2020-21; (b) of the beneficiaries in (a), how many have (i) income below the official Canadian Poverty Line, (ii) income below 50% of the median income, (iii) spend 20% more than the average family on food, shelter and clothing; and (c) of the recipients in (a), how many have a total annual income of (i) between $30,000 and $60,000, (ii) between $60,000 and $80,000, (iii) between $80,000 and $100,000?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 241—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to marine protected areas, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how much funding has been directed towards the identifications and protection of marine protected areas; (b) broken down by province and territory, how many full-time permanent jobs have been created; (c) how much funding has been provided to Indigenous Guardian programs; and (d) through consultation with Indigenous peoples, what species have been identified as priority species at imminent risk of disappearing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 242—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to government funding for fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21 allocated within the constituency of Nanaimo—Ladysmith: what is the total funding amount, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) department or agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 243—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to Pacific Economic Development Canada (PacifiCan): (a) how many projects have received funding through PacifiCan since the announced creation of the agency in August 2021; (b) what are the details of each project in (a), including the (i) date of the announcement, (ii) project description, (iii) project location, (iv) funding recipient, (v) projected total project cost, (vi) amount of federal contribution towards the total project cost, (vii) expected completion date of the project; (c) what are the addresses of the service locations in (i) Victoria, (ii) Campbell River, (iii) Prince Rupert, (iv) Fort St. John, (v) Prince George, (vi) Kelowna (vii) Cranbrook; (d) for each location in (c), is the location currently in operation, and, if not, when will the location be in operation; (e) for each location in (c), what is the (i) 2021-22, (ii) 2022-23, operating budget; (f) how many full-time equivalents (FTEs) have been assigned to work at each location in (c); (g) what is the address of the headquarters in Surrey; (h) how many FTEs have been assigned to work at the (i) Surrey, (ii) Vancouver locations; (i) what is the operating budget for (i) 2021-22, (ii) 2022-23 for the Vancouver PacifiCan office; (j) what is the operating budget for (i) 2021- 22, (ii) 2022-23 for the Surrey PacifiCan office; (k) how many FTEs are being or have been transferred from the previous Western Economic Diversification Canada (WED) office in Vancouver to the new PacifiCan offices; and (l) how many former WED employees have been transferred to each location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 244—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the caretaker convention: (a) is the government, as of the date of the notice of this question, observing the caretaker convention; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative (i) when did the government cease observing the caretaker convention, (ii) what prompted this change, (iii) was that consistent with section 1 of the Privy Council Office's "Guidelines on the conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, exempt staff and public servants during an election" publication which provides that the caretaker period "ends when a new government is sworn-in, or when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear"; (c) what is the government's definition of "when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear" in cases where the government party represents fewer than a majority of seats in the House of Commons; (d) did the government consider the November 25, 2021, House of Commons vote on Government Motion No. 1 (business of the House and its committees) to be a confidence vote; and (e) if the answer to (d) is negative, were Governor in Council appointments (i) P.C. 2021-0969 through P.C. 2021-0985 (November 29, 2021), (ii) P.C. 2021-0988 through P.C. 2021-0991 (December 1, 2021), each consistent with the caretaker convention and, if so, why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 245—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to the impact of the government's cap on emissions produced by Canada's oil and gas sector: (a) how much foreign oil is projected to be imported into Canada broken down by year for each of the next 20 years, and how much of that amount is to make up for the anticipated shortfall due to the cap; (b) has the government done any analysis on the impact of the cap on the Northern Alberta economy, and, if so, what were the findings; (c) what is the exact cap on oil and gas emissions broken down by year for each of the next 20 years; (d) what is the breakdown by country of where the foreign oil imported into Canada will come from, broken down by year for the next 20 years; (e) what is the government's policy regarding the importation of oil from countries with unacceptable human rights records; (g) what is the government's policy regarding the importation of oil from countries with lower environmental regulations than Canada's; and (h) what precise actions, if any, is the government planning to take to ensure that Canadian oil producers are not put at a further competitive disadvantage to that of their foreign competitors as a result of the cap, and when will each action be taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 246—
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to each of the 42 long-term drinking water advisories on public systems on reserves which were still in place as of December 9, 2021: (a) which of the advisories will be lifted by the end of 2022; and (b) for each advisory which will not be lifted by the end of 2022 (i) what is the expected date when the advisory will be lifted, (ii) what is preventing the government from fixing the problem and lifting the advisory prior to the end of 2022?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 247—
