Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 223
View Kelly McCauley Profile
CPC (AB)
View Kelly McCauley Profile
2020-12-01 15:10 [p.2773]
Mr. Speaker, if the House will give permission, I would love to table the blues from November 1, 2018, where the president of the Treasury Board secretariat at the time, Scott Brison, stated, “day in and day out, Treasury Board has a responsibility to oversee expenditure management for the government” in contradiction to what the current President of the Treasury Board stated today.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity I will only ask for those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement. Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-11-30 14:18 [p.2678]
Mr. Speaker, after a long spending spree, the government is set to present its economic update this afternoon.
Canadians obviously expect a real plan for kick-starting the Canadian economy, but we cannot talk about economic recovery until we know what to expect with the vaccines.
What is the government's budget plan for vaccination?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the best portfolios in the world. In fact, we have options on seven highly promising vaccines, more doses per capita than any other country and three vaccines in regulatory approval. In fact, I should say four, because, of course, Jannsen just applied today.
Even the CEO of Moderna has said that Canada placed its orders early and is in a really good position.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-11-30 14:19 [p.2679]
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that all of the minister's figures are for theoretical vaccines, because we still do not have a single vaccine here.
Why is that? On top of other mistakes the government has made with respect to vaccination, it chose to partner with a Chinese company, and that partnership was a massive flop. As a result, the government was late signing agreements with other major companies whose vaccines are actually effective.
The economy is suffering tremendously. Canadians are losing their jobs, businesses are shutting down and the Canadian economy is fragile. We need an economic and budget plan for vaccination.
Are we going to get that plan later today?
View Navdeep Bains Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the fact that we have a plan. That plan is to pursue international vaccine candidates. We have done that very clearly from day one. We have also invested in made-in-Canada solutions: AbCellera from Vancouver, VIDO-InterVac from Saskatoon, Variation Biotechnologies from Ottawa, Medicago from Quebec City—
View Navdeep Bains Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, we have been absolutely clear that we have a plan to support Canadians. It is a made-in-Canada initiative to support made-in-Canada solutions.
That is why we are proud to have invested in AbCellera, from Vancouver; VIDO-InterVac, from Saskatoon; Variation Biotechnolgies, from Ottawa; Medicago, from Quebec City; the National Research Council's Royalmount facility in Montreal; and ImmunoVaccine Technologies, in Dartmouth.
These are examples of the made-in-Canada solutions that are part of our plan to support Canadians to make sure they have access to safe and secure vaccines.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-11-30 14:21 [p.2679]
Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether the Liberals say it in French or English, “we have a plan” does not mean much to Canadians because they know all about Liberal plans.
Once again, last Friday, the Prime Minister embarrassed us by saying that he believed that half of Canadians would be vaccinated by September. He was quickly called out on that.
What we do know is that people in Britain and the United States will be vaccinated before Christmas. We also know that Europeans will soon be vaccinated while Canadians will have to wait.
What is the budget plan for the vaccination of Canadians?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, and numerous times, Canadians are well situated to get vaccines. In fact, on the weekend I spoke with my counterpart, the Minister of Health from the U.K., Mr. Matt Hancock, to talk about the U.K. and Canada working closely together on regulatory approval for the number of vaccines, many of which we share in our portfolios.
Canada is well served by the diversity of vaccines that we have purchased early and, in fact, in great quantity. Canadians can be assured that they, too, will have access to these vaccines that will bring us to the end of COVID-19.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
We know that businesses in tourism, hospitality, travel, arts and culture have been particularly hard-hit. So we are creating a new stream of support for those businesses that need it most, a credit availability program with 100% government-backed loan support and favourable terms for businesses that have lost revenue as people stay home to fight the spread of the virus.
This is the most severe challenge our country has faced since the Second World War. It is our most severe economic shock since the Great Depression and our most severe public health crisis since the Spanish flu a century ago. Canadians should know that their federal government will be there to help them get through it, come what may.
Today, I have spoken about the nature of the threat we face and the remedies we have provided. The fight against COVID-19 continues, but there is now light at the end of the tunnel. After winter comes spring. The seeds we have sown and will continue to plant in the weeks and months ahead to protect Canadians' health and save our jobs and businesses will help us come roaring back from the coronavirus recession. This careful husbandry will prevent the long-term economic scarring that would otherwise delay and weaken our post-pandemic recovery.
I am the daughter of an Alberta farmer. Canada's farmers spend the winter fixing their tractors, combines and seed drills, and stocking up on supplies. While the ground is frozen, they get ready for seeding when the earth thaws.
Like all those great Canadian farmers, the work we do today will stand us in good stead in the spring. When the virus is under control and our economy is ready for new growth, we will deploy an ambitious stimulus package to jumpstart our recovery. Spending roughly 3% to 4% of GDP over three years, our government will make carefully judged, targeted and meaningful investments to create jobs and boost growth.
Our stimulus will be designed, first and foremost, to provide the fiscal support the Canadian economy needs to operate at its full capacity and to stop COVID-19 from doing long-term damage to our economic potential.
Key to this plan will be smart, time-limited investments that can act fast while also making a long-run contribution to our future shared prosperity, quality of life, competitiveness and our green transformation.
The government's growth plan will include investments that deliver on our commitment to create a million jobs and restore employment to pre-pandemic levels as well as to unleash some of the Canadian economy's preloaded stimulus, the additional savings that have accumulated in the bank accounts of some Canadians and on the balance sheets of some businesses.
Our growth plan will foster economic rebirth in the short term and strengthen this country's competitiveness in the long run. Today, we are presenting a down payment on this plan. These are measures we can begin safely taking now. They include investments in the green economy and job training, particularly for youth and care providers, rural broadband, airport infrastructure, rapid housing, economic empowerment for vulnerable communities and measures to immediately build up our health and social infrastructure.
We know that Canada’s future competitiveness depends on our ability to take advantage of the net zero green economy.
Our growth plan must continue to advance our progress on climate action and promote a clean economy. We will plant two billion trees over the next 10 years, provide 700,000 grants to help homeowners make energy efficient retrofits, and build zero-emission vehicle charging stations across the country.
View Sonia Sidhu Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Sonia Sidhu Profile
2020-11-27 13:31 [p.2639]
moved that Bill C-237, An Act to establish a national framework for diabetes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-237, an act to establish a national framework for diabetes in Canada. I would also like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for seconding the motion to introduce my bill.
I could not be happier to be debating my bill during November, which, as many may know, is Diabetes Awareness Month.
Over 11 million Canadians live with diabetes or prediabetes. A new case is diagnosed every three minutes and 90% of these cases are type 2, which means they can be prevented through better awareness, education and lifestyle changes. This disease is the cause of 30% of strokes, 40% of heart attacks, 50% of kidney failure requiring dialysis and 70% of non-traumatic low-limb amputations. This is the harsh reality. In the Peel Region alone, which I am proud to call home, the rate of diabetes more than doubled between 1996 and 2015.
Some Canadians are at increased risk of diabetes, including South Asians, the indigenous population and Métis people. We also know that diabetes disproportionately affects Canadians with low incomes and education.
Complex public health challenges, such as chronic diseases like diabetes, cannot be addressed with a single-solution approach. No organization, institution or sector of society acting alone can solve this challenge. All segments of society, including communities, academia, government, the charitable and not-for-profit sectors, and the private sector must work together if we are to be successful. That is why the bill mandates that the Minister of Health work in collaboration with provincial health leaders, indigenous communities and other stakeholders to develop a national framework designed to support improved access to diabetes prevention and treatment to ensure better health outcomes for Canadians.
In many cases, diabetes is preventable. We know that individuals who have a moderate to high level of physical activity, who eat a healthy diet and who do not smoke are 82% less likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. Having been a health care professional for over 18 years, I have seen first-hand how a healthy diet, staying active and exercising can all contribute to the prevention of this disease. Let us combat diabetes and its life-threatening complications by making Canadians familiar with diabetes warning signs, encouraging healthy lifestyle choices and making it possible to access the best possible care.
It is estimated that this year the cost of hospital care and drugs for diabetes will amount to approximately $30 billion. This is a massive burden on our public health care system, but the costs do not end there. Whenever a Canadian suffers a stroke or a heart attack, that is an additional cost to our health system that may result in long-term costs. When a Canadian experiences kidney failure that requires dialysis, there is a cost. When a Canadian tragically has to undergo amputation, there is a cost. The secondary costs that diabetes has on our public budget cannot be calculated, but every dollar spent preventing it means greater savings down the line. So many of these complications are preventable with the proper care.
When I was first elected in 2015, it was a goal of mine to bring the issues of Canadians living with diabetes to Ottawa and to elevate the issue of diabetes as a whole. I have been honoured to serve as the chair of the all-party diabetes caucus, where we have heard from diabetes advocates, stakeholders and organizations to gain a better understanding of how the federal government can support Canadians living with diabetes.
In 2017, I travelled extensively to consult with medical professionals and stakeholders about how best to meet the needs of those suffering from diabetes. This gave me even greater insight into how diabetes impacted communities in different regions of Canada. The result of this was the publication of the report, “Defeating Diabetes”, which promotes healthy eating as a prevention method.
That same year, I represented Canada at the Global Diabetes Policy Summit in Rome, Italy, where 38 countries were represented. We spoke about the best way to tackle this growing issue. I also attended the World Congress of Diabetes in Calcutta, where, through engagement with international leaders, we were able to compare research and assess our commitment to the fight against diabetes.
One other important aspect of diabetes I learned on these international travels was how well-respected Canada is on the world stage when it comes to diabetes, especially on the insulin invention. I hope that Canada will continue to be a global leader in the fight to defeat diabetes for years to come.
Locally, I successfully advocated for the City of Brampton to proclaim November as Diabetes Awareness Month and the 14th as Diabetes Day. In 2018, the all-party diabetes caucus engaged fellow parliamentarians to participate in Diabetes Day on the Hill to raise awareness of diabetic risks to Canadians and to build support for an updated comprehensive national diabetes strategy. Our diabetes mobile screening unit was brought in to emphasize prevention and encourage testing. This was an opportunity for all members of Parliament to get first-hand experience in understanding the aspects of diabetes. Nearly a hundred of us accepted the challenge to wear a step counter and log our efforts for 10 days to raise awareness around our health.
