Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 296
View Francis Drouin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting and supporting our supply-managed producers. The proof is that we recently signed a transitional free trade agreement with the United Kingdom and we made no concessions on supply management.
Last week, the Prime Minister, several ministers, MPs and I met with dairy, poultry and egg producers to discuss the future of supply-managed agriculture. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food inform the House of compensation for supply-managed sectors?
View Marie-Claude Bibeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we will be making compensation payments to dairy producers for the agreements signed with the European Union and the trans-Pacific region over the shorter period of four years.
More than 60% of them have already received their second payment, totalling $327 million. Programs for poultry and egg producers will follow and then it will be the turn of processors.
Our government is committed to protecting the supply management system and not giving up any more market share.
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2021-02-16 17:54 [p.4151]
Mr. Speaker, I salute you and thank all the staff, especially the interpreters, for continuing to serve us so well.
I am pleased to take part in today's debate on BillC-222, an act to amend the Expropriation Act. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke tabled this bill, apparently with the goal of promoting the protection of Canadians' private property. The member stated that her intention with this bill was to “remove some uncertainty from the existing legislation as to whether owners can be compensated” and “protect the private property rights of average Canadians” in the event of federal expropriation.
However, the amendments proposed in Bill C-222 do nothing to protect private property. They only result in the uneven application of key legislation and restrict the government's ability to act in the interests of Canadians in certain emergency situations. Consequently, this is a deeply flawed bill for several important reasons that I will explain in the next few minutes.
At the heart of this debate is the issue of expropriation, a rare occurrence indeed, driven by urgent need that takes place only if and when a negotiated process is not feasible.
Although rarely used, expropriation can play a critical role in dealing with emergencies or incidents in areas such as defence, transportation and the environment.
In its current form, the Expropriation Act is an important piece of legislation that details the process the Government of Canada is required to follow when private property must be expropriated to serve the public interest. Under this process, a public hearing must be held if there is an objection to a notice of expropriation.
As it stands, the act contains provisions so that in an emergency, when a delay would be prejudicial to the public interest, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement may step in and set aside certain requirements. As an example, the minister is permitted, in the case of an emergency, to waive the holding of a public hearing to allow the government to move more quickly to expropriate a crucial piece of land or property.
This exemption applies exclusively to pressing cases in which emergency measures are necessary. It could have to do with the urgent need to acquire material or a good, including to ensure the protection of essential transportation infrastructure, or with national security.
The government is cautious and uses due diligence in every aspect of the expropriation process. Nonetheless, the need to act quickly, especially in emergencies, can be a determining factor in the process. If the proposed changes were made to this legislation, it would not be possible to speed up the expropriation process in a pressing manner in case of an emergency.
Having flexibility in the expropriation process is potentially critical to dealing with emergencies when timelines are paramount. We simply cannot accept amendments that hinder the government's ability to act quickly in the interests of Canadians when faced with defence, transportation or environmental emergencies.
Bill C-222 proposes to amend the Expropriation Act to limit the power to exercise the right under subsection 10(11) to forego a public hearing before registering the notice of intention to expropriate lands. It also seeks to limit the power provided for under subsection 19(2) to substitute a period lesser than the waiting period for taking material possession of land or the immovable real right.
However, the hon. member's bill seeks to impose these limits only in specific cases. More specifically, the bill states that subsections 10(11) and 19(2) would not apply in cases where the purpose of expropriation is for “restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability”. Ultimately, these changes create a two-tier system by retaining certain factors, but setting others aside.
When deemed necessary, our government believes all expropriations are deserving of equal treatment regardless of their purpose, whether it is environmental protection or accommodation for public infrastructure. It is counterproductive to establish a tiered system by creating exceptions limiting the minister's ability to act swiftly in cases of real environmental emergencies over others. It just does not make sense.
The government is firmly committed to defending the private property rights of Canadians. We recognize the importance of protecting private property rights by ensuring that the regular procedure is followed pursuant to the existing Expropriation Act, which sets out the rigorous hearing process that must precede any planned expropriation.
Currently, the act allows the minister to waive holding a public hearing if, by reason of special circumstances, the physical possession or use by the Crown is
urgently required and that to order that a public hearing be conducted with respect to it would occasion a delay prejudicial to the public interest
I will now indicate how often a hearing has been waived.
In reality, there has never been an accelerated process where the minister had to use the provisions under the subsections in question of the current act. However, these are important provisions to have if they were required. The member did not provide any compelling argument that would justify curtailing the minister's powers in this manner, and only in certain situations.
It would seem that the only thing the bill and its amendments would truly achieve is to apply new impediments to the Government of Canada's ability to respond to emergency situations and, again, only in certain circumstances. Putting aside those emergency provisions, the Expropriation Act already ensures that property owners are treated fairly and compensated appropriately in situations where expropriation is considered necessary.
The act also clearly indicates how the market value must be determined and paid. I want to point out that Public Services and Procurement Canada has completed just 12 expropriations in the past 30 years. In these cases, the government abided by the act and ensured that property owners were treated fairly and were offered appropriate compensation. There has never been a situation, under the current Expropriation Act, in which the government has waived public hearings related to a proposed expropriation of property for any reason whatsoever.
Bill C-222 is essentially an ineffective solution to a non-existent problem. Simply put, this bill is unnecessary, and Canadians have nothing to gain from it. Expropriation is rare. I repeat that Public Services and Procurement Canada has completed approximately 12 expropriations in the past 30 years, and there has never been a situation, under the current Expropriation Act, in which the government has waived public hearings related to a proposed expropriation of property.
Frankly, our position is that expropriations deemed necessary deserve equal treatment, regardless of their purpose, whether it is environmental protection or accommodation for public infrastructure.
Nevertheless, the bill, as introduced, would simply undermine the government's ability to act in emergencies and provides no added benefit for property owners.
For all of the reasons stated above, our government does not support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
View Matthew Green Profile
2021-02-16 18:13 [p.4154]
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in response to private member's bill, Bill C-222, an act to amend the Expropriation Act, which is a protection of private property, and was prepared and presented by the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Contained within and for the purpose of restating the bill's intention, it adds specific exemptions to the Expropriation Act under sections 10(11) and 19(3) and reads that the Expropriations Act:
—does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of intention relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice or described in the notice as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.
The members of the House may recall that in moving the bill to the second reading in November, the hon. member began her intervention with a land acknowledgement that Parliament was on Algonquin Anishinabe territory, which is subject to an ongoing land claim process. The hon. member then proceeded to suggest that the current movement to protect private property landowners' rights in Ontario started in her riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
If the landowners association in her constituency is upset about the expropriation of private property in response to catastrophic climate change, wait until it finds out about the ongoing and generational dispossession of indigenous lands by the Crown. Wait until they learn about Oka, Ipperwash, Unist'ot'en, 1492 and Wet'suwet'in.
It would appear, based on the private member's last intervention, that she would seek to elevate the property rights to a constitutional consideration on parity with our charter rights. That is a reference to the fifth amendment of the United States that she would seek to enshrine the rights of private property above all societal considerations and specifically as they relate to what appears to be a form of the denial of climate change.
I would suggest that before we could in good faith consider this request that we have a moral and indeed a legal obligation to first address the unceded territorial claims of indigenous first nations, Métis and Inuit.
The hon. member's underlying intention in the bill seems, at least to us, to force the federal government to recognize that the plan in 2014 is in fact responsible for the flooding of the Ottawa Valley in 2017 and 2019, which is denying the real reason for flooding, which is climate change, and to hold public consultations under the Expropriation Act. In addition, it would appear as though the hon. member wants the federal government to compensate residents affected by the flooding. Therefore, Bill C-222 contains no provisions of compensation.
I want to acknowledge the very real and devastating impacts on those members in her riding who may have been owners of one of the 900 buildings affected by the flooding. However, how can we even begin to further enshrine settler rights in response to these 900 buildings impacted by climate change when there are currently 900 unsettled first nation land claims that are historically based on the racist doctrine of discovery and the British colonial legal fiction called Terra Nullius, which effectively erased a millennia of indigenous inhabitations of these lands pre-European contract?
While I am no expert in the Robinson-Huron Treaty for incidents of clear and intentional treaties by the Crown, such as the Haldimand Treaty of October 25, 1784, for the purpose of this debate, I would like to remind members of the House who may not know or may have forgotten the text of this treaty, which states:
Whereas His Majesty having been pleased to direct that in consideration of the early attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk Indians and of the loss of their settlement which they thereby sustained—that a convenient tract of land under his protection should be chosen as a safe and comfortable retreat for them and others of the Six Nations, who have either lost their settlements within the Territory of the American States, or wish to retire from them to the British—I have at the earnest desire of many of these His Majesty's faithful Allies purchased a tract of land from the Indians situated between the Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron, and I do hereby in His Majesty's name authorize and permit the said Mohawk Nation and such others of the Six Nation Indians as wish to settle in that quarter to take possession of and settle upon the Banks of the River commonly called Ouse or Grand River, running into Lake Erie, allotting to them for that purpose six miles deep from each side of the river beginning at Lake Erie and extending in that proportion to the head of the said river, which them and their posterity are to enjoy for ever.
Given under my hand and seal at arms at the Castle of St. Lewis at Quebec this twenty-fifth day of October one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four and in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George The Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth.
Frederick Haldimand
By His Excellency's Command
More specifically, given the act of reclamation of unceded Haudenosaunee Confederacy territories, and to underscore the importance of the point, I shall add to this debate, for the good and welfare of the House, that an excerpt from the document entitled, “Land Rights of the Six Nations of the Grand River”, submitted by the Six Nations Elected Council, states that the promising of their tract consisted of 950,000 acres within their Beaver Hunting Grounds along the Grand River to the “Mohawk Nation and such others of the Six Nations Indians as wish to settle in that Quarter”.
In the application of their allegiance to the King, and for the loss of their settlements to the American States, they were to take possession and settle upon the banks of the river commonly called the Grand River, running from Lake Erie and allotting for that purpose six miles on either side of the Grand.
Therefore, although the Haldimand Treaty was unequivocally promised to the Six Nations, this tract, approximately 275,000 acres of land up to the source of the Grand River, remains outstanding to the present date as treaty land entitlement to the Six Nations people.
In contrast to the private property rights of settlers, as expressed in Bill C-222, Six Nations of the Grand River's experiences of Canada's specific and comprehensive land claims policies, which have been unsuccessful as existing policy, cannot provide proper restitution or compensation for Six Nations' validated claims and others yet to be determined. Previous negotiations have proved unsuccessful, as the extinguishment requirement is unacceptable and non-negotiable. Six Nations of the Grand River has previously lobbied MPs from all parties, and is looking for justice in its land rights issues. As the group realizes, Canada does not have enough money to bring historic land issues to resolution under existing policies.
