Publication Search

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the return to the following question made into an order for return:

Q-740 — Mr. Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith) — With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND) firing ranges in Nanaimo and Chilliwack, British Columbia (BC): (a) did the use of the Nanaimo range change since the 2019 closure of the Vokes range in Chilliwack, including (i) how many days per year the range is being used now versus before the closure of the Vokes range, (ii) any change in the caliber of weapons being used in the Nanaimo range; (b) did the DND assess the (i) sound intensity, including rapidity and decibel levels of the firing range at various distances over time, including before and after the closure of Vokes range, (ii) social and health impacts of the range on local residents within a 10-kilometre radius from the range, including residents with post-traumatic stress disorder and refugees from war zones, (iii) impact of the range on the surrounding environment and wildlife, (iv) feasibility of relocating the range to a less populated area, well outside of present and future residential neighbourhoods and potential developments; (c) did the DND complete its planned review of all of its assets in BC and, if not, when does it estimate it will be completed; and (d) did the DND conduct any of said assessments or reviews, and, if so, (i) what were the results, (ii) what actions have been taken as a result, (iii) will future actions be taken as a result, and, if so, when? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-740.

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into orders for return:

Q-725 — Ms. Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill) — With regard to Elections Canada, since January 1, 2014: (a) how many (i) electoral district associations, (ii) election campaigns were sent a confirmation email from Elections Canada that their financial return had been received by Elections Canada, broken down by year; (b) how many (i) emails, (ii) phone calls were received by Elections Canada related to political financing, broken down by quarter, province and year; (c) how many and what percentage of the political financing emails and phone calls in (b) received a response, broken down by quarter, province and year; (d) what are Elections Canada’s performance metrics for email and phone call response rates, broken down by year; (e) are political financing response emails required to include the name of the individual providing the response, and, if not, why not; and (f) how many and what percentage of political financing emails did not have the name of the individual providing the response, broken down by province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-725.

Q-726 — Ms. Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill) — With regard to Elections Canada, broken down by province, political party and year, since January 1, 2014: (a) how many and what percentage of annual electoral district association returns were considered completed within (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) four months, (iv) six months, (V) nine months, (vi) 12 months, (vii) 13-18 months, (viii) 18-24 months, (ix) greater than 24 months of their initial submission to Elections Canada; (b) how many electoral district associations have been deregistered; (c) how many local (riding-level) election campaign returns for the 2015 election were completed within (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) four months, (iv) six months, (V) nine months, (vi) 12 months, (vii) 13-18 months, (viii) 18-24 months; (d) how many local (riding-level) election campaign returns for the 2019 election were completed within (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) four months, (iv) six months, (V) nine months, (vi) 12 months, (vii) 13-18 months, (viii) 18-24 months; (f) how many 2019 local election campaign returns submitted to Elections Canada have not been completed; and (g) how many of the campaigns in (f) would qualify for, but have not yet received their election rebates funds? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-726.

Q-727 — Ms. Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill) — With regard to Elections Canada, broken down by year since January 1, 2014: (a) how many full-time permanent employees worked at Elections Canada, excluding temporary employees hired for a specific election period; (b) how many individuals on contract with Elections Canada provided full-time labour or support to Elections Canada; (c) what is the yearly total amount of the contracts in (b); (d) how many individuals employed by or providing full-time labour or support to Elections Canada were given their position through an outside employment firm or agency; (e) of the employees in (a), how many had annual salaries (i) under $29,999, (ii) between $30,000 and $49,999, (iii) between $50,000 and $69,999, (iv) between $70,000 and $89,999, (v) between $90,000 and $119,999, (vi) between $120,000 and $149,999, (vii) over $150,000; (f) of the individuals in (b), how many received an annual renumeration with an annual rate (i) under $29,999 , (ii) between $30,000 and $49,999, (iii) between $50,000 and $69,999, (iv) between $70,000 and $89,999, (v) between $90,000 and $119,999, (vi) between $120,000 and $149,999, (vii) over $150,000; (g) what was the yearly turnover rate for the employees in (a); (h) what was the yearly turnover rate for the individuals in (b); and (i) for the individuals having contracts with Elections Canada in (b), who fell ill or were required to quarantine, what, if any, specific sick leave or access to compensation has Elections Canada provided them, and on what date did this policy come into effect? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-727.

Q-728 — Mr. Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon) — With regard to the Senate Appointment Advisory Board, broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17: (a) how many employees or full-time equivalents were or are working with or assisting the board; (b) of the positions in (a), what are the (i) job titles, (ii) Treasury Board classifications (AS-01, EX-02, etc.) and related pay ranges; (c) what are the total expenditures for the board, broken down by type of expenses and line item; (d) how much was spent to set up the board, including (i) the salaries of the staff that support the board, (ii) the furniture, (iii) the moving costs, (iv) the website development, (v) the information technology costs, (vi) other costs, broken down by type of costs; (e) how many resumes were received; and (f) how many Senate positions were filled from the resumes in (e)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-728.

Q-729 — Mr. Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon) — With regard to Requests for Proposal (RFP) put forward by Shared Services Canada (SSC) since January 1, 2020: (a) how many RFPs were issued by SSC; (b) for each RFP in (a), how many were issued that stated a brand name as a requirement; (c) what is the number of contracts issued by SSC based on brand name requirements in the RFP, broken down by (i) brand name, (ii) date, (iii) value of the contract, (iv) description of the service rendered, (v) file number; and (d) what is the number of contracts issued by SSC that were awarded through RFPs in (a) to companies offering an equivalent product? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-729.