This spring, I was able to virtually participate in several meetings and town halls with Diabetes Canada about how Canadians living with diabetes have been affected by COVID-19. While people with diabetes are not more likely to catch COVID-19, if they do get it, adults living with diabetes are at greater risk of developing serious symptoms and complications. More recent data from Alberta shows that 42% of Albertans who have died of COVID-19 also had diabetes. Those who are infected with the virus are more likely to suffer serious cardiac and respiratory complications. They face mortality four times that of those without diabetes.
As many members of the House know, back in the spring of 2019 I was proud to bring forward the unanimously supported motion to declare November as Diabetes Awareness Month in Canada, but there is so much more to do than raise awareness. The World Health Organization recommends that every country implement a national framework for diabetes. Last April, the Standing Committee on Health tabled a report that gave multiple recommendations. Among them the committee asked that the government consider a framework for a diabetes strategy for Canada. This comprehensive report already outlined the steps that the government should take in the fight against diabetes.
When we were undergoing this study, we heard a great deal about the mental health issues that are common among people living with diabetes. Those living with type 2 diabetes are more at risk of depression. We have heard examples of their being stigmatized and bullied. There are overall signs of greater risk of mental health issues, including anxiety and depression. At the health committee, we heard from one individual living with diabetes who spoke openly about the anxiety and the stigma she felt around the disease in her family. She said:
In my family, there are 35 diabetics and we don't talk about it. I have to do my blood sugar under the table when I visit my mother. We don't discuss it, and they don't treat.
Last year, I lost my uncle to it because they just won't treat. They won't admit to it. They don't want to deal with it because the stigma is so bad.
There is a strong need to reduce the stigma associated with diabetes. Reducing messaging that blames patients for their diabetes is an important first step to take. Early detection of diabetes can prevent complications and reduce the strain on the health care system.
The health committee also heard some shocking stats about diabetes and indigenous communities. Diabetes rates are three to four times higher among first nations than among the general Canadian population, and many indigenous people are at increased risk of developing diabetes. Furthermore, indigenous individuals are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at a younger age than other individuals. Those living in a first nation community who are in their twenties have an 80% chance of developing the disease during their lifetimes, compared with 50% among the rest of the population of the same age.
The Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association identified several factors as to why this is the case. Geographical isolation, lack of health care services, poor Internet connectivity to facilitate distance care, and reduced access to nutritious food all contribute to the prevalence of diabetes in indigenous communities.
The health committee also recommended the federal government hold discussions with the provinces to explore possible approaches to providing uniform coverage of diabetes-related medications, supplies and equipment, such as lancets, across Canada. As it stands now, each province provides different coverage for different aspects of diabetes treatment, meaning those living with diabetes receive uneven support depending on where they live. All levels of government must work together to find a solution to improve access to a family physician and other health services for people living with diabetes in rural, remote and northern communities.
As I mentioned previously, my community in Brampton and the Peel Region faces a high rate of diabetes compared with the rest of the country. However, locally, we have some true diabetes champions working to reverse this course. I appreciate all of the private sector stakeholders based in Brampton that do phenomenal work helping those with diabetes, such as Medtronic and Dynacare, which provide testing services and advice to help people manage their illness.
The #Dynacare4Diabetes wellness campaign just launched in our city. The goal of this campaign is to encourage Bramptonians to assess their risk and get tested to see if they are at risk of diabetes by providing the A1 test free of charge.
Medtronic is doing commendable work in providing compassionate care for our residents living with diabetes.
I would like to thank Laura Syron, the president of Diabetes Canada, and its federal affairs director, Kimberley Hanson. I have been proud to work alongside them to raise awareness, including helping them with multilingual communications materials for multicultural communities.
I would also like to thank JDRF, Canada's leading type 1 diabetes advocacy organization, for all the support and advice it has provided over the years. It also endorsed my bill.
I am so proud to have support on this bill from organizations and individuals such as the CNIB Foundation, Peel's medical officer of health, Dr. Lawrence Loh, Dr. Naveed Mohammad of William Osler Health System and many more.
I thank the Brampton City Council, which has officially endorsed this bill.
Canada has repeatedly been the home of some of the biggest breakthroughs in diabetes care and research. Twenty years ago, Dr. Shapiro at the University of Alberta was on the team of researchers that developed the Edmonton protocol and islet transplant procedure, which temporarily reversed diabetes and allowed patients to be insulin independent. Just last week, it was reported that his team may be on its way to finding an actual cure for diabetes. This work is in its early stages.
In 1961, Canadian scientists discovered stem cells, and of course next year will mark the 100th anniversary of Sir Frederick Banting's historic discovery of insulin right here in Canada. Two weeks ago, on World Diabetes Day, I was in London, Ontario to participate in the ceremony to rekindle the Flame of Hope. This flame has been burning brightly and will continue to do so until we find a cure for diabetes. It stands as a symbol of Canadian innovation. I hope it will be a Canadian team of researchers that will one day be able to extinguish this flame.
Bill C-237 would change the lives of the 11 million Canadians living with diabetes from coast to coast to coast. By working together, I am confident that one day we will extinguish the torch at Banting House. Together, I know we will find a way to defeat diabetes.
I encourage all members in the House to join me in supporting the improvement of the lives of millions of Canadians across our country.
Canada gave insulin to the world. There is no reason why we cannot lead the way to defeat diabetes.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, for generations, Canadians have been proud to visit and showcase Parliament Hill, with our House of Commons, the Peace Tower and the Centennial Flame. However, with the ongoing work taking place here to renovate these historical assets, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned with their cost in an accountability process that continues to spiral out of control.
This week, it was reported that another $153 million was added to the now $4.4-billion project, an amount growing with every update. It is now at least four times the size of the original estimates. It is very clear that the governance and oversight in this project are a mess. To use the old saying, there are too many cooks in the kitchen.
I love Parliament Hill and I am honoured to serve here, but it is projects like this that make the federal government look incapable of managing our tax dollars properly. I implore this chamber and the minister to intervene immediately, come up with a proper governance and oversight plan, and get this project back to a reasonable budget.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Main Estimates 2020-21: Vote 1 under Office of the Auditor General”.
I also have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Funding of the Office of the Auditor General”.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 1--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the fleet of Airbus A310-300s operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force and designated CC-150 Polaris: (a) how many flights has the fleet flown since January 1, 2020; (b) for each flight since January 1, 2020, what was the departure location and destination location of each flight, including city name and airport code or identifier; (c) for each flight listed in (b), what was the aircraft identifier of the aircraft used in each flight; (d) for each flight listed in (b), what were the names of all passengers who travelled on each flight; (e) of all the flights listed in (b), which flights carried the Prime Minister as a passenger; (f) of all the flights listed in (e), what was the total distance flown in kilometres; (g) for the flights listed in (b), what was the total cost to the government for operating these flights; and (h) for the flights listed in (e), what was the total cost to the government for operating these flights?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 3--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to undertakings to prepare government offices for safe reopening following the COVID-19 pandemic since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on plexiglass for use in government offices or centres, broken down by purchase order and by department; (b) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on cough and sneeze guards for use in government offices or centres, broken down by purchase order and by department; (c) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on protection partitions for use in government offices or centres, broken down by purchase order and by department; and (d) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on custom glass (for health protection) for use in government offices or centres, broken down by purchase order and by department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 4--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to requests filed for access to information with each government institution under the Access to Information Act since October 1, 2019: (a) how many access to information requests were made with each government institution, broken down alphabetically by institution and by month; (b) of the requests listed in (a), how many requests were completed and responded to by each government institution, broken down alphabetically by institution, within the statutory deadline of 30 calendar days; (c) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension of fewer than 91 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (d) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension greater than 91 days but fewer than 151 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (e) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension greater than 151 days but fewer than 251 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (f) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension greater than 251 days but fewer than 365 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (g) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension greater than 366 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (h) for each government institution, broken down alphabetically by institution, how many full-time equivalent employees were staffing the access to information and privacy directorate or sector; and (i) for each government institution, broken down alphabetically by institution, how many individuals are listed on the delegation orders under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 6--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to loans made under the Canada Emergency Business Account: (a) what is the total number of loans made through the program; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) sector, (ii) province, (iii) size of business; (c) what is the total amount of loans provided through the program; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) sector, (ii) province, (iii) size of business?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 7--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Interim Order Respecting Drugs, Medical Devices and Foods for a Special Dietary Purpose in Relation to COVID-19: (a) how many applications for the importation or sale of products were received by the government in relation to the order; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of applications by product or type of product; (c) what is the government’s standard or goal for time between when an application is received and when a permit is issued; (d) what is the average time between when an application is received and a permit is issued; and (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by type of product?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 8--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to converting government workplaces to accommodate those employees returning to work: (a) what are the final dollar amounts incurred by each department to prepare physical workplaces in government buildings; (b) what resources are being converted by each department to accommodate employees returning to work; (c) what are the additional funds being provided to each department for custodial services; (d) are employees working in physical distancing zones; (e) broken down by department, what percentage of employees will be allowed to work from their desks or physical government office spaces; and (f) will the government be providing hazard pay to those employees who must work from their physical government office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 9--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to the use of security notifications, also known as security (staff safety) threat flags, applied to users of Veterans Affairs Canada’s (VAC) Client Service Delivery Network (CSDN) from November 4, 2015, to present: (a) how many security threat flags existed at the beginning of the time frame; (b) how many new security threat flags have been added during this time frame; (c) how many security threat flags have been removed during the time frame; (d) what is the total number of VAC clients who are currently subject to a security threat flag; (e) of the new security threat flags added since November 4, 2015, how many users of VAC’s CSDN were informed of a security threat flag placed on their file, and of these, how many users of VAC’s CSDN were provided with an explanation as to why a security threat flag was placed on their file; (f) what directives exist within VAC on permissible reasons for a security threat flag to be placed on the file of a CSDN user; (g) what directives exist within VAC pertaining to specific services that can be denied to a CSDN user with a security threat flag placed on their file; and (h) how many veterans have been subject to (i) denied, (ii) delayed, VAC services or financial aid as a result of a security threat flag being placed on their file during this time frame?