Six Nations has also taken its land rights issues to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and to the Canadian courts commencing in 1995. This juxtaposition of the Crown's legislative protections for those deemed to be holding private property versus the original inhabitants of these lands is a grave admission to the ongoing colonialism of Canada with respect to first nations, Métis and Inuit.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate and timely, given the current government's new-found commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that prior to further entrenching private property rights for Canadian citizens we first acknowledge the problematic nature of the failure to adequately address the first nations' land claims with negotiated cash settlements, and instead recognize their legitimate calls for land back.
Allow me to conclude in the same spirit in which we began this debate around Bill C-222, with a reminder that Parliament is on Algonquin Anishinabe territory, which is subject to an ongoing land claim process. If we are to have any newly introduced legislation around property rights, let us begin there.
View Alex Ruff Profile
CPC (ON)
View Alex Ruff Profile
2021-02-16 18:23 [p.4156]
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak to Bill C-222, a private member's bill by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, an area that I know very well from my multiple years in Petawawa during my time in the military.
As previous speakers have highlighted, Canada does not have an inherent constitutional protection for private property. It is only done through the Expropriation Act at the federal level.
I fully acknowledge, as a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces and having served on bases in Gagetown and even having Meaford in my riding, that there are unique circumstances where expropriation is necessary. However, at all times, we need to pay fair market compensation to those owners. In my view, this bill simply does that. It intends to provide some clarity and protection for private property owners.
I am sure that my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is very similar to a lot of rural ridings across Canada, where constituents have been living on some properties and farms held through generations. Unfortunately in some cases, these properties are the only things of substantial value, both personally and financially, for these Canadians. They are some of the most hard-working, honest and proud Canadians our nation produces. I have personally met many of them since deciding to get involved in federal politics. They have lots of concerns, and not just at the federal level but at all levels of government, with having their private property appropriately protected. It is really all they have.
That consistent message that I keep hearing from them, time and time again, is one of anxiety, concern and a lack of trust in governments. When their way of living is solely based on their property, whether it is farming or running a small business, it seems that every year there are more regulations, regardless of the level of government bringing them in and constantly challenging or limiting their way of making a living. In my view, in these circumstances, it is very easy to understand why these private property owners are frustrated.
Why is providing some level of clarity and certainty to these private property owners a bad thing? I know that previous speakers on this who may not be supporting this bill have noted the inadequate protection, and also that in some provinces there may be protection under either civil or common law. As well, they were asking for specific examples of where the bill may be appropriate.
I do not have a specific example, but I can mention some very similar situations. To go back to a previous speaker in the first hour of debate in November, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View said that we are seeing a “disturbing trend in Canada toward what is referred to as regulatory, de facto or constructive taking of private property.”
This happens when governments use those statutory powers to regulate or restrict the property rights of an owner without acquiring the title to the land that is being adversely affected. The landowner feels the impact of these regulations as if the land had been expropriated. Put another way, the government can strictly regulate the land, and limit its value and what a landowner can do with it, without triggering procedures in the legislation.
Let us go to specific examples in my riding where a comparison could be made. In one case I have a farmer whose land has not been expropriated yet, but who has been restricted in what he is allowed to do on his family farm due to its proximity to the watershed. There has been no history or circumstances where that farming operation has ever interfered with the watershed. There has been no run-off or problems historically.
The farmer accepted that. He had no problem and accepted that they had to change their way of doing business. However, when they then tried to utilize or take the private property and use it for a different business endeavour that would not compromise the environment or have any environmental concerns, they were informed that they could not do that either because the farm was agricultural land.
Again, it is the issue of the lack of certainty and clarity that private property owners are looking for because, again, what they can do to make a living and get by has been restricted by these regulatory changes. As such, these de facto or regulatory takings of property mean that the property owners are not entitled to compensation.
I know that one of the previous speakers indicated there is another method where they could raise this through a lower court at the provincial level. However, what this bill does is it just provides a little greater clarity.
One of the previous speakers this evening spoke about the requirement that a government, especially at the federal level, may be required to talk about defence, public safety and climate emergencies, and not hindering the government's ability for expropriation and cutting back the need for due process.
At the same time, that speaker indicated there has not been an example in the last 30 years where this has actually occurred. To counter that, my question is, if this has never actually occurred in an emergency, why are we worrying about it? Putting in the extra level of clarity and due process that Bill C-222 asks for is a good thing.
I admit that, as with any piece of legislation, this bill has room for improvement. All members of the House can support this bill and let it go to committee where those amendments could make this bill better and adequately protect the rights of our private property owners.
In my view, this bill is simple. It seeks to remove the uncertainty from the existing legislation by allowing due process to be followed. Private property owners should not be forced to give up their land without notice, without hearing and without fair compensation. Canadians deserve clarity, certainty and fair compensation. Bill C-222 would help achieve this.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the members of Parliament who have participated in the debate on Bill C-222. Property rights are important to Canadians. Home ownership and property rights go hand in hand. One needs look no further than the recent surge in home ownership since the start of the pandemic to see that owning property is a priority for average Canadians.
In Canada, real estate transactions are up over the previous year. There is a record high demand and short supply. For 2020 as a whole, over half a million homes traded hands over the Canadian multiple listing service systems, which is a new annual record. Home ownership remains a goal for a great many Canadians. Buying a home will be the single largest purchase many will make in their lifetimes. Property rights protect their investment.
There has been a disturbing trend in Canada toward what is referred to as regulatory or constructive taking of property. This happens when a government uses its statutory powers to regulate or restrict the property rights of an owner without acquiring the title to the land being adversely affected. The ownership of private property is not constitutionally protected in Canada. The Crown can take private land, either an entire parcel, an estate or interest in a parcel, such as an easement, for the public good. This is called expropriation.
It is a general principle of expropriation law that the Crown must compensate landowners when it takes their land, although, in reality, this does not always occur. While the act provides some procedural protections for private landowners during the expropriation process, they are not absolute. In particular, the government can shorten the 90-day notice period alerting landowners to the Crown's intention to expropriate, dispense with the requirement for a public hearing into objections raised by landowners and take physical possession of the land before an offer of compensation is offered.
To do so, the government must believe that the land is urgently required due to special circumstances. The act does not explain what is meant by urgent or special circumstances, so Bill C-222 would clarify that restoring natural habitat and addressing the consequences of climate variability do not constitute those special circumstances. Bill C-222 recognizes that expropriation may be desired for these purposes, but that due process must be followed. Private landowners should not be forced to give up their land without at least a 90-day notice, a public hearing if they object to the expropriation and an offer of compensation.
Since I introduced Bill C-222, I have been made aware of too many examples of individuals being mistreated when it came to property rights. Long-time property rights activist, Ontario turkey farmer David Core, has been involved in private property rights for years, having been the president of the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations. He recently made this observation in the Pipeline Observer, “I began to see that a healthy respect for property rights was the missing link — the real key to securing personal liberty, economic prosperity and environmental protection for all Canadians.”
Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek once said that the power a multi-millionaire might have over an individual and their property, whether they are a neighbour or an employer, is very much less than what is held by the smallest government bureaucrat or agent, who wields coercive power of the state, and upon whose discretion it depends whether and how one is able to live, work or make decisions.
With this legislation, my goal is to protect the private property rights of average Canadians. Climate change is not the subject of this amendment to the Expropriation Act. In fact, this legislation has the effect of recognizing climate change. This bill in no way inhibits the federal government from responding to a climate emergency. What it would do is provide legal recourse for private property owners who are adversely affected by any such actions.
I ask members to please support property rights and send Bill C-222 to committee for further study.
View Paul Lefebvre Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Paul Lefebvre Profile
2021-01-28 17:01 [p.3736]
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Surrey—Newton for his excellent speech.
I have the honour to speak to the Canada-U.K. trade continuity agreement.
As members know, the agreement will preserve the existing commitments between our two nations. It will help strengthen our trade relationships as we prepare to begin official bilateral talks on free trade in the coming year.
The United Kingdom is already a key market for Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. We exported an estimated $553 million worth of agri-food products and seafood to the United Kingdom last year.
The government always takes a balanced approach to trade agreements, to reflect the diversity of our agriculture and food industry. On top of ensuring stability for our agri-food exporters, we will continue to support our supply management system for dairy, poultry and egg farmers across Canada. Furthermore, I would remind members that our support for supply management did not stop us from signing 15 trade agreements with a total of 51 countries, giving our farmers a competitive edge in two-thirds of the global economy.
The same goes for the U.K. agreement. The trade continuity agreement fully protects Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors and provides no additional access for cheese or any other supply-managed product. This is yet another sign of our government's strong support for Canada's supply management system and the rural communities it supports.
The Government of Canada is also committed to not opening up access to the market for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. At the same time, we have kept our promise to fully and fairly compensate our farmers for the impacts of CETA and the CPTPP.
Last November, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a major investment for Canadian milk, poultry and egg farmers. She announced $1.4 billion in direct payments to Canadian dairy farmers over the next three years based on their quota. That is $468 million by March 31, 2021, $469 million in 2021-22 and $468 million in 2022-23.
For instance, a farm with 80 cows will receive a direct cash payment of roughly $38,000 a year for the next three years. This funding is in addition to the $345 million that was already paid to dairy farmers in direct payments last year and the $250 million for the dairy farm investment program. This brings the total compensation to dairy farmers in response to CETA and the CPTPP to more than $2 billion.
The minister also announced that for supply-managed chicken, egg, broiler hatching egg and turkey farmers, we will provide $691 million for 10-year programs. These programs will respond to the demands of the poultry and egg working group, following the ratification of the CPTPP, and will support investments in their operations to improve productivity for further market development. Program details will be designed in consultation with sector representatives and launched as soon as possible.
Our government remains committed to providing the sectors with full and fair compensation for the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. We also remain committed to supporting our supply-managed processors for the impact on the markets. Thanks to the funding we announced on November 28, dairy, poultry and egg farmers will be able to make key investments in their operations and improve their activities to be even more competitive. This will help them to be more efficient and more innovative. The investments they make in their operations today will allow our young farmers to position themselves for growth and success in the future.
Our important announcement clearly shows that farmers can count on our government to keep its promises and do everything in its power to help them and help the next generation succeed. These farming families are the heart of our communities.