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the June 23, 2021 contract awarded to Lifelabs for $66,307,424.27 listed on proactive disclosure: (a) what are the Treasury Board guidelines related to contracts over a certain value requiring the approval of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement; (b) did the then Minister of Public Services and Procurement approve the contract to life labs; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, who at Public Services and Procurement Canada approved the contract; (d) on what date was the contract modified by $37,501,883.50 from $28,805,540.77 to $66,307,424.27; (e) what was the reason for the modification in (d); (f) who approved the modified amount, and on what date did the Minister of Public Services and Procurement become aware of the modification to the contract; (g) what was the contract for; (h) how many companies bid on the contract; and (i) did the then Minister of Public Services and Procurement recuse herself from any dealings involving contracts bid on by Lifelabs, and, if so, when did the recusal take place?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 248—
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to COVID-19 transmission within Canada: (a) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while on a domestic flight, (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; (b) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while in an airport (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; (c) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while on a VIA Rail train (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; and (d) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while in a VIA Rail train station (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 249—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Department of National Defence: of those placed on administrative leave for non-compliance with CDS Directive 002 released November 2021, how many were (i) in their 24th year of service, (ii) on medical leave, (iii) undergoing remedial measures?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 251—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to Canadian Environmental Protection Act investigations and prosecutions during 2020-21, broken down 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. 252—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the recommendation from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report entitled “The Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure in Canada”, which calls on the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to immediately establish a federal-provincial working group to develop a common prosecutorial directive for dealing with the criminalization of HIV: (a) has the Minister of Justice convened the working group; (b) if not, when will the Minister of Justice convene the working group and who will be invited to participate in the working group; and (c) will the mandate of such a working group include (i) a deadline for reporting back, (ii) clear instructions to consider the impacts of prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure on Indigenous, racialized, and marginalized Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 253—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the Canada School of Public Service, broken down by department: (a) how many government employees, by unit and percentage of total employees, have completed the Indigenous Learning Series, as of June 10, 2021; (b) is participation in the Indigenous Learning Series mandatory; (c) are new employees expected to complete any part of the Indigenous Learning Series as part of their training; (d) how many employees have access to the available learning products of the Indigenous Learning Series; (e) are employees, both new and experienced, given time to complete training through the Indigenous Learning Series during contracted working hours; and (f) what percentage of content available through the Canada School of Public Service is available in an Indigenous language?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 254—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to government investments in long-term care and home care in Nunavut, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how much funding has been promised to Nunavut for the purpose of home and community care services; (b) of the funding in (a), how much of that funding has been delivered; (c) how much funding has been delivered towards the implementation of the international Resident Assessment Instrument; and (d) how much funding has been provided towards the transportation to long-term care facilities outside of Nunavut to (i) seniors and elders, (ii) family members?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 256—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): (a) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, how much (i) federal funding, (ii) private funding, (iii) total funding, has been provided for Canadian infrastructure projects; (b) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, how many CIB projects have been (i) conceptualized, (ii) started, (iii) completed, (iv) cancelled; (c) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, what percentage of available funds have been spent when compared to budget targets established by CIB Leadership and the government; (d) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, how many projects were denied because programs were oversubscribed; and (e) since 2017, broken down by year, province, and project sector, what percentage of private funding has come from (i) Canadian investors, (ii) US investors, (iii) other international investors?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 257—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to accessible housing in Canada: (a) since 2010, broken down by year, province, and units, how many units of accessible housing existed in Canada in total; (b) since 2010, broken down by year, province, and units, how much federal funding has been provided to (i) build accessible housing units, (ii) convert housing to accessible units, (iii) maintain and improve accessible units; (c) how many accessible units funded under the National Housing Strategy and its previous programs have (i) completed construction, (ii) been lost or decommissioned?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 258—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to the government’s operation of call centres: (a) what are the details of each call centre operated by or on behalf of the government, including (i) the department or program, as applicable, for which it provides services, (ii) the purpose, (iii) the location, (iv) whether it operates wholly or in part with remote staff; (b) for each call centre in (a), is it wholly or in part the object of a tender or contract for third-party provision of services, and, if so, what are the details of the contracts, including the (i) name of the vendor, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) term of the contract; and (c) for each call centre in (b), was a business case for contracting out carried out, and, if so, what were the justifications for contracting out?