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 10--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to government programs and services temporarily suspended, delayed or shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what is the complete list of programs and services impacted, broken down by department of agency; (b) how was each program or service in (a) impacted; and (c) what is the start and end dates for each of these changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 11--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to recruitment and hiring at Global Affairs Canada (GAC), for the last 10 years: (a) what is the total number of individuals who have (i) applied for GAC seconded positions through CANADEM, (ii) been accepted as candidates, (iii) been successfully recruited; (b) how many individuals who identify themselves as a member of a visible minority have (i) applied for GAC seconded positions through CANADEM, (ii) been accepted as candidates, (iii) been successfully recruited; (c) how many candidates were successfully recruited within GAC itself; and (d) how many candidates, who identify themselves as members of a visible minority were successfully recruited within GAC itself?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 12--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the government projections of the impacts of the COVID-19 on the viability of small and medium-sized businesses: (a) how many small and medium-sized businesses does the government project will either go bankrupt or otherwise permanently cease operations by the end of (i) 2020, (ii) 2021; (b) what percentage of small and medium-sized businesses does the numbers in (a) represent; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by industry, sector and province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 13--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to government contracts for services and construction valued between $39,000.00 and $39,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendor, (il) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of services or construction contracts, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 14--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to government contracts for architectural, engineering and other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of the construction, repair, renovation or restoration of a work valued between $98,000.00 and $99,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of services or construction contracts, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 18--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to public service employees between March 15, 2020, and September 21, 2020, broken down by department and by week: (a) how many public servants worked from home; (b) how much has been paid out in overtime to employees; (c) how many vacation days have been used; and (d) how many vacation days were used during this same period in 2019?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 20--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to Order in Council SOR/2020-96 published on May 1, 2020, which prohibited a number of previously non-restricted and restricted firearms, and the Canadian Firearms Safety Course: (a) what is the government’s formal technical definition of “assault-style firearms”; (b) when did the government come up with the definition, and in what government publication was the definition first used; and (c) which current members of cabinet have successfully completed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 21--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to defaulted student loans owing for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, broken down by year: (a) how many student loans were in default; (b) what is the average age of the loans; (c) how many loans are in default because the loan holder has left the country; (d) what is the average reported T4 income for each of 2018 and 2019 defaulted loan holder; (e) how much was spent on collections agencies either in fees or their commissioned portion of collected loans; and (f) how much has been recouped by collection agencies?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 22--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to recipients of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit: what is the number of recipients based on 2019 income, broken down by federal income tax bracket?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 23--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to accommodating the work from home environment for government employees since March 13, 2020: (a) what is the total amount spent on furniture, equipment, including IT equipment, and services, including home Internet reimbursement; (b) of the purchases in (a) what is the breakdown per department by (i) date of purchase, (ii) object code it was purchased under, (iii) type of furniture, equipment or services, (iv) final cost of furniture, equipment or services; (d) what were the costs incurred for delivery of items in (a); and (d) were subscriptions purchased during this period, and if so (i) what were the subscriptions for, (ii) what were the costs associated for these subscriptions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 24--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the responses to questions on the Order Paper earlier this year during the first session of the 43rd Parliament by the Minister of National Defence, which stated that “At this time, National Defence is unable to prepare and validate a comprehensive response” due to the COVID-19 situation: what is the Minister of National Defence’s comprehensive response to each question on the Order Paper where such a response was provided, broken down by question?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 25--
Mrs. Tamara Jansen:
With regard to the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses from the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) to persons, laboratories, and institutions in China: (a) who in China requested the transfer; (b) other than the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which laboratories in China requested the transfer; (c) for the answers in (a) and (b) which are affiliated with the military of China; (d) on what date was the WIV’s request for the transfer received by the NML; (e) what scientific research was proposed, or what other scientific rationale was put forth, by the WIV or the NML scientists to justify the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses; (f) what materials were authorized for transfer pursuant to Transfer Authorization NML-TA-18-0480, dated October 29, 2018; (g) did the NML receive payment of $75, per its commercial invoice of March 27, 2019, for the transfer, and on what date was payment received; (h) what consideration or compensation was received from China in exchange for providing this material, broken down by amount or details of the consideration or compensation received by each recipient organization; (i) has the government requested China to destroy or return the viruses and, if not, why; (j) did Canada include, as a term of the transfer, a prohibition on the WIV further transferring the viruses with others inside or outside China, except with Canada’s consent; (k) what due diligence did the NML perform to ensure that the WIF and other institutions referred to in (b) would not make use of the transferred viruses for military research or uses; (l) what inspections or audits did the NML perform of the WIV and other institutions referred to in (b) to ensure that they were able to handle the transferred viruses safely and without diversion to military research or uses; (m) what were the findings of the inspections or audits referred to in (l), in summary; (n) after the transfer, what follow-up has Canada conducted with the institutions referred to in (b) to ensure that the only research being performed with the transferred viruses is that which was disclosed at the time of the request for the transfer; (o) what intellectual property protections did Canada set in place before sending the transferred viruses to the persons and institutions referred to in (a) and (b); (p) of the Ebola virus strains sent to the WIV, what percentages of the NML’s total Ebola collection and Ebola collection authorized for sharing is represented by the material transferred; (q) other than the study entitled “Equine-Origin Immunoglobulin Fragments Protect Nonhuman Primates from Ebola Virus Disease”, which other published or unpublished studies did the NML scientists perform with scientists affiliated with the military of China; (r) which other studies are the NML scientists currently performing with scientists affiliated with the WIV, China’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences, or other parts of China’s military establishment; (s) what is the reason that Anders Leung of the NML attempted to send the transferred viruses in incorrect packaging (type PI650), and only changed its packaging to the correct standard (type PI620) after being questioned by the Chinese on February 20, 2019; (t) has the NML conducted an audit of the error of using unsafe packaging to transfer the viruses, and what in summary were its conclusions; (u) what is the reason that Allan Lau and Heidi Wood of the NML wrote on March 28, 2019, that they were “really hoping that this [the transferred viruses] goes through Vancouver” instead of Toronto on Air Canada, and “Fingers crossed!” for this specific routing; (v) what is the complete flight itinerary, including airlines and connecting airports, for the transfer; (w) were all airlines and airports on the flight itinerary informed by the NML that Ebola and Henipah viruses would be in their custody; (x) with reference to the email of Marie Gharib of the NML on March 27, 2019, other than Ebola and Henipah viruses, which other pathogens were requested by the WIV; (y) since the date of the request for transfer, other than Ebola and Henipah viruses, which other pathogens has the NML transferred or sought to transfer to the WIV; (z) did the NML inform Canada’s security establishment, including the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment, or other such entity, of the transfer before it occurred, and, if not, why not; (aa) what is the reason that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) redacted the name of the transfer recipient from documents disclosed to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) under the Access to Information Act, when the PHAC later willingly disclosed that information to the CBC; (bb) does Canada have any policy prohibiting the export of risk group 3 and 4 pathogens to countries, such as China, that conduct gain-of-function experiments, and in summary what is that policy; (cc) if Canada does not have any policy referred to in (bb), why not; (dd) what is the reason that did the NML or individual employees sought and obtained no permits or authorizations under the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Export Control Act, or related legislation prior to the transfer; (ee) what legal controls prevent the NML or other government laboratories sending group 3 or 4 pathogens to laboratories associated with foreign militaries or laboratories that conduct gain-of-function experiments; (ff) with respect to the September 14, 2018, email of Matthew Gilmour, in which he writes that “no certifications [were] provided [by the WIV], they simply cite they have them”, why did the NML proceed to transfer Ebola and Henipah viruses without proof of certification to handle them safely; and (gg) with respect to the September 14, 2018, email of Matthew Gilmour, in which he asked “Are there materials that [WIV] have that we would benefit from receiving? Other VHF? High path flu?”, did the NML request these or any other materials in exchange for the transfer, and did the NML receive them?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 26--
Mrs. Tamara Jansen:
With regard to both the administrative and RCMP investigations of the National Microbiology Lab (NML), Xiangguo Qiu, and Keding Cheng: (a) with respect to the decision of the NML and the RCMP to remove Dr. Qiu and Dr. Cheng from the NML facilities on July 5, 2019, what is the cause of delay that has prevented that the NML and the RCMP investigations concluding; (b) in light of a statement by the Public Health Agency of Canada to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which was reported on June 14, 2020, and which stated, “the administrative investigation of [Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng] is not related to the shipment of virus samples to China”, what are these two scientists being investigated for; (c) did Canada receive information from foreign law enforcement or intelligence agencies which led to the investigations against Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng, and, in summary, what was alleged; (d) which other individuals apart from Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng are implicated in the investigations; (e) are Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng still in Canada; (f) are Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng cooperating with law enforcement in the investigations; (g) are Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng on paid leave, unpaid leave, or terminated from the NML; (h) what connection is there between the investigations of Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng and the investigation by the United States National Institutes of Health which has resulted in 54 scientists losing their jobs mainly due to receiving foreign funding from China, as reported by the journal Science on June 12, 2020; (i) does the government possess information that Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng solicited or received funding from a Chinese institution, and, in summary what is that information; and (j) when are the investigations expected to conclude, and will their findings be made public?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 27--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canada’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: (a) what is the role or mandate of each department, agency, Crown corporation and any programs thereof in advancing Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda; (b) what has the government, as a whole, committed to achieving and in what timeline; (c) what projects are currently in place to achieve these goals; (d) has the government liaised with sub-national governments, groups and organizations to achieve these goals; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what governments, groups and organizations; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why not; (g) how much money has the government allocated to funding initiatives in each fiscal year since 2010-11, broken down by program and sub-program; (h) in each year, how much allocated funding was lapsed for each program and subprogram; (i) in each case where funding was lapsed, what was the reason; (j) have any additional funds been allocated to this initiative; (k) for each fiscal year since 2010-2011, what organizations, governments, groups and companies, have received funding connected to Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda; and (l) how much did organizations, governments, groups and companies in (k) (i) request, (ii) receive, including if the received funding was in the form of grants, contributions, loans or other spending?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 28--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the government’s campaign for a United Nations Security Council seat: (a) how much funding has been allocated, spent and lapsed in each fiscal year since 2014-15 on the campaign; and (b) broken down by month since November 2015, what meetings and phone calls did government officials at the executive level hold to advance the goal of winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 29--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With respect to the government’s response to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, broken down by month since June 2019: (a) what meetings and phone calls did government officials at the executive level hold to craft the national action plan in response to the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; and (b) what external stakeholders were consulted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 30--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canada Revenue Agency activities, agreements guaranteeing non-referral to the criminal investigation sector and cases referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, between 2011-12 and 2019-20, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many audits resulting in reassessments were concluded; (b) of the agreements concluded in (a), what was the total amount recovered; (c) of the agreements concluded in (a), how many resulted in penalties for gross negligence; (d) of the agreements concluded in (c), what was the total amount of penalties; (e) of the agreements concluded in (a), how many related to bank accounts held outside Canada; and (f) how many audits resulting in assessments were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 31--