We know that our dairy, poultry and egg farmers want our system to stay strong and sustainable, and we want that too. We believe that supply management is a pillar of rural prosperity in Canada, and it works. It is an effective economic model. It brings stability and prosperity to our family dairy, poultry and egg farms.
Our supply-managed producers and processors have deep roots in our rural communities. Some farms and food companies go back generations. Others were founded more recently by passionate young women and men. One such example is Dalew Farms, which is where I buy local meat here in my region.
We will absolutely protect our supply management system. There is no question about that. This system guarantees a supply of high-quality products for Canadian consumers. It is a model of stability that provides high-quality products at fair, predictable prices for farmers, processors and consumers. Supply management also provides a living for farming families and sustains rural communities across the country. Our milk, poultry and egg farmers are powerful drivers of our economy, with nearly $12 billion in farm gate sales, creating more than 75,000 direct jobs in Canada's production and processing sectors.
Beyond farms, dairy and poultry processing contributes about $22.6 billion to our economy. In all cases, our producers and processors deserve our utmost respect. They work hard every day, and the entire family is often involved in making the business successful.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, they overcame surpluses caused by changes in demand, labour shortages and market volatility to ensure that our grocery store shelves were fully stocked with their excellent dairy, poultry and egg products.
Our government was proud to help our supply-managed farmers weather the storm. We launched the $50-million surplus food rescue program to help food banks and other organizations redistribute surplus food, including poultry, turkey and eggs, to Canadians in need.
This program does not just provide Canadians with nutritious food from our agricultural exports during a difficult period. It also helps poultry and egg farmers stabilize their markets. In addition, to help dairy farmers manage their excess milk, we increased the Canadian Dairy Commission's borrowing limit by $200 million so processors could temporarily store cheese and butter and avoid waste.
Our egg, poultry and egg farmers are always looking for ways to improve. They are innovating and are proud of putting the best food on our tables. I am pleased that the supply management system provides them with a fair return on their efforts and investments. Our farmers and processors want to have a strong and prosperous business that they can hand down to their children. We will help them achieve that.
Agriculture is one of our government's priority sectors for stimulating Canada's economic growth. We will continue to invest in this sector. We will continue to listen to our farmers and processors as we set the best course for Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry. We will continue to ensure that they are protected under the Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement and under all future agreements.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 206--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the Next Generation Human Resources and Pay project: (a) what is the total projected budget for the project; (b) what are the project’s anticipated (i) start-up and implementation costs, broken down by type of expense, (ii) ongoing or yearly operating costs; and (c) what is the projected date of when the system will be implemented for each department, agency or other government entity, broken down by entity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 207--
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to the government’s reaction to measures taken by the Chinese government against those living in Hong Kong: (a) how many asylum and refugee claims have been granted, since January 1, 2019, to those who were previously living in Hong Kong; (b) how many asylum and refugee claims from individuals in Hong Kong does the government project will be received in the next 12 months; (c) has the government made contingency plans to ensure that safe return of all Canadians who wish to return, including those with dual citizenship and, if so, what are the details of such plans; and (d) what specific steps, if any, has the government taken to ensure that Canadians in Hong Kong are not arbitrarily arrested or detained under the guise of the so-called national security law?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 208--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to each contract signed by the government since March 1, 2020, with a value greater than $10 million: (a) what specific measures, if any, were taken by the government to ensure that taxpayers were getting value for money, broken down by each contract; and (b) what are the details of each contract, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) whether or not the contract was sole-sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 211--
Mr. Scott Aitchison:
With regard to training provided to Canadian Armed Forces public affairs staff, since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total value of the contracts awarded to the companies or individuals that provided the training; and (b) what are the details of each related contract, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) type of training provided (public speaking, social media, etc.), (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 212--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to Indigenous Services Canada's provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) for Indigenous peoples in Canada since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount requested by First Nations communities and other Indigenous organizations, broken down by type of PPE (masks, face shields, etc.); (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) date of request, (ii) name of First Nations community or organization making the request, (iii) amount requested, broken down by type of PPE; and (c) what are the details of each PPE delivery provided to First Nations and other Indigenous organizations, including (i) date of delivery, (ii) recipient community or organization, (iii) amount delivered, broken down by type of PPE?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 213--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the Invest in Canada Hub: (a) since March 12, 2018, how much has been spent on hospitality or ticket purchases related to attracting foreign investment; and (b) what are the details of all expenditures in (a), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) number of guests or tickets purchased, (iv) location, (v) vendor, (vi) description of event, (vii) number of government officials in attendance, (viii) number of guests in attendance, (ix) companies or organizations represented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 214--
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the Business Credit Availability Program (BCAP): (a) how many businesses have received loans from (i) Export Development Canada, (ii) the Business Development Bank of Canada, (iii) other sources under the BCAP program since the pandemic began; (b) how many applications for loans under the program were declined; (c) what is the total value of loans provided under the program; and (d) what were the median and average value of loans provided under the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 217--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the Universal Broadband Fund: (a) how many applications has the government received for funding; (b) what is the total amount dispersed by the fund since its official formation; (c) how many applications were classified as originating from a local government district; (d) how many applications were received from applicants in the province of Manitoba; (e) how many of the applications in (d) were successful; and (f) what are the details of all funding provided through the fund, including (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 218--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the government's announcement in May 2020 to provide $77 million to assist food processors with their COVID-19 protection and adaptation plans: (a) how much of the funding has been provided to date; and (b) what is the breakdown of how much funding each food processor received by (i) name of recipient, (ii) type of processor (beef, pork, produce, etc.), (iii) amount, (iv) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 220--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the statutory responsibilities of ministers: what are the statutory responsibilities of the Minister of Rural Economic Development?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 221--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the requests for information received by the government from the Parliamentary Budget Officer since January 1, 2017: what are the details of all the instances where some or all of the information requested was either withheld or redacted, including (i) the specific request, (ii) date of request, (iii) number of pages withheld or redacted, (iv) title of the individual who authorized the redactions or the refusal to provide all of the information, (v) reason for the redactions or refusal to provide the information?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 222--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the recommendation by the Chief Public Health Officer that Canadians use a three-layer non-medical mask with a filter: (a) how many non-medical masks purchased by the government since March 1, 2020, (i) meet this criterion, (ii) do not meet this criterion; and (b) what is the value of the masks purchased by the government that (i) meet this criterion, (ii) do not meet this criterion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 223--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to expenditures made since January 1, 2018, for non-public servant travel, and broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what is the total of all expenditures, broken down by object code; (b) what are the details of each trip taken in relation to expenditures made under the classification non-public servant travel - Key stakeholders (code 0262), or similar classification, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) mode of travel (train, air, etc.), (v) cost of trip, broken down by type of expense (accommodation, airfare, etc.), (vi) organization represented by traveller, (vii) purpose of travel or description of events requiring travel; and (c) what are the details of each trip taken in relation to expenditures made under the classification non-public servant travel - Other travel (code 0265), or similar classification, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) mode of travel (train, air, etc.), (v) cost of trip, broken down by type of expense (accommodation, airfare, etc.), (vi) organization represented by traveller, (vii) purpose of travel or description of events requiring travel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 225--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
With regard to the Canada Student Service Grant program and the original decision to have WE Charity administer the program: was an Official Languages Impact Analysis conducted on the program, and, if so, (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) on what date was the analysis completed, (iii) what were the findings of the analysis, (iv) which Minister signed the analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 227--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the backlog of evidence processing in the RCMP crime laboratories: (a) what is the current backlog for each category and type of evidence submitted, including DNA, swabs, fingerprinting, firearms, fabric evidence, non-firearm weapons, and any other type of evidence, broken down by laboratory; (b) what was the expected timeline to deliver evidence prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, broken down by laboratory; (c) what is the current expected timeline to deliver evidence, broken down by laboratory; (d) how many times have the RCMP laboratories sent notices or requests to prosecutors, police officers or police services seeking an extension for the originally projected timelines; (e) in the last 24 months, how many evidence submissions have been rejected because of (i) lack of capacity to do the analysis, (ii) lack of response from the officer or prosecutor who sent in the evidence, (iii) inaccurate or poorly collected evidence, (iv) lack of personnel with the skills needed to do the work, (v) decision by the evidence laboratory that the evidence was not needed or relevant, (vi) decision by the evidence laboratory that they would not process evidence because they were already processing something similar; (f) in the last 24 months, how much work has been outsourced to private laboratories to deal with overflow, broken down by month, year, and the laboratory it was sent; (g) in the last 24 months, how many times was outsourcing of work requested by laboratories and rejected by management due to financial considerations; (h) in the last 24 months, how many times has the RCMP sent out any notice, communication or information declining to process certain evidence or types of evidence; (i) how many employees and vacant positions in evidence laboratories currently exist, broken down by evidence laboratory; (j) how many new staff have been hired in the last 24 months; (k) in the last 24 months, how many employees have left or retired; (l) over the last six months, are there any open positions requiring critical skills, in any of the evidence laboratories, thus limiting the amount of work done by the laboratory, and, if so, what are the details; (m) have any of the RCMP evidence laboratories sought support, work sharing, transfer of work to municipal, provincial or private sector laboratories for evidence they lacked the capacity, skills or equipment to process, and, if so, what are the details; and (n) how many notices have been sent in the last 24 months that evidence would be available for prosecutors or police in time for trial?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 230--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the federal tobacco control strategy for fiscal year 2019-20: (a) what was the budget for the strategy; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each component of the strategy, specifically, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the strategy and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 232--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to advertising by agencies and Crown corporations under the Finance portfolio since January 1, 2016: (a) how many advertisements have been created in total, broken down by year and by type (internet, print dailies, radio, television, etc.); (b) what is the media authorization number and name of each advertisement listed in (a); (c) what are the details of each advertisement or campaign, including the (i) title or description of the advertisement or campaign, (ii) purpose or goal, (iii) start and end date of the campaign, (iv) media outlets running advertisements, (v) name of the advertising agency used to produce the advertisement, if applicable, (vi) name of the advertising agency used to purchase advertising space, if applicable, (vii) total amount spent, broken down by advertisement and campaign; and (d) what are the details of all contracts awarded related to advertising, including any contracts awarded to advertising or production agencies, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) start and end date, (iv) title or summary of each related campaign, (v) description of goods or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 233--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces or the Department of National Defence creating dossiers on journalists since November 4, 2015: (a) how many dossiers on journalists have been created; and (b) what are the details of each dossier created including the (i) journalist, (ii) news outlet, (iii) date created, (iv) section that created the dossier (public affairs, defence strategic communication, etc.), (v) observations, analysis or comments contained in dossier?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 234--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the government's Joint Support Ship program and the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, dated November 17, 2020: (a) why did the government choose the more expensive option rather than purchase the vessels from Chantier Davie Canada Inc.; (b) why was the estimated savings of $3 billion with the Davie option not the deciding factor in the government's choice not to use Davie; (c) does the government accept the findings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as accurate, and, if not, which specific findings does it not accept; and (d) has the government conducted an assessment of the capabilities of the Asterix and Obelix as commercial vessels converted for military purposes versus those of the built-for-purpose Joint Support Ship program, and, if so, what were the findings of the assessment, or, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 237--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to expenditures on social media marketing and management companies, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent each year since January 1, 2016; (b) as of November 11, 2020, what are the details of all social media accounts that are managed, in whole or in part, by a company, including (i) platform, (ii) handle or account name, (iii) name of the company managing the account, (iv) type of work being done by the company (writing posts, scheduling, promoting, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all contracts signed since January 1, 2016, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of the contract, (iv) which social media accounts are covered by the contract, (v) detailed description of goods or services provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 239--