Q-730 — Mrs. Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) — With regard to all grants and contributions provided to the Centre for Inquiry Canada, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, since 2006: (a) what are the details of each grant or contribution, including the (i) date, (ii) type of grant or contribution, (iii) program, (iv) department, (v) purpose of funding and project description, (vi) location where related work took place, (vii) amount; and (b) which of the grants and contributions in (a) were related to the Canada Summer Jobs program? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-730.

Q-731 — Mrs. Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) — With regard to the Pickering Agricultural Lease Renewal Strategy announced by Transport Canada on May 15, 2017: (a) what is the total number of leases signed under the strategy; (b) how many of the leases were (i) provided to new leaseholders, (ii) renewals of existing leaseholders; (c) what are the details of each lease, including (i) the size of holding, (ii) the dollar value, (iii) the nature of use, (iv) the length of tenure, (v) the restrictions, (vi) whether or not a purchase option was included, (vii) the name of lease, (viii) the nationality of lease, (ix) whether or not lease is transferable; (d) for leases with a purchase option, was the price set at fair market value, at the time of the signing of the original lease, or at the time of purchase; (e) what comparables were used to determine the market value used to set lease rates; (f) what was the number of expressions of interest made to lease land at Pickering; (g) what was the number of one year leases affected by the 60-day termination clause and were renewed under the 10 year lease to the original leaseholder, or to a new leaseholder; and (h) what are the details of all meetings or consultations, including those with lobbyists or politicians, related to the formulation of the Pickering Agricultural Renewal Lease Strategy, including, for each meeting, the (i) date, (ii) list of attendees? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-731.

Q-732 — Mrs. Kusie (Calgary Midnapore) — With regard to the Air Travellers Security Charge (ATSC) since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how much was collected from passengers, broken down by averages per (i) day, (ii) month, (iii) year; (b) how much was used to pay for security services; and (c) what other programs or services are funded with the ATSC, and how much funding was provided to each program? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-732.

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into orders for return:

Q-682 — Mr. Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River) — With regard to expenditures related to promoting, advertising, or consulting on Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by the government, including any that took place prior to the tabling of the legislation, since October 21, 2019, broken down by month and by department, agency or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent on (i) consultants, (ii) advertising, (iii) promotion; and (b) what are the details of all contracts related to promoting, advertising or consulting, including (i) the date the contact was signed, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the amount, (iv) the start and end date, (v) the description of goods or services, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced or was competitively bid on? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-682.

Q-684 — Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) — With regard to fraud involving the Canada Emergency Response Benefit program since the program was launched: (a) what was the number of double payments made under the program; (b) what is the value of the payments in (a); (c) what is the value of double payments made in (b) that have been recouped by the government; (d) what is the number of payments made to applications that were suspected or deemed to be fraudulent; (e) what is the value of the payments in (d); and (f) what is the value recouped by the government related to payments in (e)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-684.

Q-685 — Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) — With regard to Corporations Canada and the deregistration of federally incorporated businesses since 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many businesses have deregistered their corporation; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of business? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-685.

Q-686 — Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) — With regard to the government’s requirements for hotels being used as quarantine facilities: (a) what specific obligations do the hotels have with regard to security standards; (b) what specific measures has the government taken to ensure these security standards are being met; (c) how many instances have occurred where government inspectors have found that the security standards of these hotels were not being met; (d) of the instances in (c), how many times did the security failures jeopardize the safety of (i) the individuals staying in the facility, (ii) public health or the general public; (e) are hotels required to verify that someone has received a negative test prior to leaving the facility, and, if so, how is this specifically being done; and (f) how many individuals have left these facilities without receiving a negative test result? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-686.

Q-687 — Mrs. McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) — With regard to the government’s requirements for hotels to become a government-authorized hotel for the purpose of quarantining returning international air travellers: (a) what specific obligations do the hotels have with regard to security standards; (b) what specific measures has the government taken to ensure these security standards are being met; (c) how many instances have occurred where government inspectors have found that the security standards of these hotels were not being met; (d) of the instances in (c), how many times did the security failures jeopardize the safety of (i) the individuals staying in the facility, (ii) public health or the general public; (e) how many criminal acts have been reported since the hotel quarantine requirement began at each of the properties designated as a government-authorized hotel; (f) what is the breakdown of (e) by type of offence; (g) are the hotels required to verify that someone has received a negative test prior to leaving the facility, and, if so, how is this specifically being done; (h) how many individuals have left these hotels prior to or without receiving a negative test result; and (i) how does the government track whether or not individuals have left these hotels prior to receiving a negative test result? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-687.

Q-688 — Ms. Shin (Port Moody—Coquitlam) — With regard to the requirement that entails individuals entering Canada for compassionate reasons to seek an exemption online, the problems with the Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC) online system, and the resulting actions from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA): (a) what is the total number of international travellers arriving at Canadian airports who were denied entry, broken down by month since March 18, 2020; (b) how many individuals in (a) were (i) immediately sent back to their country of origin, (ii) permitted to remain in Canada pending an appeal or deportation; (c) what is the number of instances where the PHAC did not make a decision on an application for exemptions on compassionate reasons prior to the traveller’s arrival, or scheduled arrival in Canada; (d) of the instances in (c), where PHAC did not make a decision on time, was the reason due to (i) technical glitches that caused the PHAC to miss the application, (ii) other reasons, broken down by reason; (e) for the instances where the PHAC did not make a decision on time, was the traveller (i) still permitted entry in Canada, (ii) denied entry; and (f) what specific recourse do travellers arriving for compassionate reasons have when they encounter problems with the CBSA or other officials due to the PHAC not making a decision on time? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-432-688.