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the Wataynikaneyap Transmission Project: (a) is it the government’s policy to choose foreign companies over Canadian companies for this or similar projects; (b) which company or companies supplied transformers to the project; (c) were transformers rated above 60MVA supplied to the project subject to the applicable 35% or more import tariff, and, if so, was this tariff actually collected; and (d) broken down by transformer, what was the price charged to the project of any transformers rated (i) above 60MVA, (ii) below 60MVA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 32--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s approach to workspace-in-the-home expense deductions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic’s stay-at-home guidelines: are individuals who had to use areas of their homes not normally used for work, such as dining or living rooms, as a temporary office during the pandemic entitled to the deductions, and, if so, how should individuals calculate which portions of their mortgage, rent, or other expenses are deductible?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 34--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the status of government employees since March, 1, 2020: (a) how many employees have been placed on "Other Leave With Pay" (Treasury Board Code 699) at some point since March 1, 2020; (b) how many employees have been placed on other types of leave, excluding vacation, maternity or paternity leave, at some point since March 1, 2020, broken down by type of leave and Treasury Board code; (c) of the employees in (a), how many are still currently on leave; and (d) of the employees in (b), how many are still currently on leave, broken down by type of leave?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 36--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, since 2005: how many meat and poultry processing plants have had their licences cancelled, broken down by year and province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 37--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to instances where retiring Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Members were negatively financially impacted as a result of having their official release date scheduled for a weekend or holiday, as opposed to a regular business day, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by year: (a) how many times has a release administrator recommended a CAF Member’s release date occur on a weekend or holiday; (b) how many times did a CAF Member’s release date occur on a holiday; (c) how many Members have had payments or coverage from (i) SISIP Financial, (ii) other entities, cancelled or reduced as a result of the official release date occurring on a weekend or holiday; (d) were any instructions, directives, or advice issued to any release administrator asking them not to schedule release dates on a weekend or holiday in order to preserve CAF Member’s benefits, and, if so, what are the details; (e) were any instructions, directives, or advice issued to any release administrator asking them to schedule certain release dates on a weekend or holiday, and, if so, what are the details; and (f) what action, if any, has the Minister of National Defense taken to restore any payments or benefits lost as a result of the scheduling of a CAF Member’s release date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 38--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to federal grants, contributions, non-repayable loans, or similar type of funding provided to telecommunications companies since 2009: what are the details of all such funding, including the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) type of funding, (iv) department providing the funding, (v) name of program through which funding was provided, (vi) project description, (vii) start and completion, (viii) project location, (ix) amount of federal funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 39--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces personnel deployed to long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what personal protective equipment (PPE) was issued to Canadian Armed Forces members deployed to long-term care homes in Ontario and Quebec; and (b) for each type of PPE in (a), what was the (i) model, (ii) purchase date, (iii) purchase order number, (iv) number ordered, (v) number delivered, (vi) supplier company, (vii) expiration date of the product, (viii) location where the stockpile was stored?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 40--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy, broken down by name of applicant, type of applicant (e.g. non-profit, for-profit, coop), stream (e.g. new construction, revitalization), date of submission, province, number of units, and dollar amount for each finalized application: (a) how many applications have been received for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) since 2018; (b) how many NHCF applications have a letter of intent, excluding those with loan agreements or finalized agreements; (c) how many NHCF applications are at the loan agreement stage; (d) how many NHCF applications have had funding agreements finalized; (e) how many NHCF applications have had NHCF funding received by applicants; (f) for NHCF applications that resulted in finalized funding agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their funding agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting NHCF affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting affordability criteria; (g) how many applications have been received for the Rental Construction Financing initiative (RCFi) since 2017; (h) how many RCFi applications are at (i) the approval and letter of intent stage of the application process, (ii) the loan agreement and funding stage, (iii) the servicing stage; (h) how many RCFi applications have had RCFi loans received by applicants; (i) for RCFi applications that resulted in loan agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their loan agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting RCFi affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting affordability criteria?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 41--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy: (a) what provinces and territories have reached an agreement with the federal government regarding the Canada Housing Benefit; (b) broken down by number of years on a waitlist for housing, gender, province, year of submission, amount requested and amount paid out, (i) how many applications have been received, (ii) how many applications are currently being assessed, (iii) how many applications have been approved, (iv) how many applications have been declined; and (c) if the Canada housing benefit is transferred as lump sums to the provinces, what are the dollar amount of transfers to the provinces, broken down by amount, year and province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 42--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to immigration, refugee and citizenship processing levels: (a) how many applications have been received since 2016, broken down by year and stream (e.g. outland spousal sponsorship, home childcare provider, open work permit, privately sponsored refugee, etc.); (b) how many applications have been fully approved since 2015, broken down by year and stream; (c) how many applications have been received since (i) March 15, 2020, (ii) September 21, 2020; (d) how many applications have been approved since (i) March 15, 2020, (ii) September 21, 2020; (e) how many applications are in backlog since January 2020, broken down by month and stream; (f) what is the number of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) visa officers and other IRCC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), who have been processing applications since January 1, 2020, broken down by month, immigration office and application stream being processed; (g) since March 15, 2020, how many employees referred to in (f) have been placed on paid leave broken down by month, immigration office and application stream being processed; and (h) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence since January 2020 related to (i) staffing levels, (ii) IRCC office closures, (iii) the operation levels of IRCC mail rooms, (iv) plans to return to increased operation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 43--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to asylum seekers: (a) broken down by year, how many people have been turned away due to the Safe Third Country Agreement since (i) 2016, (ii) January 1, 2020, broken by month, (iii) since July 22, 2020; (b) how many asylum claims have been found ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Immigration, Refugee and Protection Act since (i) January 1st 2020, broken by month, (ii) July 22, 2020; and (c) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence since January 1, 2020, on the Safe Third Country Agreement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 44--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to government involvement in the negotiations with Vertex Pharmaceuticals for a Price Listing Agreement with the Pan Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, in relation to cystic fibrosis treatments: (a) what is the current status of the negotiations; (b) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken to ensure that Kalydeco and Orkambi are available to all Canadians that require the medication; (c) has the government taken any specific measures to make Trikafta available to Canadians; and (d) how many months, or years, will it be before the government finishes the regulatory and review process related to the approval of Trikafta?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 45--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the government’s position regarding visitors coming to Canada for the sole purpose of giving birth on Canadian soil and subsequently obtaining Canadian citizenship for their child: (a) what is the government’s position in relation to this practice; (b) has the government condemned or taken any action to prevent this practice, and if so, what are the details of any such action; and (c) has the government taken any action to ban or discourage Canadian companies from soliciting or advertising services promoting this type of activity, and if so, what are details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 47--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-268 concerning the government failing to raise Canada’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk status from “Controlled Risk to BSE” to “Negligible Risk to BSE” with the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in the summer of 2019: (a) what is the government’s justification for missing the deadline with the OIE in the summer of 2019; (b) has the government conducted consultations with beef farmers to discuss the damage to the industry caused by missing this deadline, and, if so, what are the details of these consultations; (c) when did the government begin collating data from provincial governments, industry partners and stakeholders in order to ensure that a high-quality submission was produced and submitted in July 2020; (d) what measures were put in place to ensure that the July 2020 deadline, as well as other future deadlines, will not be missed; and (e) on what exact date was the application submitted to the OIE in July 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 49--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, between February 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020: (a) how many applicants have applied for mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (b) of those applicants, how many have been approved and have accepted mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (c) of those applicants listed in (b), how many approved applicants have been issued the incentive in the form of a shared equity mortgage; (d) what is the total value of incentives (shared equity mortgages) under the FTHBI that have been issued, in dollars; (e) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that value of each of the mortgage loans; (f) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is the mean value of the mortgage loan; (g) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date; (h) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the percentage of loans originated with each lender comprising more than 5% of total loans issued; and (i) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the value of outstanding loans insured by each Canadian mortgage insurance company as a percentage of total loans in force?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 50--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the air quality and air flow in buildings owned or operated by the government: (a) what specific measures were taken to improve the air flow or circulation in government buildings since March 1, 2020, broken down by individual building; (b) on what date did each measure in (a) come into force; (c) which government buildings have new air filters, HVAC filters, or other equipment designed to clean or improve the air quality or air flow installed since March 1, 2020; (d) for each building in (c), what new equipment was installed and on what date was it installed; and (e) what are the details of all expenditures or contracts related to any of the new measures or equipment, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) date contract was signed, (v) date goods or services were delivered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 51--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