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the Veterans Affairs Canada service standard of 16 weeks for decisions in relation to disability benefit applications, for applications received during the 2019-20 fiscal year: (a) how many and what percentage of applications received a decision within (i) the 16-week standard, (ii) between 16 and 26 weeks, (iii) greater than 26 weeks; and (b) how many such applications have yet to receive a decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 240--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to privacy breaches since November 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) how many privacy breaches have occurred; and (b) for each privacy breach, (i) was it reported to the Privacy Commissioner, (ii) how many individuals were affected, (iii) what were the dates of the privacy breach, (iv) were the individuals affected notified that theirinformation may have been compromised and, if so, on what date and by what manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 241--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to social media posts that were posted and later deleted or edited on government accounts since January 1, 2019, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of all such posts, including the (i) subject matter, (ii) time and date of the original post, (iii) time and date of the deletion or edit, (iv) description of the original post including the type of post (text, still picture, video, etc.), (v) summary of the edit, including the precise differences between the original post and the revised post, (vi) reason for the deletion or edit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 243--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to expenditures on, and use of, isolation or quarantine accommodations during the pandemic: (a) how many (i) foreigners, (ii) Canadian citizens or permanent residents have required the government to provide isolation or quarantine accommodations since August 1, 2020; (b) what is the total amount spent by the government on such accommodations since August 1, 2020, broken down by month; (c) what are the details of all such accommodations and in which municipalities and provinces are such accommodations located, including (i) municipality, (ii) province or territory, (iii) type of facility (hotel, dorm rooms, etc.); and (d) are individuals requiring such accommodations required to reimburse the taxpayer for the cost associated with the accommodation and, if so, how much has been received in reimbursements (i) prior to August 1, 2020, (ii) since August 1, 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 244--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the government’s Rapid Housing Initiative: what are the details of all funding commitments provided to date under the initiative, including (i) date of commitment, (ii) amount of federal commitment, (iii) detailed location, including address, municipality and province, (iv) project description, (v) number of housing units, broken down by type of housing?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 245--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to funding provided under the Social Development Partnerships Program since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided under the program, broken down by year and by province or territory; and (b) what are the details of all projects or programs funded through the program, including (i) date of funding, (ii) amount of federal contribution, (iii) recipient, (iv) purpose of funding or project description, (v) location of recipient, (vi) location of project or program, if different than recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 246--
Ms. Monique Pauzé:
With regard to the fossil fuel sector and the renewable energy sector, and for all the departments and agencies affected: (a) what regulatory amendments, including amendments to federal-provincial partnership programs, have been made since March 15, 2020, that affect the funding or regulation of one of these sectors, including (i) the duration of each of these amendments, (ii) the impact of each amendment; and (b) for these two sectors, what financial support measures have been implemented (i) through programs administered by Export Development Canada, (ii) by any other governmental or quasi-governmental department or agency?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 247--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to electric vehicle charging stations installed on government property, since January 1, 2016, that are primarily for the use of government employees, such as the stations near West Block or the stations adjacent to parking spots reserved for high-level government officials, such as the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: (a) what is the location of each such charging station; (b) who has access to each of the stations, broken down by location; (c) what was the total cost to install each of the stations, broken down by location; and (d) for those stations that are adjacent to reserved parking spaces for government employees, how does the public have access to each station, if they are available to the public?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 248--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to contracts signed by any government department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, and Bensimon Byrne, since November 4, 2015, and including any contracts that were not or have yet to be posted on the government's proactive disclosure websites: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) start and end dates, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) title and summary of any related advertising campaign, (v) title of the official who approved the contract, (vi) reason the contract was not made public through proactive disclosure, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 249--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the ongoing process to replace the government's VIP aircraft, including the Airbus and Challenger planes used to transport the Prime Minister and other ministers: (a) what is the projected timeline when each aircraft will be replaced; (b) what is the projected cost to replace each aircraft; (c) what specific action to date has been completed in relation to the process of replacing each aircraft; (d) what replacement options have been presented to the Minister of National Defense, the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Transport in relation to the replacement option; and (e) for each option in (d), what is the anticipated location where each aircraft would be built?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 251--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the 2017 report presented by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled "Starting Again: Improving Government Oversight of Immigration Consultants": what specific action, if any, has the government taken in response to each of the committee’s 21 recommendations, broken down by each of the specific recommendations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 252--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the mandate letter of the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth: (a) which of the items in the mandate letter have been fully accomplished to date; (b) which of the items are currently being worked on, and what is the expected completion date of each of the items; and (c) which of the items are no longer being pursued?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 253--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the response from the Minister of Immigration Refugee and Citizenship (IRCC) to Order Paper question Q-45 about visitors coming to Canada for the sole purpose of giving birth on Canadian soil, which stated that “IRCC is researching the extent of this practice, including how many non-residents giving birth are short-term visitors by engaging the CIHI and Statistics Canada": (a) what is the projected timeline for this research project; (b) how many people from IRCC have been assigned to work on this project; (c) on what date did IRCC “engage” the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) and Statistics Canada; (d) what information has been provided to IRCC to date from CIHI or Statistics Canada, broken down by date the information was provided; and (e) are provincial health authorities, including the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux Quebec, being engaged as part of the ongoing research?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 255--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to both formal and informal requests received by Indigenous Services Canada for ministerial loan guarantees, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such requests, including the (i) date the request was received, (ii) name of the First Nation or organization making the request, (iii) value of the loan guarantee requested, (iv) value of the loan guarantee provided by the government, (v) purpose of the loan?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 256--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to sole-sourced COVID-19 spending since March 13, 2020: (a) how many contracts have been sole-sourced; (b) what are the details of each such sole-sourced contract, including the (i) date of the award, (ii) description of goods or services, including volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of vendor; (c) how many sole-sourced contracts have been awarded to domestic-based companies; and (d) how many sole-sourced contracts have been awarded to foreign-based companies, broken down by country where the company is based?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 258--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (herein referenced as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by Deloitte since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such deliverables, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 259--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) procurement with AMD Medicom: (a) how many units of PPE have been produced for Canada by AMD Medicom since the contract was awarded, broken down by type of PPE; (b) how many units of PPE have been delivered to the government by AMD Medicom since the contract was awarded, broken down by type of PPE and date of delivery; (c) how many units of AMD Medicom PPE are being held in government storage facilities; (d) how many units of AMD Medicom PPE are being held in AMD Medicom storage facilities; (e) how many government storage facilities are there to hold PPE; (f) of the storage facilities in (e), how many are (i) full, (ii) empty; (g) what is AMD Medicom currently producing at, broken down monthly by type of PPE; (h) what was the date of the first shipment by AMD Medicom to the government; (i) what was the date of the first shipment received by the government; (j) since the contract was awarded, how many units of PPE were turned away due to lack of storage facilities; (k) of the units in (j), when were they (i) turned away, (ii) finally delivered; and (l) of the PPE delivered by AMD Medicom, how many units have been distributed to the provinces, by province, month and type of PPE?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 262--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program, since its inception: (a) what is the total amount paid out through the program; (b) how many individual companies have received payments, broken down by (i) country of physical address, (ii) country of mailing address, (iii) country of the bank account the funds were deposited into; (c) for all companies in (b) that are located in Canada, what is the breakdown down by (i) province or territory, (ii) municipality; (d) how many audits have been conducted of companies receiving the CECRA; and (e) for the audits in (d), how many have found that funding has been spent outside of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 263--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the government's fleet of aircraft: (a) what are the make and model of each aircraft owned by the government; (b) how many of each make and model does the government own; (c) what is the estimated cost to operate each aircraft per hour, broken down by make and model; and (d) what is the estimated hourly (i) fuel usage, (ii) greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint of each aircraft, broken down by make and model?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 264--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke between January 2018 and November 2020: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (viii) project description or purpose of funding; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke by recipients tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 265--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to Health Canada’s proposed front-of-package and food labelling modernization regulations, and other mandatory labelling changes: (a) what are the details of all proposed or ongoing changes to nutrition and ingredient labelling and all compliance timelines; and (b) when will Health Canada announce the alignment of compliance timelines for each change for labeling in the food and beverage industry, broken down by change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 266--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the new College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants becoming the official regulator of immigration and citizenship consultants: (a) how will the college be funded; (b) what is the projected budget for the college for each of the next five years; (c) what specific powers or enforcement mechanisms will be available to the college; (d) what will be the organizational structure of the college; (e) will all immigration and citizenship consultants be required to be members of the college; (f) what is the timeline for when the college will be operational; (g) what is the timeline for enforcement powers given to the college to come into effect; and (h) will there be any demographic or geographical requirements or considerations for the selection of board members and, if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 267--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the government's position regarding the admissibility to Canada of individuals who have faced politically motivated charges in Hong Kong or China: (a) are foreigners convicted of politically motivated charges in Hong Kong or China barred from entry into Canada as a result of the politically motivated charges; (b) what directives have been issued, or measures taken, to ensure that border and immigration officials do not reject admittance to Canada based on politically motivated charges; and (c) what is the list of offences, which would normally bar admittance to Canada, that the government will consider to be politically motivated if the charges were laid in Hong Kong or China?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 268--
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