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 259—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the government's $49 million investment in Mastercard's Intelligence and Cyber Centre in Vancouver and made through the Strategic Innovation Fund, since January 23, 2020: (a) to date, what is the actual number of jobs (i) created directly by this investment, (ii) maintained directly by this investment; (b) for the jobs in (a), where are they located and how many are (i) full-time, (ii) part-time, (iii) permanent, (iv) temporary; (c) what method was used to estimate that 380 jobs will be maintained and created through this $49 million investment; (d) how is the government ensuring that its $49 million investment meets the objectives of its National Cyber Security Strategy; (e) to date, what are the objectives of its National Cyber Security Strategy that this investment has achieved; (f) what are the conditions attached to this investment; (g) which of the conditions in (f) have not been met; and (h) until what date must the conditions in (f) be respected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 260—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy and the claim by the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion that the government has “supported the creation of about 100,000 units” since 2017, broken down by stream and year: (a) how many units of housing has the federal government supported the creation of; and (b) how many of the units (i) have received funding, excluding funding commitments that have not been finalized, (ii) are part of funding commitments that have not been finalized, (iii) have not yet received federal funding, (iv) have completed construction, (v) have not yet started construction?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 264—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the monitoring studies of recreational fishing areas in British Columbia: (a) what studies have been done concerning the mark selective fishing (MSF) program currently in place requiring wild unmarked fish to be released unharmed; (b) what are the results of the studies on MSF program; (c) how is the system being enforced; (d) what steps is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertaking to implement a comprehensive MSF program for Chinook salmon; (e) what public consultations have been undertaken in this regard; and (f) what are the results of the public consultations?
Response
(Return tabled)
100 Wellington Street Building2-1-1 service8555-441-1 Housing investments8555-441-100 Financing provided by progr ...8555-441-101 Pipeline safety8555-441-103 Delegation at the United Na ...8555-441-104 Disaster Mitigation and Ada ...8555-441-105 Market Basket Measure8555-441-106 Rapid Housing Initiative8555-441-107 National Housing Co-Investm ...8555-441-108 National Housing Strategy ...Show all topics
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, would the member agree with the NDP suggestion to bring this bill before committee before the vote at second reading? We could expand the bill and make it a solutions-based piece of legislation.
We want this bill to be something that would tackle problems such as decriminalization, and make sure that addictions are a health issue and not a criminal issue. We want to make sure there is a safe supply. We want to have the records expunged of all the people who have minor criminal records for cannabis possession.
These are things we really have to tackle, and this bill would have been the perfect place to do that. We can only do that if we bring this forward before the vote at second reading so we can expand this bill and make it really worthwhile.
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, the government's failure to properly oversee and regulate Canada's banking system and its failure to properly manage fiscal policy are the two reasons Canadian families are struggling with skyrocketing housing prices and why Canadian families are burdened with record high levels of household indebtedness. The government is also putting the stability of our financial system at risk. It is mispricing risk, leading to the misallocation of capital toward residential real estate. As David Rosenberg has said, Canada's economy is overly reliant on “credit, cannabis and condos”.
The average house price in this country has skyrocketed over the six years the government has been in power. According to The Canadian Real Estate Association, the actual benchmark price for a home in this country has gone from $430,000 in November 2015, when the government was appointed to office, to $726,000 in October of this year, the last month for which we have data. This is a massive increase of 77% over the last six years. That is an annual compounded rate of increase of about 10% per annum, far ahead of the nominal growth of GDP. It is putting the cost of housing out of reach for many young families and individuals looking to get a start to their lives.
The average house price for a single detached home in Toronto is now $1.8 million. It is $2.9 million in Vancouver. In Fergus and Elora, two small towns in the rural area of my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills, the typical house price has trebled in the last five years. It has gone from approximately $325,000 in 2015 to $950,000 in 2020.
These prices are way, way above the long-term average of three and a half times household income. Prices in many Canadian communities are now eight, nine and 10 times household income. We are an outlier among advanced economies of the OECD. In fact, our housing prices are some of the most expensive in the world.
As housing prices have skyrocketed, so too has household debt. Mortgage debt makes up the vast majority of household debt. Mortgage debt comprises two-thirds of overall household debt, and the remaining one-third of household debt is closely tied to real estate in facilities such has HELOCs and other forms of credit.
In 2016, the first full year the government was in office, household debt stood at $1.9 trillion. Today, it is $2.6 trillion, an increase of almost 40% and an annual compounded rate of increase of almost 6%, far ahead of the nominal rate of increase of our GDP. That amount of household debt is reflected in the fact that household debt as a percentage of household income has also increased since the government took office. It now stands at 173%.
The government has allowed this to happen. We have a housing crisis in this country, and it is because of the government's failure to properly oversee and regulate the banking system and its failure to properly manage fiscal policy.