What was the amount of FedDev funding, in dollars, given by year since 2016 to every riding in Ontario, broken down by riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 52--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regards to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by year for the most recent 10 fiscal years for which data is available: (a) what was the number of disability benefit applications received; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) rejected, (ii) approved, (iii) appealed, (iv) rejected upon appeal, (v) approved upon appeal; (c) what was the average wait time for a decision; (d) what was the median wait time for a decision; (e) what was the ratio of veteran to case manager at the end of each fiscal year; (f) what was the number of applications awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year; and (g) what was the number of veterans awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 53--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator; (b) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the average number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by (i) job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (c) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total cost of overtime, further broken down by (i) job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (d) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of disability benefit claims, further broken down by (i) new claims, (ii) claims awaiting a decision, (iii) approved claims, (iv) denied claims, (v) appealed claims; (e) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many new disability benefit claims were transferred to a different VAC office than that which conducted the intake; (f) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the number of (i) case managers, (ii) veterans service agents; (g) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many case managers took a leave of absence, and what was the average length of a leave of absence; (h) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, accounting for all leaves of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many full-time equivalent case managers were present and working, and what was the case manager to veteran ratio; (i) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were disengaged from their case manager; (j) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the highest number of cases assigned to an individual case manager; (k) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were on a waitlist for a case manager; (l) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, for work usually done by regularly employed case managers and veterans service agents, (i) how many contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the duration of each contract, (iii) what was the value of each contract; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by VAC office, what were the service standard results; (n) what is the mechanism for tracking the transfer of cases between case managers when a case manager takes a leave of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave; (o) what is the department’s current method for calculating the case manager to veteran ratio; (p) what are the department’s quality assurance measures for case managers and how do they change based on the number of cases a case manager has at that time; (q) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many individuals were hired by the department; (r) how many of the individuals in (q) remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end;
(s) of the individuals in (q), who did not remain employed beyond the probation period, how many did not have their contracts extended by the department; (t) does the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what are the reasons for which employees were not kept beyond the probation period; (u) for the individuals in (q) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office; (v) during the last five fiscal years for which data is available, broken down by month, how many Canadian Armed Forces service veterans were hired by the department; (w) of the veterans in (v), how many remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (x) of the veterans in (v), who are no longer employed by the department, (i) how many did not have their employment contracts extended by the department, (ii) how many were rejected on probation; (y) if the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what are the reasons for which veteran employees are not kept beyond the probation period; (z) for the veterans in (v), who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what were the reasons for their leaving, broken down by VAC office; (aa) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many employees have quit their jobs at VAC; and (bb) for the employees in (aa) who quit their job, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 54--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the 2020 United Nations Security Council election and costs associated with Canada’s bid for a Security Council Seat: (a) what is the final total of all costs associated with the bid; (b) if the final total is not yet known, what is the projected final cost and what is the total of all expenditures made to date in relation to the bid; (c) what is the breakdown of all costs by type of expense (gifts, travel, hospitality, etc.); and (d) what are the details of all contracts over $5,000 in relation to the bid, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) summary of goods or services provided, (v) location goods or services were provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 55--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to any exemptions or essential worker designations granted to ministers, ministerial exempt staff, including any staff in the Office of the Prime Minister, or senior level civil servants so that the individual can be exempt from a mandatory 14-day quarantine after travelling to the Atlantic bubble, since the quarantine orders were put into place: (a) how many such individuals received an exemption; (b) what are the names and titles of the individuals who received exemptions; (c) for each case, what was the reason or rationale why the individual was granted an exemption; and (d) what are the details of all instances where a minister or ministerial exempt staff member travelled from outside of the Atlantic provinces to one or more of the Atlantic provinces since the 14-day quarantine for travellers was instituted, including the (i) name and title of the traveller, (ii) date of departure, (iii) date of arrival, (iv) location of departure, (v) location of arrival, (vi) mode of transportation, (vii) locations visited on the trip, (viii) whether or not the minister or staff member received an exemption from the 14-day quarantine, (ix) whether or not the minister of staff member adhered to the 14-day quarantine, (x) purpose of the trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 56--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to expenditures on moving and relocation expenses for ministerial exempt staff since January 1, 2018, broken down by ministerial office: (a) what is the total amount spent on moving and relocation expenses for (i) incoming ministerial staff, (ii) departing or transferring ministerial staff; (b) how many exempt staff members or former exempt staff members’ expenses does the total in (a) cover; and (c) how many exempt staff members or former exempt staff members had more than $10,000 in moving and relocation expenses covered by the government, and what was the total for each individual?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 57--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to national interest exemptions issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in relation to the mandatory quarantine required for individuals entering Canada during the pandemic: (a) how many individuals received national interest exemptions; and (b) what are the details of each exemption, including (i) the name of the individual granted exemption, (ii) which minister granted the exemption, (iii) the date the exemption was granted, (iv) the explanation regarding how the exemption was in Canada’s national interest, (v) the country the individual travelled to Canada from?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 58--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to electric vehicle charging stations funded or subsidized by the government: (a) how many chargers have been funded or subsidized since January 1, 2016; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province and municipality; (c) what was the total government expenditure on each charging station, broken down by location; (d) on what date was each station installed; (e) which charging stations are currently open to the public; and (f) what is the current cost of electricity for users of the public charging stations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 59--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC), since its establishment: (a) how many complaints and requests for review were filed by individuals identifying as First Nations, Metis, or Inuit, broken down by percentage and number; (b) how many of the complaints and requests for review in (a) were dismissed without being investigated; (c) how many complaints and requests for review were filed for incidents occurring on-reserve or in predominantly First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities, broken down by percentage and number; (d) how many of those complaints and requests for review in (c) were dismissed without being investigated; and (e) for requests for review in which the CRCC is not satisfied with the RCMP’s report, how many interim reports have been provided to complainants for response and input on recommended actions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 60--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to active transportation in Canada: what federal actions and funding has been taken with or provided to provinces and municipalities, broken down by year since 2010, that (i) validates the use of roads by cyclists and articulates the safety-related responsibilities of cyclists and other vehicles in on-road situation, (ii) grants authority to various agencies to test and implement unique solutions to operational problems involving active transportation users, (iii) improves road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, (iv) makes the purchase of bicycles and cycling equipment more affordable by reducing sales tax on their purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 62--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to management consulting contracts signed by any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity during the pandemic, since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of each contract, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date the contract was signed, (iv) start and end date of consulting services, (v) description of the issue, advice, or goal that the consulting contract was intended to address or achieve, (vi) file number, (vii) Treasury Board object code used to classify the contract (e.g. 0491)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 66--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the information collected by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) regarding electronic funds transfers of $10,000 and over and the statement by the Minister of National Revenue before the Standing Committee on Finance on May 19, 2016, indicating that using this information, the CRA will target up to four jurisdictions per year, without warning, broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17: (a) how many foreign jurisdictions were targeted; (b) what is the name of each foreign jurisdiction targeted; (c) how many audits were conducted by the CRA for each foreign jurisdiction targeted; (d) of the audits in (c), how many resulted in a notice of assessment; (e) of the audits in (c), how many were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (f) of the investigations in (e), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (g) how many prosecutions in (f) resulted in convictions; (h) what were the penalties imposed for each conviction in (g); and (i) what is the total amount recovered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 67--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) activities under the General Anti-Avoidance Rule under section 245 of the Income Tax Act, and under section 274 of the Income Tax Act, broken down by section of the act: (a) how many audits have been completed, since the fiscal year 2011-12, broken down by fiscal year and by (i) individual, (ii) trust, (iii) corporation; (b) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA since the fiscal year 2011-12, broken down by fiscal year and by (i) individual, (ii) trust, (iii) corporation; (c) what is the total amount recovered by the CRA to date; (d) how many legal proceedings are currently underway, broken down by (i) Tax Court of Canada, (ii) Federal Court of Appeal, (iii) Supreme Court of Canada; (e) how many times has the CRA lost in court, broken down by (i) name of taxpayer, (ii) Tax Court of Canada, (iii) Federal Court of Appeal, (iv) Supreme Court of Canada; (f) what was the total amount spent by the CRA, broken down by lawsuit; and (g) how many times has the CRA not exercised its right of appeal, broken down by lawsuit, and what is the justification for each case?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 68--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) interdepartmental committee that reviews files and makes recommendations on the application of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), broken down by fiscal year since 2010-11: (a) how many of the proposed GAAR assessments sent to the CRA’s headquarters for review were referred to the interdepartmental committee; and (b) of the assessments reviewed in (a) by the interdepartmental committee, for how many assessments did the interdepartmental committee (i) recommend the application of the GAAR, (ii) not recommend the application of the GAAR?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 69--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, since March 22, 2016: (a) what is the complete list of infrastructure projects that have undergone a Climate Lens assessment, broken down by stream; and (b) for each project in (a), what are the details, including (i) amount of federal financing, (ii) location of the project, (iii) a brief description of the project, (iv) whether the project included a Climate Change Resilience Assessment, (v) whether the project included a Climate Change Green House Gas Mitigation Assessment, (vi) if a project included a Climate Change Resilience Assessment, a summary of the risk management findings of the assessment, (vii) if a project included a Climate Change Green House Gas Mitigation Assessment, the increase or reduction in emissions calculated in the assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 70--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the motion respecting the business of supply on service standards for Canada's veterans adopted by the House on November 6, 2018: (a) what was the amount and percentage of all lapsed spending in the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), broken down by year from 2013-14 to the current fiscal year; (b) what steps has the government taken since then to automatically carry forward all unused annual expenditures of the VAC to the next fiscal year; and (c) is the carry forward in (b) for the sole purpose of improving services to Canada's veterans until the department meets or exceeds the 24 service standards it has set?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 71--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With respect to the tax fairness motion that the House adopted on March 8, 2017: what steps has the government taken since then to (i) cap the stock option loophole, (ii) tighten the rules for shell corporations, (iii) renegotiate tax treaties that allow corporations to repatriate profits from tax havens back to Canada without paying tax, (iv) end forgiveness agreements without penalty for individuals suspected of tax evasion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 72--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to government assistance programs for individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what has been the total amount of money expended through the (i) Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), (ii) Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), (iii) Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB), (iv) Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG); (b) what is the cumulative weekly breakdown of (a), starting on March 13, 2020, and further broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) gender, (iii) age group; (c) what has been the cumulative number of applications, broken down by week, since March 13, 2020, for the (i) CERB, (ii) CEWS, (iii) CESB, (iv) CSSG; and (d) what has been the cumulative number of accepted applications, broken down by week, since March 13, 2020, for the (i) CERB, (ii) CEWS, (iii) CESB, (iv) CSSG?