With regard to the government's promise of $1.75 billion over eight years in compensation to dairy farmers resulting from concessions made under Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: (a) how much compensation has been or will be delivered to dairy farmers, broken down by each of the next eight years, starting with the 2020-21 fiscal year; and (b) on what date in each of the fiscal years will the payments be sent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 270--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to bonuses or performance pay given to government executives at the director level (EX-01) or higher, who were assigned duties related to the development, rollout, or implementation of the Phoenix pay system, and broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures on bonuses or performance pay for such executives; and (b) how many such executives have received bonuses or performance pay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 271--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to conditions placed on individuals receiving national interest exemptions related to travel restrictions or quarantine requirements during the pandemic: (a) how many individuals have received national interest exemptions since March 1, 2020; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many have had conditions placed on their exemption; (c) what is the breakdown of the type of condition placed on individuals (geographic restriction, limit on time in Canada, etc.), including the number of individuals subject to each type of condition; and (d) what costs have been incurred by the government in relation to faciliting national interest exemptions, broken down by item and type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 273--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the ongoing issues related to the Indigenous Nova Scotia lobster fishery, since November 20, 2019: (a) how many briefings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had from the departmental scientists in charge of Lobster Fishing Areas (LFA) 33, LFA 34 and LFA 35 regarding the state of the lobster fisheries; (b) what are the details of the briefings in (a), including (i) the date, (ii) subjects of the briefings, (iii) whether the briefing was requested by the minister or recommended by the department; (c) how many meetings has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had with stakeholders regarding the state of the lobster fisheries; and (d) what are the details of all meetings in (c), including the (i) date, (ii) meeting summary (iii) stakeholder groups in attendance, (iv) location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 275--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the acquisition of buildings by government departments or agencies, since December 1, 2019, for each transaction: (a) what is the location of the building; (b) what is the amount paid; (c) what is the type of building; (d) what is the file number; (e) what is the date of transaction; (f) what is the reason for acquisition; and (g) who was the owner of the building prior to government acquisition?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 276--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the acquisition of land by government departments or agencies, since January 1, 2016, for each transaction: (a) what is the land location; (b) what is the amount paid; (c) what is the size and description of the land; (d) what is the file number; (e) what is the date of transaction; (f) what is the reason for acquisition; and (g) who was the owner of the building prior to government acquisition?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 277--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Business Risk Management Programs (BRMs), AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery: (a) what is the total amount of funds budgeted in fiscal year 2019-20 for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery; (b) what is the total amount of funds dispersed in fiscal year 2019-20 for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery; (c) what is the total amount of funds for AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery dispersed in the last 10 fiscal years, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) business risk management program, (iii) province, (iv) sector; and (d) what is the total percentage of agricultural producers who have accessed AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance, and AgriRecovery in the fiscal year 2019-20, broken down by (i) business risk management program, (ii) province, (iii) sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 281--
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the government's level of co-operation with investigations or analysis conducted by the police or any officer or agent of Parliament, such as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: (a) since January 1, 2016, how many waivers has the government signed to allow for complete and unrestricted co-operation and sharing of information between the government and those conducting the investigation or analysis; and (b) what are the details of each waiver, including the (i) date, (ii) types of records covered by the waiver (protected, cabinet confidence, etc.), (iii) entity with which the waiver allows information to be shared (RCMP, Commissioner of Lobbying, etc.), (iv) subject matter of the investigation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 282--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to government revenue from taxes or duties related to cannabis sales: (a) what was the original projected revenue from these taxes or duties in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) what was the actual revenue generated from these taxes or duties in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by revenue source (GST, excise tax, etc.); (d) what is the projected revenue from these taxes or duties in each of the next five years; (e) what percentage of cannabis sold in Canada does the government estimate is currently sold through (i) legal distributors, (ii) illegal drug dealers; and (f) what was the amount of revenue generated, broken down by month, related to cannabis sales between (i) March 1, 2019, and December 1, 2019, (ii) March 1, 2020, and December 1, 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 284--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to government expenditures on aircraft rentals since December 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on the rental of aircraft; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) dates of rental, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) purpose of trip, (vi) origin and destination of flights, (vii) titles of passengers, including which passengers were on which segments of each trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 285--
Mr. Ron Liepert:
With regard to the various financial relief programs put in place since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount dispersed through each measure to date, broken down by program; and (b) what is the estimated level of fraudulent applications for each program, including (i) estimated percentage of fraudulent applications, (ii) estimated number of fraudulent applications, (iii) estimated dollar value of fraudulent applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 286--
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: (a) since the minister was sworn in on November 20, 2019, how many members of the middle class have seen their prosperity (i) increase, (ii) decrease; and (b) what metrics does the minister use to measure the level of middle class prosperity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 287--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to contracts issued by ministers' offices for the purpose of media training, since December 1, 2019: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) vendors, (ii) dates of contract, (iii) dates of training, (iv) individuals for whom the training was for, (v) amounts?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 288--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to polling by the government since December 1, 2019: (a) what is the list of all poll questions and subjects that have been commissioned since December 1, 2019; (b) for each poll in (a), what was the (i) start and end date each poll was in the field, (ii) sample size of each poll, (iii) manner in which the poll was conducted (in person, virtually, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all polling contracts signed since December 1, 2019, including the (i) vendor, (ii) date and duration, (iii) amount, (iv) summary of the contract, including the number of polls conducted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 289--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) since 1995, what is the number of attempted suicides amongst active and former Canadian Armed Forces members, both regular and reserve force, broken down by (i) year, (ii) service status, (iii) branch, (iv) rank; (b) since 1995, what is the number of suicides amongst active and former Canadian Armed Forces members, both regular and reserve force, broken down by (i) year, (ii) service status, (iii) branch, (iv) rank; (c) what government agency, directorate and office has the ability or responsibility to collect and maintain data related to suicides and attempted suicides by former and current members of the Canadian Armed Forces; (d) what is the step by step protocol and procedure for collecting data on attempted suicides and suicides by past and present Canadian Armed Forces members; and (e) if there is no protocol or step by step process, what would the process be to collect and maintain this data?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 292--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the Prime Minister's announcement in May 2020 of an agreement with CanSino Biologics Inc. (CanSinoBIO) in relation to the development of a potential COVID-19 vaccine: (a) what were the original details of the agreement, as understood by the government in May 2020; (b) on what date did the government first become aware that the agreement would not proceed as planned; (c) on what date did the government become aware that shipments of Ad5-nCoV were being blocked by the Chinese government; (d) what reason, if any, did the Chinese government provide to the government for blocking the shipment; (e) has the government transferred any money or any type of expenditures to CanSinoBIO since January 1, 2020, and, if so, what is the total amount sent, broken down by date of transfer; (f) what are the details of any contracts signed with CanSinoBIO since January 1, 2020, including the (i) amount, (ii) original value, (iii) final value, (iv) date contract was signed, (v) description of goods or services, including volume; (g) was the National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister advised of terms of the terms agreement prior to the Prime Minister's announcement, and, if so, did he approve of the agreement; (h) was the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service informed of the details of the agreement prior to the Prime Minister's announcement, and, if so, did they raise any concerns with the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office; and (i) what were the results of any security analysis conducted in relation to CanSinoBIO?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 293--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the government's decision not to conduct an Official Languages Impact Analysis in relation to certain items announced since January 1, 2020: (a) why was an Official Languages Impact Analysis not conducted on the proposal to have WE Charity run the Canada Student Service Grant; (b) what is the complete list of items approved by Treasury Board since March 13, 2020, that underwent the required Official Languages Impact Analysis prior to submission; (c) what is the complete list of items approved by Treasury Board since March 13, 2020, that did not undergo an Official Languages Impact Analysis, prior to submission; and (d) for each item in (c), what is the government's rationale for not abiding by the Official Languages Impact Analysis requirement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 294--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the consultations that have taken place since 2018 regarding potential changes to the seed royalty regime: (a) what is the complete list of entities consulted; (b) what is the number of independent producers consulted; (c) what specific concerns were raised by those consulted, broken down by proposal; and (d) is the government currently considering any changes to the seed royalty regime, and, if so, what are the details, including the timeline, of any potential changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 295--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to the statement of the Vice-President of Guyana, in August 2020, that, "it's a Canadian grant and there will be a Canadian consultant," in reference to the appointment of Alison Redford to assist in developing Guyana's oil and gas sector: (a) what are the details of the grant, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) purpose, (iv) department and program administering the grant; (b) what are the details of any other grants, programs, initiatives, or expenditures that have provided any assistance to Guyana's oil and gas sector since November 4, 2015; and (c) did the government conduct any analysis on the impact that the development of the Guyana oil and gas sector will have on the Canadian oil and gas sector, and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 296--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to investments in Canada Revenue Agency tax compliance measures to crack down on international tax evasion, since the 2016–17 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many auditors specializing in foreign accounts have been hired; (b) how many audits have been conducted; (c) how many notices of assessment have been sent; (d) what was the amount recovered; (e) how many cases were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (f) how many criminal charges have been laid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 297--
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to the design and implementation of programs and spending measures relating to COVID-19, broken down by program and spending measure: (a) have contracts been awarded to private-sector suppliers and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details for each contract in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount, (v) supplier, (vi) country of the supplier?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 300--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the temporary suspension of some programs and services of the Canada Revenue Agency, since the month of March 2020: (a) what is the name of each suspended program and service; and (b) for each program and service in (a), what is the (i) suspension date and resumption date, (ii) what are the reasons for the suspension?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 301--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to the decision of Transport Canada not to allow passengers to remain in their vehicles on certain decks of BC Ferries throughout the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) did Transport Canada conduct any analysis relating to exempting passengers from this restriction throughout the pandemic in order to prevent possible exposure to COVID-19, and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis; (b) why did Transport Canada require those passengers to venture out of their vehicles into the communal areas of BC Ferries; (c) did Transport Canada consult Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada prior to enforcing this restriction during the pandemic, and, if not, why; (d) why did Transport Canada refuse to exempt high risk and elderly travelers from this requirement, thus causing such individuals to be unnecessarily exposed to others; (e) what are the details of any communication received by either Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada regarding this decision from Transport Canada, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents; and (f) what was the response of Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to any communication received in (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 302--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB): (a) how many self-employed Canadians earning more than $5,000 in gross income, but less than $5,000 in net income, have applied for the benefit during the qualification period; (b) how many individuals in (a) have been asked by the Canada Revenue Agency to repay the amount they received under the CERB; (c) what is the (i) average, (ii) median, (iii) total amount that the individuals in (a) were asked to repay; and (d) why did the government not specify that the $5,000 requirement was for net income rather than gross income on the original application form?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 303--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the COVID Alert app and the November 23, 2020, update to fix a bug causing gaps in exposure checks for some users: (a) on what date did the government first become aware of the gaps or other issues; (b) how many potential exposures were missed because of the gaps; (c) how many app users encountered gaps in exposure checks; (d) on what date did the gaps first begin; (e) on what date were the gaps fully resolved; (f) what is the average number of days that the gaps lasted for those impacted; (g) were certain types of mobile devices more prone to encounter the gaps, and, if so, which ones; and (h) on what date did the government notify provincial health officials about the gaps?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 304--