The government has had plenty of warning about this problem. Before I get into who has warned the government about it, let me tell members one of the unintended consequences of these skyrocketing housing prices and skyrocketing levels of household indebtedness.
Small to medium-sized enterprises have found it difficult to get financing. Canada has low levels of business investment relative to many of our economic peers. This low level of business investment is one reason for our low productivity growth rates. This low productivity growth rate is of particular concern because it is the only long-run determinate of wealth and prosperity.
These two challenges, namely the challenge of skyrocketing household debt and the difficulty many small and medium-sized businesses have in getting financing to make investments in plant capital and equipment, are two sides of the same coin. The government needs to take a hard look at the macroeconomic policies it has put in place, which have made life less affordable for Canadian families, and the policies that are making it difficult for businesses to invest, grow and create jobs.
The government is ultimately responsible for the regulation of our banking sector through the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. It is also responsible for mortgage financing through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, tax expenditures, government programs and Finance Canada. It has allowed mortgage credit to grow at unsustainable levels. Its responsibility is to oversee mortgage credit through OSFI and CMHC.
The IMF has warned Canada repeatedly over the last number of years about its oversight of housing finance. In addition, the IMF found, through its studies, that government intervention in housing finance exacerbated house price swings and amplified mortgage credit growth in advanced economies in the years before the global financial crisis. Moreover, the IMF's studies also concluded that government participation did not provide a cushion against economic crises, and countries with greater government involvement in mortgage financing experienced deeper house price declines.
In a 2011 analysis, the IMF concluded, “rapid mortgage credit growth and strong house price increases go hand in hand.” It added, “government participation in housing finance exacerbated house price swings and amplified mortgage credit growth during the run-up to the recent crisis, particularly in advanced economies.” It concluded by saying, “Countries with more government involvement also experienced deeper house price declines.”
The officials at Finance Canada and CMHC have warned the government. For example, last year in September, officials at Finance Canada discussed forcing private mortgage insurers to tighten eligibility rules, but left CMHC to try to manage the risk in mortgage credit markets on its own. Evan Siddall, the CMHC CEO at the time, said, “We had that conversation and you’ll have to pose the question to [the government] as to why it didn’t happen.” In reference to the rejection of the tightening of the rules to reduce risks, he added, “The minister of finance could have done it.”
OSFI itself has warned about skyrocketing levels of mortgage credit and mortgage credit growth, but when it proposed higher mortgage stress test levels in 2018, otherwise known as the B-20 guideline, the Minister of Finance opposed the rule. In March of last year, when OSFI announced changes to capital requirements for Canada's systemically important banks, the government did not ensure that additional liquidity, measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, would not exacerbate the growth in mortgage credit. As a result, household debt, primarily mortgage credit, has jumped 4% in the last year, picking up sharply in the middle of last year, after the March 2020 changes that OSFI had introduced.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, warned earlier this year that Canadian households were taking on too much debt. In other words, the governor was warning the government that it is not using the tools it has at hand to properly regulate mortgage credit growth in this country.
Canadian families are finding it harder to make ends meet. They are being squeezed by the increasing cost of living and by the cost of housing. This is due to the government's failure to properly oversee and regulate Canada's banking sector and properly manage fiscal policy.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to debate this very serious topic. I will be splitting my time with the member for Bay of Quinte. I am very proud to say that.
I suspect every member of this place knows of the housing affordability crisis many Canadians are facing. We all know it, and we certainly know the Prime Minister knows of this. How do we know this? Let us go back to September 9, 2015. On that day, the Liberal Party of Canada released a statement. The headline said, “[The member for Papineau] promises affordable housing for Canadians”. The article went onto say, “We have a plan to make housing more affordable for those who need it the most”. Where is that plan? That was back in 2015.
Today, we know that there is no plan. Those were just the usual “say anything” promises from the Prime Minister, who never once himself has faced an affordable housing crisis. Worse, in 2017, the Prime Minister actually raided the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the amount of $4 billion. That money came from CMHC premiums that first-time homebuyers had paid. That money was meant for CMHC to help more first-time homebuyers. Instead, the Prime Minister raided that money for general revenue, which did not help any first-time homebuyers.
In 2019, with an election fast approaching, and realizing he had gotten nowhere delivering on the affordable housing that he had promised in the 2015 election, the Prime Minister made another announcement. The first-time home buyer incentive program that the Prime Minister promised would “help 100,000 Canadian families buy their first home”.