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 73--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to government assistance programs for organizations and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what has been the total amount of money expended through the (i) Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA), (ii) Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF), (iii) Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA), (iv) Regional Relief and Recovery Fund (RRRF), (v) Industrial Research Assistance (IRAP) programs; (b) what is the cumulative weekly breakdown of (a), starting on March 13, 2020; (c) what has been the cumulative number of applications, broken down by week, since March 13, 2020, for the (i) CECRA, (ii) LEEFF, (iii) CEBA, (iv) RRRF, (v) IRAP; and (d) what has been the cumulative number of accepted applications, broken down by week, since March 13, 2020, for the (i) CECRA, (ii) LEEFF, (iii) CEBA, (iv) RRRF, (v) IRAP?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 74--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to federal transfers to provinces and territories since March 1, 2020, excluding the Canada Health Transfer, Canada Social Transfer, Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing: (a) how much funding has been allocated to provincial and territorial transfers, broken down by province or territory; (b) how much has actually been transferred to each province and territory since March 1, 2020, broken down by transfer payment and by stated purpose; and (c) for each transfer payment identified in (b), what mechanisms exist for the federal government to ensure that the recipient allocates funding towards its stated purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 75--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to construction, infrastructure, or renovation projects on properties or land owned, operated or used by Public Services and Procurement Canada: (a) how many projects have a projected completion date which has been delayed or pushed back since March 1, 2020; and (b) what are the details of each delayed project, including the (i) location, including street address, if applicable, (ii) project description, (iii) start date, (iv) original projected completion date, (v) revised projected completion date, (vi) reason for the delay, (vii) original budget, (viii) revised budget, if the delay resulted in a change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 76--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the ongoing construction work on what used to be the lawn in front of Centre Block: (a) what specific work was completed between July 1, 2020, and September 28, 2020; and (b) what is the projected schedule of work to be completed in each month between October 2020 and October 2021, broken down by month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 77--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to infrastructure projects approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015, in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River: what are the details of all such projects, including the (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including the name of the municipality or of the local government, (vii) status of the project, (viii) start sate, (ix) completion date or expected completion date, broken down by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 79--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to ministers and exempt staff members flying on government aircraft, including helicopters, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such flights, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) which ministers and exempt staff members were on board?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 80--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the Connect to Innovate program of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada as well as all CRTC programs that fund broadband Internet: how much was spent in Ontario and Quebec since 2016, broken down by riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 81--
Mr. Joël Godin:
With regard to the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) by the government from firms based in the province of Quebec: (a) what are the details of all contracts awarded to Quebec-based firms to provide PPE, including the (i) vendor, (ii) location, (iii) description of goods, including the volume, (iv) amount, (v) date the contract was signed, (vi) delivery date for goods, (vii) whether the contract was sole-sourced; and (b) what are the details of all applications or proposals received by the government from companies based in Quebec to provide PPE, but that were not accepted or entered into by the government, including the (i) vendor, (ii) summary of the proposal, (iii) reason why the proposal was not accepted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 82--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government’s Canada’s Connectivity Strategy published in 2019: (a) how many Canadians gained access to broadband speeds of at least 50 megabits per second (Mbps) for downloads and 10 Mbps for uploads under the strategy; (b) what is the detailed breakdown of (a), including the number of Canadians who have gained access, broken down by geographic region, municipality and date; and (c) for each instance in (b), did any federal program provide the funding, and if so, which program, and how much federal funding was provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 83--
Mr. Mario Beaulieu:
With regard to permanent residents who went through the Canadian citizenship process and citizenship ceremonies held between 2009 and 2019, broken down by province: (a) how many permanent residents demonstrated their language proficiency in (i) French, (ii) English; (b) how many permanent residents demonstrated an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship in (i) French, (ii) English; and (c) how many citizenship ceremonies took place in (i) French, (ii) English?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 84--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) pension recipients who receive Regular Force Pension Plan: (a) how many current pension recipients married after the age of 60; (b) of the recipients in (a), how many had the option to apply for an Optional Survivor Benefit (OSB) for their spouse in exchange for a lower pension level; (c) how many recipients actually applied for an OSB for their spouse; (d) what is the current number of CAF pension recipients who are currently receiving a lower pension as a result of marrying after the age of 60 and applying for an OSB; and (e) what is the rationale for not providing full spousal benefits, without a reduced pension level, to CAF members who marry after the age of 60 as opposed to prior to the age of 60?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 86--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to access to remote government networks for government employees working from home during the pandemic, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) how many employees have been advised that they have (i) full unlimited network access throughout the workday, (ii) limited network access, such as off-peak hours only or instructions to download files in the evening, (iii) no network access; (b) what was the remote network capacity in terms of the number of users that may be connected at any one time as of (i) March 1, 2020, (ii) July 1, 2020; and (c) what is the current remote network capacity in terms of the number of users that may be connected at any one time?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 89--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the operation of Canadian visa offices located outside of Canada during the pandemic, since March 13, 2020: (a) which offices (i) have remained fully operational and open, (ii) have temporarily closed but have since reopened, (iii) remain closed; (b) of the offices which have since reopened, on what date (i) did they close, (ii) did they reopen; (c) for each of the offices that remain closed, what is the scheduled or projected reopening date; and (d) which offices have reduced the services available since March 13, 2020, and what specific services have been reduced or are no-longer offered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 90--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to testing for SARS-CoV-2: (a) for each month since March, 2020, (i) what SARS-CoV-2 testing devices were approved, including the name, manufacturer, device type, whether the testing device is intended for laboratory or point-of-care use, and the date authorized, (ii) what was the length in days between the submission for authorization and the final authorization for each device; (b) for each month since March, how many Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 have been (i) procured, (ii) deployed across Canada; (c) for what testing devices has the Minister of Health issued an authorization for importation and sale under the authority of the interim order respecting the importation and sale of medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19; (d) for each testing device so authorized, which ones, as outlined in section 4(3) of the interim order, provided the minister with information demonstrating that the sale of the COVID-19 medical device was authorized by a foreign regulatory authority; and (e) of the antigen point-of-care testing devices currently being reviewed by Health Canada, which are intended for direct purchase or use by a consumer at home?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 91--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the government’s commitment to end all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021: (a) does the government still commit to ending all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021, and if not, what is the new target date; (b) which communities are currently subject to a long-term drinking water advisory; (c) of the communities in (b), which ones are expected to still have a drinking water advisory as of March 1, 2021; (d) for each community in (b), when are they expected to have safe drinking water; and (e) for each community in (b), what are the specific reasons why the construction or other measures to restore safe drinking water to the community have been delayed or not completed to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 92--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to Nutrition North Canada: (a) what specific criteria or formula is used to determine the level of subsidy rates provided to each community; (b) what is the specific criteria for determining when the (i) high, (ii) medium, (iii) low subsidy levels apply; (c) what were the subsidy rates, broken down by each eligible community, as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) September 29, 2020; and (d) for each instance where a community’s subsidy rate was changed between January 1, 2016, and September 29, 2020, what was the rationale and formula used to determine the revised rate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 93--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the impact of the pandemic on processing times for temporary residence applications: (a) what was the average processing time for temporary residence applications on September 1, 2019, broken down by type of application and by country the applicant is applying from; and (b) what is the current average processing time for temporary residence applications, broken down by type of application and by country the application is made from?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 94--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the backlog of family sponsorship applications and processing times: (a) what is the current backlog of family sponsorship applications, broken down by type of relative (spouse, dependent child, parent, etc.) and country; (b) what was the backlog of family sponsorship applications, broken down by type of relative, as of September 1, 2019; (c) what is the current estimated processing time for family sponsorship applications, broken down by type of relative, and by country, if available; (d) how many family sponsorship applications have been received for relatives living in the United States since April 1, 2020; and (e) to date, what is the status of the applications in (d), including how many were (i) granted, (ii) denied, (iii) still awaiting a decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 95--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to government expenditures on hotels and other accommodations used to provide or enforce any orders under the Quarantine Act, since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each contract or expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) name of hotel or facility, (iii) amount, (iv) location, (v) number or rooms rented, (vi) start and end date of rental, (vii) description of the type of individuals using the facility (returning air travelers, high risk government employees, etc.), (viii) start and end date of the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 96--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the firearms regulations and prohibitions published in the Canada Gazette on May 1, 2020: (a) did the government conduct any formal analysis on the impact of the prohibitions; and (b) what are the details of any analysis conducted, including (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) findings, (iii) date findings were provided to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 97--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to flights on government aircraft for personal and non-governmental business by the Prime Minister and his family, and by ministers and their families, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all such flights, including the (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) names of passengers, excluding security detail; and (b) for each flight, what was the total amount reimbursed to the government by each passenger?
Response
(Return tabled)
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development8555-432-1 CC-150 Polaris8555-432-10 Government programs and services8555-432-11 Recruitment and hiring at Gl ...8555-432-12 Small and medium-sized businesses8555-432-13 Government contracts for ser ...8555-432-14 Government contracts for arc ...8555-432-18 Public service employees8555-432-20 Non-restricted and restricte ...8555-432-21 Defaulted student loans8555-432-22 Canada Emergency Response Benefit ...Show all topics
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
View Leah Gazan Profile
2020-11-05 13:45 [p.1737]
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak in support of our motion.
Today we have heard that we are all in this together. However, prior to the pandemic many groups were already left behind, and their situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic. We know that our current social security programs are a patchwork and are insufficient. People are being left behind. These are disabled persons, people with complex mental health issues and trauma, people who are unhoused and living rough, unpaid workers, care workers, seniors, veterans and students.
Today we have talked a lot about taxes and saving Canadians money. Some have said we cannot afford this. However, it costs a lot of money to keep people poor, so let us talk about how much money it takes.