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to medical equipment, excluding personal protective equipment, purchased by the government related to the government's COVID-19 response: (a) what is the total amount spent, broken down by type of equipment (ventilators, syringes, etc.); (b) what is the total number of contracts signed for medical equipment; (c) what is the breakdown of the amount spent by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located; and (d) what is the total number of contracts signed broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 305--
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) purchased by the government since the COVID-19 pandemic began: (a) what is the total amount spent on PPE; (b) what is the total number of contracts signed for PPE; (c) what is the breakdown of the amount spent by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located; and (d) what is the total number of contracts signed broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) country where the vendor is located?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 306--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), since March 2020: (a) how many air passenger complaints have been received, broken down by the subject matter of the complaint; (b) of the complaints received in (a), how many have been resolved, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (c) how many air passenger complaints were dismissed, withdrawn or declined, broken down by (i) subject matter of the complaint, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (d) for each complaint in (a), how many cases were resolved through a settlement; (e) how many full-time equivalent agency case officers are assigned to deal with air travel complaints, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (f) what is the average number of air travel complaints handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (g) what is the number of air travel complaints received but not yet handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (h) in how many cases were passengers told by CTA facilitators that they were not entitled to compensation, broken down by rejection category; (i) among the cases in (h), what was the reason for the CTA facilitators not to refer the passengers and the airlines to the Montréal Convention that is incorporated in the international tariff (terms and conditions) of the airlines; (j) how does the CTA define a "resolved" complaint for the purposes of reporting it in its statistics; (k) when a complainant chooses not to pursue a complaint, does it count as "resolved"; (l) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to an officer to be assigned to the case, broken down by the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (m) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to reaching a settlement, broken down by the (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; and (n) for complaints in (a), what is the percentage of complaints that were not resolved in accordance with the service standards?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 307--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to GST/HST tax revenues, beginning in fiscal year 2016-17, and broken down by fiscal year: what was the revenue shortfall for (i) suppliers of digital goods and services that are not physically located in Canada, (ii) goods supplied through fulfillment warehouses with online suppliers and digital platforms located outside of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 308--
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
With regard to government advertising campaigns launched since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all campaigns, including the (i) title and description, (ii) total budget, (iii) start and end date; and (b) for each campaign, what is the breakdown of the total amount spent on advertising by each type of media (radio, television, social media, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 310--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to expenditures on communications professional services (codes 035, 0351, and 0352) since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or competitively bid?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 312--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to funding provided through the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund, since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to date; (b) what is the number of recipients; and (c) what are the details of each funding recipient, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) location of the recipient, (v) type of funding (loan, grant, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 313--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to SNC-Lavalin and the design and implementation of COVID-19 programs and spending measures, broken down by program and spending measures: (a) have any contracts been awarded to SNC-Lavalin, and, if so, how many; and (b) what are the details of each of the contracts in (a), including the (i) date the contract was awarded, (ii) description of the goods or services, (iii) volume, (iv) final contract amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 314--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to government business finance programs and government contracts, broken down by funding program, contracts and fiscal year, since 2011: (a) what is the total funding for (i) Facebook, (ii) Google, (iii) Amazon, (iv) Apple, (v) Netflix?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 315--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to funding to support food banks and local food organizations, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory and by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were denied; and (d) of the applications denied in (c), what is the rationale for each denied application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 316--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the COVID-19 Economic Response Plan and the section outlining support for Indigenous people: what is the total amount dispersed and the total number of recipients to date for each of the following listed programs and initiatives, (i) supporting Indigenous communities, (ii) boosting the On­Reserve Income Assistance Program, (iii) funding for additional health care resources for Indigenous communities, (iv) expanding and improving access to mental wellness services, (v) making personal hygiene products and nutritious food more affordable, (vi) providing support to Indigenous post­secondary students, (vii) ensuring a safe return to school for First Nations, (viii) new shelters to protect and support Indigenous women and children fleeing violence?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 317--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to information held by the Bank of Canada: (a) what was the total combined purchase price of all the Government of Canada bonds that the Bank of Canada purchased on the secondary market since March 1, 2020; (b) what was the total combined purchase price of the bonds listed in (a) when originally auctioned on the primary market; (c) what was the average sale price of (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds, since March 1, 2020, to the primary market; (d) what is the average sale price of (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds at the time of issuance paid by all purchasers, other than the Bank of Canada; (e) what was the average purchase price paid by the Bank of Canada for (i) 90-day treasuries, (ii) one-year bonds, (iii) two-year bonds, (iv) three-year bonds, (v) five-year bonds, (vi) 10-year bonds, (vii) 30-year bonds; (f) what is the actual answer or information contained in any URL links provided in the response in (a) through (e), if applicable; and (g) what are the details of all corporate bonds that the Bank of Canada has purchased since March 1, 2020, including the (i) name of the company, (ii) purchase and price per unit, (iii) date of the purchase, (iv) total amount of the purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 318--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Boeing 737 MAX 8: (a) during communication with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) on or after October 29, 2018, including in the emergency Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA, what information was received by Transport Canada, including (i) the findings of any FAA risk analysis into the airworthiness of the 737 MAX 8 and likelihood of fatal crashes during its service, (ii) any information concerning the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software and its role in the crash of Lion Air flight 610, (iii) any information about the risks of an angle-of-attack sensor failure, (iv) data indicating the cause of the crash of Lion Air flight 610, including black box recordings, (v) any explanation of the cause of the crash of Lion Air flight 610, including any description of the runaway stabilizer trim; (b) was this information communicated to the Minister of Transport or the Director General of Civil Administration, and, if so, when; (c) were any concerns with the absence of information regarding the crash of Lion Air flight 610 conveyed to the FAA, and, if so, what was the substance of these concerns; (d) did Transport Canada consider any order grounding the 737 MAX 8 between October 29, 2018, and March 10, 2019, and, if so, why was this option rejected; (e) at any time before March 10, 2019, did Transport Canada receive any concerns about the 737 MAX 8 from airlines or pilot associations and, if so, what were these concerns and who issued them; (f) after October 29, 2018, did Transport Canada consider undertaking its own risk analysis of the 737 MAX 8, and, if so, why was this option rejected; and (g) prior to March 10, 2019, did Transport Canada communicate the causes of the Lion Air crash, including an explanation of the runaway stabilizer trim, with any airlines or pilot associations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 319--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy since 2011: how much money has been invested by the federal government per year and per project at (i) Seaspan, (ii) Davie, (iii) Irving?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 320--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to projects funded through the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI) since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided through the CFLI; and (b) what are the details of each project including the (i) amount, (ii) date project was funded, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description, (v) location of the project, (vi) relevant Canadian Embassy or High Commission that approved the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 321--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the government's decision not to use PnuVax for domestic vaccine production: (a) why did the government decide not to invest in the PnuVax facility so that it could produce vaccines; (b) did the government have any communication with PnuVax about the possibility of vaccine production since March 13, 2020, and, if so, what are the details of each communication; (c) did the government discuss the possibility of a Strategic Innovation Fund investment with PnuVax, and, if not, why not; and (d) has the government received any applications for funding or financial assistance from PnuVax since March 13, 2020, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) date of application, (ii) government program, (iii) amount applied for, (iv) reason application was denied, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 322--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to information held by Health Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or Statistics Canada: (a) what is the number of surgeries that have been postponed since March 1, 2020, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province or territory; (b) what is the number of hospitalizations resulting from substance abuse or overdose since March 1, 2020; (c) what is the number of fatalities resulting from substance abuse or overdose; and (d) what is the number of suicides since March 1, 2020, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province or territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 323--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the government’s responses to Order Paper questions Q-1 to Q-169, and broken down by each response: what is the title of the government official that signed the required Statement of Completeness for each response?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 324--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the communities that comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the 1993-94 and current year fiscal year: (a) what are the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to the municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (b) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Comox Valley Regional District, (ii) Regional District of Nanaimo, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, (iv) Powell River Regional District, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (c) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasqueti Island, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (d) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nations, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) projects, (iv) total expenditure by fiscal year; (e) what are the federal infrastructure investments directed towards the Pacific Rim National Park, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project, (iv) total expenditure by year; and (f) what are the federal infrastructure contributions to highways, including but not limited to (i) Highway 4, (ii) Highway 19, (iii) Highway 19a, (iv) Bamfield Road, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) total expenditure by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 325--
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to the promises made in the 2015 and 2019 Liberal Party of Canada election platforms to end the discriminatory blood donation ban for gay and bisexual men: (a) on what exact date will the ban end; and (b) why did the government not end the ban during its first five years in power?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 326--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) announced by the government in 2016: (a) how much money has been allocated to Transport Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (b) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Transport Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and program; (c) how much money has been allocated to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (d) how much money has been spent under the OPP by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (e) how much money has been allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada under the OPP, since 2016, broken down by year; (f) how much money has been spent under the OPP by Environment and Climate Change Canada, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (g) how much money has been spent under the OPP on efforts to mitigate the potential impacts of oil spills, since 2016, broken down by year and by program; (h) how much money from the OPP has been allocated to the Whales Initiative, since 2016, broken down by year; (i) how much money has been spent under the OPP on the Whales Initiative since 2016; and (j) what policies does the government have in place to ensure that the funding allocated under the OPP is spent on its stated goals in a timely manner?