In 2020, after the election, we learned that only 3,252 applications were made to CMHC and, of those, 2,730 were accepted. This program was not just a failure. It was a total disaster, but wait, there is more. In 2019, the Prime Minister also promised he would take on foreign buyers driving up housing costs, a promise he made right before the election.
It is now 2021, and soon to be 2022. I ask members of the House, do we have any measure from the Liberal government to take on foreign buyers that are driving up housing costs? No, we have zero. It is just another broken promise from this “say anything” Prime Minister. Of course, we are not done yet.
In the last Parliament, we had another motion come before this place on affordable housing. That motion called on the government to, “examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market”. That is not only a completely reasonable motion, but something that the Prime Minister himself promised Canadians he would do in 2019.
Guess what happened? Do we even need to guess? Despite all the opposition parties voting for that motion, the Prime Minister voted against it. Of course, he whipped up his whole caucus to vote against it as well. Let us think about this for a moment. This is a Prime Minister who promised to take action on foreign buyers driving up housing costs, and then, when he had the chance to vote for what he had promised Canadians he would do, he turned around and voted against it. It is literally unconscionable.
It is this type of thing that creates cynicism and distrust from everyday Canadians about what goes on here. These are concerns, by the way, that this Prime Minister also professed to care about. Of course, it did not just end there.
During this most recent election, an election only called by the Prime Minister because he believed he could win a majority government, he had the gall to say, “Houses shouldn’t sit empty when so many Canadians are trying to buy a home. So, we’re going to ban foreign ownership in Canada for the next two years”.
Seriously, this is the Prime Minister who, in the 2019 election, promised to take action against foreign buyers. He then, when presented with an affordable housing motion that would allow him to honour the very promise to Canadians that he made, he turned around and voted against his own promise. In yet another election, just three months after voting against taking action on foreign owners, he promised once again that he would ban foreign ownership in Canada for the next two years.
To recap, he made a promise, broke that promise, made the promise again, voted against that promise and then, finally made the promise yet another time. Who does that? No one who is serious about taking action on affordable action would do that. This is six years of demonstrated inaction, failure, broken promises, blatant hypocrisy and total failure. This Prime Minister is the Groundhog Day of failure when it comes to broken promises on affordable housing.
Here we are again, debating yet another motion on affordable housing because, of course, this Liberal government has made zero progress on affordable housing. This motion is very reasonable, as was the last one, yet the Liberal government voted it down. The motion, among other measures, proposes to ban foreign investors from purchasing Canadian real estate. Not only did the Prime Minister promise to do this in the 2021 election, but he also promised it again during the 2019 election. Will the government vote for this motion, or oppose it like the government did the last time?
This motion also proposes that the government commit to never introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of a primary residence. Once again, this is something the Prime Minister has already promised he would never do, but he also promised that he would never prorogue Parliament. We also know that this Prime Minister really does not care a lot about honouring his promises. However, we can hope this time that the Prime Minister will, for once, vote for a motion that would allow him to keep his word to Canadians.
We also know the motion proposes to increase the housing supply in Canada, which this Prime Minister has promised repeatedly throughout his time in government. Ultimately this motion is responsible and reasonable. That is to say, I am not quite certain that this Prime Minister is actually serious about any of his promises or commitments to affordable housing after reviewing the case that I have made, mostly because it is hard to believe a Prime Minister who promised Canadians so much but has delivered so little. I am not quite certain how people could think he would actually be serious about his commitment to affordable housing.
We know that this Prime Minister was serious about legalizing cannabis. He got that done, and he got it done in his first term. However, on affordable housing there is nothing but broken promises.
In conclusion, I will be voting in support of this motion. What is there to disagree with? We have some members are trying to make much of our suggestion to review and utilize existing federal buildings of the 37,000 that currently exist that the federal government has in its inventory, many of them in urban centres, such as Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, and Gatineau. There is so much there, and just 15% of that could be utilized. That is what we are talking about, not the outrageous claims by the member for Winnipeg North or by the member for Kingston and the Islands.
Many of the proposed measures are things this Prime Minister promised he would do, some several times in fact. Affordable housing is important and in my riding, communities like Merritt and Princeton, which have lost housing to devastating floods, are going to need affordable housing like never before. Otherwise, there are some people who will have nothing to come back to. Let us keep in mind that Merritt and Princeton, for many, were more affordable than communities like Vancouver or Surrey. We need to help them rebuild. We need to help this whole country be able to build up and give people a place to call home.
Results: 1 - 11 of 11

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data