The World Health Organization has declared poverty to be the single largest determinant of health, and there is a direct link between poverty and high rates of incarceration. In fact, the John Howard Society noted that according to federal data, the annual cost per incarcerated person is $115,000. This is the high cost of poverty. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a study between 2011 and 2012, and it showed that each Canadian pays $550 in taxes per year on criminal justice spending. This is the high cost of poverty.
I therefore find it peculiar that we are talking about the high cost of ensuring people are afforded human rights and dignity, something we are obliged to uphold according to our oaths of office and our charter obligations, rather than talking about the high cost of poverty. We need to create lasting and meaningful plans that use a human rights framework to address poverty. It would not be as costly as what we are doing now. There is a high cost to poverty.
This is about how we choose to spend money when we are in the worst global pandemic since the Spanish flu. We are in an economic, human rights and health crisis. According to an International Monetary Fund report—
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-11-05 20:29 [p.1797]
Mr. Chair, my question will be very simple. I will quote someone who has spoken a number of times tonight and who said:
That person said, “Let me be very, very clear.”
We have heard that many times, but I have never heard anyone as unclear as her this evening.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been critical of the fact that the minimal amount of information that is publicly available to track this spending is lacking, thus making it more challenging for parliamentarians to perform their critical role in overseeing government spending. Why is the government hiding information from Canadians?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 20:30 [p.1797]
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for raising this question.
If my colleague carefully reads what has happened over the last few days, he will see that we have launched an open government information system that contains many files that he can access online. We also have a system that displays the supplementary estimates and the main estimates in detail, with hundreds of pages that he can easily access.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-11-05 20:30 [p.1797]
Mr. Chair, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that there is currently no public government document that provides a complete list of all measures announced to date or updated cost estimates. Why are they so bent on refusing to provide these answers?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 20:30 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, I commend and thank my colleague once again for his interest in this issue.
He knows very well that transparency and access to information are extremely important in normal times, and they are just as important in a pandemic. That is why we are working so hard with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and others to provide all the necessary information.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-11-05 20:31 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, I would encourage the President of the Treasury Board to read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report carefully.
Why is this government saying two different things? On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who clearly says that he has no respect for Canadians' money, that he has not set a limit on future spending and that he will continue to borrow recklessly and without constraint. On the other hand, we have a finance minister who says she is setting limits but will not disclose what those limits are.
Where are we going with this government? How far into debt will this government plunge Canadians?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 20:31 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, my hon. colleague again correctly brings up the importance of transparency and openness.
I encourage him once again to visit the InfoBase portal, which contains exactly 316 specific files dealing exclusively with COVID-19. As well, as I said, there is another portal where he will find a data set on the budgetary expenditures we are currently discussing.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-11-05 20:32 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, the Liberals are stonewalling the Standing Committee on Finance, they are stonewalling the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, they prorogued Parliament, and now they want us to believe that they are being transparent.
The President of the Treasury Board has obviously not read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. Why is he hiding information from Canadians?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 20:32 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, on the contrary, we discuss these things every day.
In fact, we are doing so again today. That is why these discussions are important. I therefore congratulate my colleague and thank him for taking part in these discussions.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-11-05 20:32 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, we are discussing, but we are not getting any answers.
We are asking for very simple things. When are the Liberals going to stop seeing Canadians' wallets as an all-you-can-eat buffet? Canada's workers of today and tomorrow and those who have not yet been born will have to pay the bill racked up by this Prime Minister, who thinks that nothing is too expensive if it can get him votes.
Why is he hiding all this information from Canadians? Why can he not give us the real numbers today?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 20:33 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, I will respond to the first part of this question, which I find a bit disturbing.
I am sure that my colleague does not want to propose austerity as a solution to the current crisis. If that is what he has in mind, I think he should be more specific and explain to Canadians how an austerity program could help them during the public health and economic crisis we are going through.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-11-05 20:33 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, I want the President of the Treasury Board to do the job he gets paid to do, which is to give Canadians the information they are entitled to so good decisions can be made.
I want the President of the Treasury Board to tell us when the Liberals will tell Canadians the truth and why they are so afraid of holding public meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 20:34 [p.1798]
Mr. Chair, the member is absolutely right about the importance of committee work.
I am sure that he himself does a very good job in committee. I am sure that, like all members of the House, the other members of the committees he mentioned will do essential work to ensure high-quality, effective and transparent government programs.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Chair, I am supporting Bill C-9, and my chamber is very happy that Bill C-9 is going forward because its members said the other programs sucked, except for western economic diversification funding through Community Futures.
Would you agree with the following statement: “There is no public document published which provides a complete list of measures announced and with their cost estimates related to COVID-19 expenditures”?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Chair, first of all, I want to thank the member opposite for his support and the support of his chamber for these programs. I think what we will have in place once we get this passed into law is a comprehensive set of supports for workers and for businesses that will get us through together until next summer. That is a really big deal. I can think of no other country in the world that will have such comprehensive—
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Chair, do you agree with the following statement: “There is no public document published which provides a complete list of measures announced and with their cost estimates as it relates to COVID-19 spending“?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Chair, thank you for bringing in a note of levity to our late-night debates. I am just going to finish my sentence from the last answer, because it is really important. We are now going to do something very special with this legislation. We are going to have targeted mutually reinforcing programs that go up and down as the economy needs it with—
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Chair, the government's central financial management and reporting system is meant to be updated monthly with actual spending data. The government has created several codes in its charts of accounts to track COVID spending. Why has it not been updated since July?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Chair, our government is very available to answer questions. Here we are late into the evening, and I think we are all actually glad to be here and to be having this discussion. I have also—
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Chair, I think the finance minister needs to pick a lane, a lane of transparency, accountability and a team Canada approach or one that denies Canadians the access to information on our public expenditures.
Bill C-11, Bill C-12, Bill C-13, Bill C-14, Bill C-15, Bill C-16, Bill C-18, Bill C-19, Bill C-20 and Bill C-4; the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we do not have public information on all of those bills passed and that received royal assent.
Does the member opposite agree that Canadians deserve to have that information?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 21:33 [p.1808]
Madam Chair, the finance minister has obviously picked a lane, which is full transparency, and full engagement and support of businesses and workers across Canada. We are delighted to have this opportunity, as well as the government portal info base and the open government portal, which provides hundreds of different files on COVID-19. The member is obviously most welcome to consult those files with hundreds of pages of detailed information, including on government estimates and the budgetary estimates process. There is a lot of information to support this very important discussion. We are very proud of the lane the finance minister chose.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Chair, as we have heard from the Secretary of the Treasury Board, we strongly support the work of the Auditor General and we believe the Auditor General does need the—
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-11-05 22:26 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, the minister will be able to ask lots of questions once I am on the other side of the House and she is in the opposition. That will be soon.
She is unable to answer questions. Let's try another one. The Auditor General asked for more money so she can audit this government's massive spending. Will the minister give the Auditor General the money she asked for, yes or no?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 22:27 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, I am very happy to say that, in contrast to pre-2015 cuts, the Auditor General's budget was increased in 2018.
That increase made it possible to hire 38 new employees. We are collaborating with the Auditor General and are in constant contact with her.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-11-05 22:27 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, when the Conservatives were in power, the Office of the Auditor General conducted 28 audits per year, compared to 14 now. Government spending has doubled, yet the number of audits has dropped by half.
Here is a simple question dealing with the present, not the past. Will the government give the Auditor General the funding she asked for, yes or no?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 22:28 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, I have great respect for my colleague, and even a bit of fondness.
I must tell him that, on this too, he needs to pick a lane. Does he support increasing the budget as we did, or does he want to cut the budget, like he did before 2015?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-11-05 22:28 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, I thank the hon. minister for his fondness.
I appreciate him very much, but I would appreciate an answer to my question even more. If he is so fond of me and our caucus, can he tell us whether he will hand over the money the Auditor General is asking for?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 22:29 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, to love someone completely, one must understand them completely.
Unfortunately, I am having a hard time understanding my colleague. I do not know if he is in favour of an increase like we did in 2018 or in favour of a cut like he did before 2015.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-11-05 22:29 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, the government is in favour of increasing the number of audits of small and medium-sized businesses, but not of a government that is spending this year like never before in the history of Canada.
Why does the government accept major audits of our small businesses that create jobs, but not audits of Liberal spending?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 22:30 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, another person for whom I have a great deal of esteem and affection is the Auditor General.
She is doing amazingly solid work, especially in the difficult conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the hon. member for Carleton had listened to her comments over the past few days, he would know that she is practically in love with the Canadian government because we listen to her and we are there to collaborate with her so that she and her office can work in service of Canadians.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-11-05 22:30 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, he claims he loves the Auditor General, but it seems to me they are afraid of this important person, because they are denying her that money.
One last time, will the Auditor General get that money, yes or no?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-11-05 22:30 [p.1818]
Madam Chair, unfortunately, there is so much more I could add about the important work of the Auditor General. I guess I will have to do that some other time.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Chair, does the minister think the reason no one wants to bid on the tender for the buyback is because the price tag will be way higher than the government anticipates?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Chair, what I think is there is a clear line between us and the Conservatives. We believe military-style assault weapons have no place in the hands of Canadians.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-10-30 11:05 [p.1477]
Madam Speaker, great leaders are revealed in times of great crisis. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 crisis has exposed the Liberal Prime Minister's great shortcomings.
People undoubtedly remember his 2015 campaign promise to run small deficits. He said it was not a big deal because budgets can balance themselves. As a result, the Prime Minister ran record deficits when things were going well. We must not forget all of the Liberals' ethical violations.
Then the pandemic hit. The Prime Minister was too slow to close the borders, to provide Canadians with rapid tests and to sign contracts to supply vaccines to Canadians.
The WE scandal broke and, instead of being transparent, he prorogued Parliament because the Liberals absolutely did not want us to find out the truth.
Then this week, he told us that he thinks the sky is the limit when it comes to spending. He has no fiscal anchor and no respect for the middle-class workers who are paying for his out-of-control spending.