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 327--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the $3 billion transfer to the provinces and territories for support to increase the wages of low-income essential workers: a) what is the total amount transferred broken down by province and territory; and b) what are the details on the use of the funds transferred, broken down by province and territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 328--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to funding for the initiative to support women's shelters and sexual assault centres, including facilities in Indigenous communities, since May 2020, broken down by province and territory, and by program: a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; b) what is the total number of applications; c) of the applications in b), how many were approved and how many were refused; and d) of the applications refused in c), what is the rationale for each refused application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 329--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to funding for homelessness support through Reaching Home, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory, and by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were denied; and (d) of the applications denied in (c), what is the rationale for each denied application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 330--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to support for charitable and not-for-profit organizations serving vulnerable populations through the Emergency Community Support Fund, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were declined; and d) of the applications declined in (c), what is the rationale for each declined application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 331--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to funding for youth employment and skills development programs, since March 2020, broken down by province and territory, by program: (a) what is the total spent to date as a proportion of available funds; (b) what is the total number of applications; c) of the applications in (b), how many were approved and how many were declined; and d) of the declined applications in (c), what is the rationale for each declined application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 333--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regards to Lobster Fishing Area 34 between 2016 and 2019, broken down by year: (a) how many kilograms of lobster are confirmed to have landed outside of the commercial season; (b) how many kilograms are estimated to have landed outside of the commercial season; (c) under what legal or regulatory authority, if any, was the lobster in (a) and (b) harvested; and (d) if there was no legal or regulatory authority, how many charges were laid under the Fisheries Act in relation to the fishing in (a) and (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 334--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regards to the Transport of Munitions of War (MoW) by Foreign Air Operators between 2015 and 2019, broken down by year: (a) how many foreign air operators have applied for a Ministerial Authorization to carry MoW when operating in Canada; (b) how many foreign air operators have applied for a blanket Ministerial Authorization to carry MoW; (c) of the applications in (a) and (b), how many were (i) issued, (ii) rejected; (d) what are the details of each flight authorized to carry MoW, including (i) origin, (ii) destination, (iii) date, (iv) country of aircraft registration, (v) details of cargo that necessitated the MoW authorization; and (e) how many times have foreign air operators been found to be in breach of condition or non-compliant in respect to carrying MoW?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 335--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to consultations on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since October 20, 2019, at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office: (a) what, if any, consultations have occurred with the heavy trucking sector (specifically operators and manufacturers of class 8 vehicles) with regard to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since October 20, 2019; (b) did the consultations take place in person, via telephone or virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions; (c) what are the dates of those consultations; (d) who was in attendance for those consultations, including the (i) name of each individual from any department or agency in attendance, (ii) position and title of each individual department or agency, (iii) name of each company or organization represented, (iv) position and title of each individual from those respective companies or organizations represented; (e) were any briefing notes prepared in advance of each consultation, and, if so, what are the titles of those briefing notes; (f) were any briefing notes prepared following each consultation, and, if so, what are the titles of those briefing notes; and (g) were there any notes taken during those consultations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 336--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office: what is the government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the heavy trucking sector (specifically operators and manufacturers of class 8 vehicles) at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Department of Finance Canada, and the Privy Council Office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 337--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the agreements between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States signed on October 26, 2020: what are the details of such agreements, including the (i) title, (ii) summary of the terms?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 338--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the Minister of National Defence's use of Canadian Armed Forces aircraft from November 4, 2015, to December 9, 2020: what are the details of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) purpose of the travel, (v) types of aircraft used?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 339--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the participation of the Minister of National Defence in military exercises and SkyHawks training where parachute jumps were involved, from November 4, 2015, to December 9, 2020: (a) how many times did the minister take part in parachute jumps with the Canadian Armed Forces; and (b) what are the dates and locations of each parachute jump by the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 340--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to counterfeit goods discovered and seized by the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other relevant government entities, since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total value of the goods discovered, broken down by month; (b) for each seizure, what is the breakdown of goods by (i) type, (ii) brand, (iii) quantity, (iv) estimated value, (v) location or port of entry where the goods were discovered, (vi) product description, (vii) country of origin; and (c) for each seizure that included medical or personal protective equipment (PPE), what are the details, including (i) type of recipient (government agency, private citizen, corporation, etc.), (ii) name of the government entity that ordered the goods, if applicable, (iii) description of medical equipment or PPE, including quantity, (iv) estimated value, (v) location where goods were seized, (vi) whether any action taken against the counterfeit supplier, and, if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 341--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy: (a) what is the breakdown of the over one million Canadians helped to find affordable housing mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, broken down by year and province or territory; (b) what is the breakdown for the number of Canadians helped to find affordable housing since January 1, 2010, broken down by year and province or territory; (c) what is the highest known cost of rent and median cost of rent that currently exists that meets the affordability criteria (i) used in the National Housing Co-investment Fund, (ii) used in the Rental Construction Financing initiative, (iii) and used among the Canadians helped to find affordable housing; (d) what percentage of the initial 50 percent target of reducing chronic homelessness has been achieved so far; and (e) how much funding through the National Housing Strategy has gone to Indigenous housing providers since 2017, broken down by year, province or territory, and stream?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 342--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) processing levels since January 1, 2020, broken down by month: (a) how many applications have been received, broken down by stream and country of origin; (b) how many applications have been fully approved, broken down by stream and country of origin; (c) how many applications are in backlog, broken down by stream and country of origin; (d) what is the breakdown between inland and outland applications for family class sponsorship applications in (a) and (b); (e) how many holders of Confirmation of Permanent Residence that have expired since IRCC shut down operations (i) are there in total, (ii) have been contacted to renew their intent to travel to Canada, (iii) have confirmed their intent to travel, (iv) have been approved to travel while meeting the travel exemption; and (f) what is the number of extended family reunification travel authorization requests that were (i) received, (ii) processed beyond the 14 business day standard processing time.
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 343--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to asylum seekers: (a) since 2020, broken down by nationality (including passport holders for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as its own category) and year, how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), (iii) approved by the IRB, (iv) refused by the IRB, (v) had a request for a pre-remove risk assessment (PRRA), and (vi) have had a PRRA decision made in their favour; (b) what is the average time from the receipt of an application until a decision was made in (a)(iii) and (a)(iv); (c) how many cessation applications have been made by the government since 2012, broken down by year, grounds for the application and country of origin; (d) is there an annual target to strip refugees of status; and (e) what are the total resources spent pursuing cessation cases, broken down by year.
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 345--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to administrative support provided to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) between June 1, 2018, and December 1, 2020: (a) what is the total scope of the administrative, logistical and operational support provided to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission by departmental personnel regularly situated at DFO national headquarters in Ottawa, and what is the precise nature of that support, excluding all activities and expenditures for which the department is reimbursed in accordance with the annual memoranda of agreement between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for delivery of sea lamprey control; and (b) how many departmental personnel regularly situated at DFO national headquarters in Ottawa regularly and substantially engage in activities on behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and what is the precise nature of that engagement, excluding all activities for which the department is reimbursed in accordance with the annual memoranda of agreement between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the delivery of sea lamprey control?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 346--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to immigration: (a) how many post-graduate work permits have lost status since Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) shut down operations in response to COVID-19, broken down by month; (b) what is the average time taken for the issuance of an acknowledgement of receipt for Quebec skilled workers after an application has been received by IRCC since 2015, broken down by month; and (c) since 2018, broken down by month and country of origin, how many applications in the Student Direct Stream have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) refused?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-432-206 Next Generation Human Resou ...8555-432-207 Government reaction to meas ...8555-432-208 Contracts signed by the gov ...8555-432-211 Training provided to Canadi ...8555-432-212 Personal protective equipme ...8555-432-213 Invest in Canada8555-432-214 Business Credit Availabilit ...8555-432-217 Universal Broadband Fund8555-432-218 Funding for food processors8555-432-220 Statutory responsibilities ...8555-432-221 Request for information fro ... ...Show all topics
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 170--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to compensation for farmers who produce products subject to supply management resulting from signing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and other trade agreements: (a) broken down by type of producer (dairy, chicken, etc.), what is the total amount of compensation sent to farmers in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) in the year immediately following August 19, 2019, when a news release was put out by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announcing that $345 million in compensation will be paid to dairy producers in the first year in the form of direct payments, how much was actually paid out; and (c) for all planned payments over the next five years, broken down by type of producer, what are the (i) dates, (ii) amounts, (iii) formula used, (iv) name of trade agreement compensation was related to?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in regard to part (a) of the question, the dairy farm investment program, which was established as a result of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, provided $61,852,928.14 in fiscal year 2018-19 and $61,686,884.48 in fiscal year 2019-20 in dairy compensation.
In regard to part (b), the dairy direct payment program provided $338,634,952.78 in fiscal year 2019-20 as compensation for dairy farmers.
Finally, in regard to part (c), details related to planned payments for eligible producers of supply-managed commodities are still being determined.

Question No. 184--
Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas:
With regard to the erosion of multiple government services in the Quebec administrative region of the Lower St. Lawrence over the past 25 years: (a) how many and which departments and agencies, in full detail, have reduced or increased their staffing in the abovementioned region; (b) what is the exact number of public service jobs involved; (c) what specific impact studies were completed as part of the decision-making process that led to these staffing reductions; (d) what performance assessments and analyses were conducted as part of this process in each of these departments and agencies; (e) exactly how much in overall payroll did the transferred or abolished jobs amount to; (f) what were the full costs incurred by the government to relocate public servants and their families; and (g) what socio-economic analyses did the government conduct before the various decisions to abolish or relocate these jobs, including the list of the various findings of the public consultations on these issues?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is strongly committed to recruiting and retaining a dynamic and diverse workforce that can deliver on its priorities.
The size and makeup of the public service fluctuates in response to government priorities and program requirements. Deputy heads have an ongoing responsibility to manage staffing and workforce adjustment decisions within their organizations.
Workforce adjustment is a situation that occurs when a deputy head decides that the services of one or more indeterminate employees will no longer be required beyond a specified date because of the discontinuance of a function or a lack of work, a relocation in which the employee does not wish to relocate, or an alternative delivery initiative.
All indeterminate employees in the core public administration, both represented and unrepresented, are covered under workforce adjustment agreements.

Question No. 202--
Mr. Jack Harris:
With regard to government litigation: how much has it cost the government to litigate the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik and his claims that Canada violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the value of all legal services, disbursements, and costs awards for Federal Court file numbers T-727-08, T-1580-09, and DES-3-18, from June 1, 2008, to the present?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the costs incurred by the government to litigate the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik and his claims that Canada violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with Mr. Abousfian Abdelrazik Charter claims, both at the Federal Court, Federal Court file number T-727-08, T-1580-09, T- 889-10 and DES-3-18; and Federal Court of Appeal, Federal Court of Appeal file number A-370-09, since June 1, 2008, amount to approximately $9.3 million. This amount covers the costs associated with the numerous procedures, including interlocutory motions and appeal thereof that have been filed in these court cases over a period of more than 12 years. The services targeted here are litigation services provided, in this case, by the Department of Justice, as well as litigation support services. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs covered in the total amount mentioned in this response include file-related legal disbursements as well as costs awards. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information currently contained in Department of Justice systems, as of October 23, 2020.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2020-12-09 16:30 [p.3228]
Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in this House for this extremely important discussion, and I want to thank my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for the excellent work he has done on this. These are very difficult questions, and I am glad I was not the point person to have to do the heavy lifting. My colleague and I may not always agree on all the points, but I respect his incredible integrity.
I point out he comes from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, which is the classic way that English people have misrepresented the first nation languages. It is worth pointing out, because one thing that really struck me as a concern in Bill C-7 was the fact that we are dealing with a Quebec court decision that came very shortly after we brought in legislation the first time.
One thing I found with the previous government, and definitely with the current government, is the fact that if there was a first nations case, they would appeal. In fact, I do not ever remember the government not appealing a court decision about a first nation. However, with this ruling we had to rewrite the law of the land. I understand we are on a deadline, but it would have been reasonable, given the complexity of the issue, for us to seek clarification from the courts to make sure the courts had interpreted this properly and then brought it back to us. It is something I find concerning.
I am again going to do a bit of a comparison, which is a standard form of parliamentary debate, between two options. One option is the issue of Bill C-7 and the other option is, say, a first nations issue. Let us say it is that of the St. Anne's residential school survivors. The government has just admitted it spent $3.2 million in court fees fighting against the rights of people who have suffered some of the most horrific abuses ever recorded in Canada, such as child rape, forced abortions on children and torture done for the kicks of the staff at St. Anne's, who were electrocuting children.
This is all documented. In fact, it was documented in 10,000 to 12,000 pages of police evidence gathered by the excellent work of the OPP and brought to court. The federal government obtained all that evidence, and under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, it was obligated to do two things as the defendant. It was obligated to prepare a list of the history of abuse that happened in the residential schools, and then obligated to present all the evidence.
In the case of St. Anne's, the government decided to lie and said there was no history of abuse at St. Anne's residential school. It also said there were no records showing any abuse. Meanwhile, it was sitting on 10,000 pages of police and witness testimony that named some of the most powerful church people in the land. Father Arthur Lavoie, Bishop Leguerrier and Bishop Belleau were all named, along with all manner of other abusers.
This was really important because this started under a previous government, when Peter MacKay was the justice minister and Bernard Valcourt was here. I know members are going to wonder how this relates to the issue here. Under Bill C-7, some of the Conservatives are talking about a fear of creating two tracks of justice: a set of justice for one set of citizens and a lower set of justice for other people.
I am not convinced of the Conservatives' arguments on Bill C-7, although I have thought a lot about whether they have actually met the test of creating two tiers of justice. Anyone could look at Canada for two examples of injustice. We could look at, say, middle-class white people in St. Paul's, Toronto. What is their standard of justice and receiving justice in the courts compared with that of any indigenous person in the country? I think we would all agree that we certainly have two tiers of justice.
We had that with St. Anne's. When I approached former minister Valcourt about the documents, he said he had no obligation to turn over documents, when he did. This set the really ugly issue in motion. When the Liberal government came in, we thought it would fix this and it did not. In fact, it hunkered down.
The government paid $3.2 million, under the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, to go after the survivors of St. Anne's, who had their cases thrown out because the government lawyers lied in hearings. At the bottom of the Order Paper question, it says the Government of Canada prefers negotiation to settle these. I would agree.
In fact, on November 26, in a Timmins Today article, Christina Tricomi, from the minister's department, said, “The Government of Canada remains committed to negotiating a resolution outside of the courts”. Of course we would expect this to be the government's position, but that is not true. In fact, I have a letter here dated October 15, 2020, from the law firm of Dionne Schulze, asking the government to sit down and negotiate a solution. The government said no; it would meet them in court.
Elders Without Borders, representing Edmund Metatawabin, Evelyn Korkmaz and other St. Anne's survivors, asked the government to sit down and finally end this. The government lawyers said no; they would meet them in court. Also, on December 1, 2020, lawyers from Dionne Schulze wrote to Catherine Coughlan at the justice minister's office asking her to please go to the case management settlement so they could talk about finding a solution.
To go back to Bill C-7, we are talking about two standards of justice. One of the standards of justice in the country is that lawyers are legally obligated under their professional conduct rules to find a way out. It is a lawyer's ethical duty to “compromise or settle a dispute whenever it is possible to do so on a reasonable basis, an...discourage the client from commencing or continuing useless legal proceedings.”
How useless are these legal proceedings?
In Ontario's Superior Court, where the government continues to lose against St. Anne's, the attorney general for Doug Ford's government came forward to support the survivors of St. Anne's, while the minister, who represents the riding of Toronto—St. Paul's, sent her lawyers to fight them. The Ontario attorney general agreed that these were cruel and unusual tactics. Under their professional obligations, lawyers are called to find a solution, and we had the survivors asking for solutions.
I remember talking to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and begging her to meet with the survivors and end this vicious, vindictive campaign again them, and she met with them. I was there as the survivors cried. The survivors said they just want to settle and meet with the government, and the minister promised this. The next day, they were back in court.
Angela Shisheesh, a powerful survivor, addressed this. I will quote her, and I am not making this up. On APTN, June 18, 2018, she said, “She lied to me, literally. She lied to me. It hurts. It’s just another abuse”. This is about the survivors of St. Anne's and the abuse they have seen under the current government. They talk about the reabuse they have suffered in having to come forward to talk about the horrific crimes they suffered and in being told by lawyers that they are making it up and there is no evidence.
I go back to Bill C-7 and the Truchon decision. The government seems to have gone further than the Truchon decision, so let us do a comparison. Let us talk about St. Anne's.
Under the obligations that were ordered on January 14, 2014, the government had to bring forward the person of interest reports on the perpetrators of the child crimes. It was obligated to do that. It was ordered again in January 2015 to do that and it refused. The Government of Canada decided to protect the perpetrators.
What does that mean? For Father Arthur Lavoie, the government provided a two-page report, when in fact it was sitting on 2,472 pages of crimes against children. It had a case thrown out, case H-15019. The subject was a victim of horrific child rape, and the government decided to fight this survivor all the way from Ontario hearings to the B.C. Superior Court to shut down his right to just get justice. The only crime he committed was being an indigenous child.
When we talked to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, she said she would make it right and call Edmund Metatawabin, the leader. The only time she ever called him was to force him to testify on the stand for her lawyers. This man is a Governor General's award winner. When we talk in Bill C-7 about two tracks of justice, I ask if anyone can imagine a Governor General's award winner from downtown Toronto being hauled to court by the minister and forced to testify over the fact that he spoke up against horrific child abuse, rape, electric torture and the abuse of children at St. Anne's that still hangs out like a dark cloud.
I know members are asking why we are talking about comparisons on a bill like this on a day like this. It is because once—
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
View Laurel Collins Profile
2020-12-08 18:48 [p.3186]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing forward this really important bill. I applaud her work on it.
I am curious about reparations. This bill speaks about the impacts on indigenous communities and on racialized communities. We were just debating a bill on Emancipation Day. The conversation around how to compensate communities that have been impacted is an important one.
I am curious how the member sees her bill fitting into a conversation around reparations.
View Lenore Zann Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Lenore Zann Profile
2020-12-08 18:49 [p.3187]
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has also studied environmental racism and actually taught about it in university.
This is an important part of this bill. We are talking about this now in Nova Scotia and in the Black community. It is a very big deal here. The dialogue has just started.
This bill is meant to enable people to make references and tell the government what they think we should do. I would hope that the government would then follow suit, take note of that and follow up with it. It is very important.
View Lyne Bessette Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Lyne Bessette Profile
2020-12-01 15:00 [p.2771]
Mr. Speaker, dairy, egg and poultry farmers breathe life and strength into rural regions across the country, including my riding of Brome—Missisquoi.
The Fromagerie des Cantons in Farnham, an artisanal cheesemaker that has won numerous awards for its cheese made from Jersey cow's milk, stands to benefit.
After signing trade agreements with the trans-Pacific nations and Europe, our government committed to providing full and fair compensation to our supply-managed farmers.
Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food give the House more details about this compensation?
View Marie-Claude Bibeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, we announced that the remainder of the $1.75 billion promised to dairy farmers in compensation for the first two agreements would be paid out not over seven years but over three years. That represents $468 million per year or $38,000 per year over three years for an average farm with 80 cows.
Egg and poultry farmers will receive $691 million over 10 years in the form of investment and marketing programs.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-12-01 18:17 [p.2799]
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House this evening. I am honoured to do so in person, not virtually.
I rise to acknowledge the excellent work the official opposition has done over the past few months. Thanks to that work, dairy producers received excellent news on the weekend. The compensation they have been waiting 13 months for finally has a clear deadline. Dairy farmers know that they will receive money this year, next year and the year after that. I am very happy.
I have to say that this happened in an odd sort of way. Let's go back to August 2019, when the then minister of agriculture and agri-food announced that she would compensate dairy, egg and poultry producers to the tune of $1.75 billion for losses incurred in the wake of negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the free trade agreement with the European Union. The announcement was made in the month of August. Then, in October, there was an election. Not long afterward, producers received a cheque. That was the first phase of this announcement.
A pattern is emerging. We waited 13 months and during that time all opposition parties asked the government to provide the figures, details and deadlines for the payment of the touted financial compensation for dairy, egg and poultry producers. During this 13-month period, we constantly repeated our questions. It is fine to cut a check during an election period, but we still did not have an answer and producers were worried.
All of a sudden, on Saturday morning, we were surprised to learn on Twitter that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was going to make an announcement later in the day. We realized that this announcement, which took place after 13 months of effort by the official opposition and other opposition parties, was about compensation payments. The big surprise is that the compensation will be paid over three years instead of seven years. That is good news and dairy producers are very happy.
Why was that announcement made on a Saturday morning at the very last minute? We saw it yesterday in the economic statement. Documents were already printed, and the government simply forgot to tell producers the good news that the compensation was included in the economic statement presented yesterday by the Minister of Finance. That mistake had to be rectified at all costs. That is why, stumbling along and improvising once again, the government announced on a Saturday morning that dairy producers would be compensated.
The problem was that the government was not ready to announce an agreement for egg and poultry producers. A dollar amount was announced, but how the money will be allocated and distributed will be determined at some later date. Another waiting period has begun.
How will the money be allocated and to whom? How will it work? What is the investment program? What is the advertising program? No one knows. Earlier today, after making the announcement, the Prime Minister said that there will be a confidence vote that could trigger an election. How convenient.
The Liberal government promises money, makes announcements and says that the cheques will be in the mail soon, but there might be an election in the meantime. Unfortunately, the Liberal government only cares about dairy producers when there is talk of an election. That is the problem. Absolutely nothing has been announced for dairy processors. There was not a word about them in Saturday's announcement.
My question for my colleague is as follows: When will the details pertaining to dairy processors and egg and poultry producers be available?
Results: 121 - 135 of 296 | Page: 9 of 20

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data