Current and future generations of Canadians, even Canadians who have not yet been born, will have to pay the price for a Prime Minister who does not know how to count and who cannot be counted on.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, at yesterday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Auditor General reiterated that she does not have the budget to scrutinize all the new pandemic spending. That is troubling. She reiterated that she will not be able to analyze the $343 billion in new spending unless she gets additional resources. That makes no sense.
Interestingly, the Liberal Party seems to be fine with that. We cannot let the government spend hundreds of billions of dollars with no oversight, especially not in light of the WE Charity scandal.
The Auditor General is asking for $31 million, which is very reasonable.
When will she finally get the resources she needs to do her job?
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2020-10-30 11:37 [p.1484]
Madam Speaker, let me start by assuring the new Auditor General of my full collaboration and that of the President of the Treasury Board. Our government is committed to supporting her important ongoing work.
As the Auditor General told the committee, she is feeling very positive about the work that is going on between her office and the Department of Finance.
We pledged to make sure her office has the resources it needs. We will have more to say in due course.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, the Liberals awarded an untendered contract worth $900 million to their friends at WE Charity. They awarded another untendered contract worth $237 million to Frank Baylis, who was still a Liberal member of the House just last year. How many other similar contracts exist that we just do not know about?
The Auditor General is asking for $31 million to scrutinize the $343 billion the government has spent during the pandemic. Her office has requested a budget increase five times in the last five years.
Aside from furthering the interests of the Liberal Party and its good friends, could the government—
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2020-10-30 11:38 [p.1484]
Madam Speaker, that is a great question.
After Stephen Harper's Conservatives cut the Auditor General's budget by nearly $6.5 million, we took steps to restore that funding.
In budget 2018, we invested over $41 million in additional funding for the Office of the Auditor General. Thanks to that increased funding, that office was able to add the equivalent of 38 full-time employees to the team.
As I said in my previous answer, we are very encouraged by the discussion between—
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2020-10-22 11:14 [p.1085]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
The first words out of my mouth when parliamentary activities resumed in the House were about patients who had been really hard hit by COVID-19. I expressed my compassion for the families, for those who are still suffering the after-effects of the disease, and for those who did not survive it. I also expressed particular concern for patients with diseases other than COVID-19, because the pandemic has definitely caused collateral damage.
Today is an opposition day, during which we will be debating a motion that should have been adopted on October 9. I will give a shout out to all patients with rare diseases who, had it not been for the Liberal Party’s systematic filibustering, were expecting us to adopt my motion on new guidelines for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board on October 9.
Had the motion been adopted, we could have invited these patients to tell us how these guidelines are affecting their lives, their right to life and their access to innovative medications. I salute these patients because we often forget those who are currently suffering the collateral damage caused by this unprecedented global health crisis.
I hope that the House will adopt this motion and that my Liberal colleagues will set aside the powers of their executive authority. To sit in the House, a person must first be elected a representative of the people. Since democracy is based on legislative power and not on executive power, I am asking the hon. members of the Liberal Party to take on the role of legislators in their capacity as representatives of the people, and to take a step back from government requirements. I am asking them to do the same thing we are doing in the opposition, namely to review the Liberal government’s management of the pandemic and hold the government accountable, rather than act as the lackeys of the executive.
I am asking the House to adopt this motion so that the Standing Committee on Health can move on. I would have expected the representatives of the Liberal Party to be prepared, at the meetings following October 9, including the one last Monday, to introduce amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government told us that it would be helpful if we were a bit more flexible with wait times. What is he waiting for to propose amendments to the motion?
Now, this morning, we are discussing a motion in the House that should already have been adopted. During the first wave of the pandemic, there was a spirit of collaboration among colleagues, as we tried to find solutions and to understand what we were up against and how we could help fight the pandemic. All of the experts who came to see us told us that there would soon be a second wave, and that it could be even more deadly and more difficult to handle. Why? Because there is currently no vaccine, no medication and no reliable serological testing.
We are simply managing time and space: personal space of two metres and the time needed to develop a vaccine. Until we have a vaccine, we remain vulnerable. We have spent a considerable amount of money. We have spent billions of dollars, and that is okay because we need to support people and the economy. Of the $340 billion dollars spent, barely 2% went to health care, at a time when we are experiencing the world’s worst health crisis. There is a problem here.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we must be careful, because if we incur deficits of $340 billion in the next two years, we will have a serious problem. To get through this crisis, we need to distinguish between one-off investments, or one-off spending, and sustainable investments that will help us get back on our feet. Health transfers, one of the items on the motion’s agenda, are a major component of the solution for fighting future pandemics—because there will be others.
Since Parliament resumed, the Liberal government has been playing the bully. It says that we failed in long-term care facilities and that it was forced to send in the army. In passing, Quebec taxpayers pay for that army. Sometimes we even send it on missions abroad. It was not unreasonable to ask it for help on the ground.
There was a shortage of personal protective equipment. Personal support workers and front-line workers were not properly protected at first, because there was a shortage. We quickly learned that the national stockpile was empty. We also learned that we had sent aid elsewhere, since we were certain we would never be affected. Cuts have been made to health transfers for the past 25 years. When you are managing health care and there are needs in your own back yard, you try to cover all bases and attend to the most urgent things first. Unfortunately, some employees had to work in two or three different long-term care facilities to make ends meet. That does not help when it comes to limiting contagion in a pandemic.
I would like us all to do some soul-searching and assume our responsibilities. We are able to impose standards on ourselves to ensure that we never again abandon our seniors living in long-term care facilities. That is clear. We are able to assume our responsibilities, but we do not want someone who has a 25-year record of broken promises to come and tell us how to work and how to do what is good for us. The Liberals are also saying that it is going to take money to implement standards. They do not even know what they are talking about when they talk about standards, because the issue of long-term care facilities is not the same in every province. I wish them luck. One need only look at the differences between Quebec and Ontario. The government does not have the expertise or the skills required.
Since everyone is concerned about health, the federal governments want to have a say. However, they have had 25 years in which to keep their word and allocate the funding needed to take care of people. It is our money and they need to give it back to us. We want transfers of 35%, not 22%. Now it looks like they might be more like 18%. We need $22 billion now just to make up for lost ground. The federal government is always saying that it gives a lot. However, the provinces contribute $188 billion, while the federal level contributes $42 billion.
There is not enough money, and it is time for the federal government to contribute instead of lecturing us. What we want the government to do now is tell us that it will support all the networks, invest, and do what Quebec and the provinces are asking it to do so that we can, at long last, rehabilitate our networks and take care of people in Quebec and elsewhere.
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
View John Brassard Profile
2020-10-07 14:40 [p.675]
Mr. Speaker, when veteran Sean Bruyea dared speak truth to power by pointing out how veterans would receive less in the Liberals' so-called pension for life scheme, he was publicly attacked by the former minister of veterans affairs, who wrote, “individuals like Sean Bruyea" are stating “mistruths about Pension for Life...to suit their own agenda.”
Bruyea sued the minister for defamation, seeking $25,000 in damages. The Liberals then used the full weight of the government to defend the minister against a veteran who, it turned out, was right, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
I am asking for the Prime Minister to justify this to Canadians.
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-10-07 14:41 [p.676]
Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, an agreement was reached in this case, and as part of that agreement we will not be commenting on it further.
However, I will highlight that service delivery and support to veterans and families have been a priority since the very beginning. Since 2016, we have invested nearly $10.5 billion in new money for our veterans and their families. This funding was invested in new centres of excellence on chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder, and includes financial compensation and more, which stands in stark contrast to the Conservative approach, including from the now Leader of the Opposition, which was to close offices, fire staff and gut Veterans Affairs.
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
View John Brassard Profile
2020-10-07 14:41 [p.676]
Mr. Speaker, when it came to defending a case against a convicted terrorist, Omar Khadr, the Prime Minister had no problem rolling over and giving into Khadr with a $10.5-million payday, but for those who served and defended this country, like Bruyea, and let us add Admiral Mark Norman to this, after attacking their integrity and honour, the Prime Minister and his minister spent millions in legal fees defending themselves.
Since the Prime Minister could not kick Bruyea out of cabinet or caucus like he did to Jane, Celina and the former AG, who all spoke truth to his power, will he at least apologize to Bruyea, and while he is at it Admiral Norman, for the assault on their reputations?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-10-07 14:42 [p.676]
Mr. Speaker, once again we see the extent to which the Conservatives like to wrap themselves in the flag while they actually have a record of nickel-and-diming our veterans by cutting their services, by cutting off opportunities for their families and by shuttering nine Veterans Affairs offices right across the country at a time when veterans needed proper help.
These are the things we have worked on over the past number of years, investing $10.5 billion in our veterans, when the Conservatives did nothing for them for 10 long years.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2020-10-07 16:53 [p.696]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. I have a lot to say about this bill, so I hope I do not run out of time.
First I want to thank my friend, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I was with her from the inception of this bill. She did me the honour of making me the chair of the status of women committee. Watching her lead this bill through the House was a real learning experience for me. We know that she is an accomplished businesswoman and accomplished politician. She was also our interim leader and a cabinet minister. I heard she is writing a book, so I look forward to that. I would like to thank her again for recognizing the importance of this issue and bringing it forward.
I want to talk a bit about the history of the bill. We have heard in some of the speeches that this is the third time it has been before the House. It received unanimous consent when I was here, and went to the Senate. Although I cannot explain what happened there, I was told that at the last moment the government woke up and realized it had passed no legislation and loaded up government legislation into the queue. That was the responsibility there for that failure.
Then we had Bill C-5. It was reintroduced, and I was happy to see that. Then the government decided not to sit all summer, so that was a wasted opportunity, and then on top of that it prorogued Parliament and delayed another six weeks. Everything fell off and had to be restarted, so here we are again.
It is disconcerting when we think about the statistics that we have heard. I know that many people have quoted them in their speeches, but I want to add a few comments to them. It is astounding when we hear that 83% of women who have been sexually assaulted do not even report it. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
We heard some testimony at the status of women committee. We were studying violence against women and girls at the time this bill came forward. The Ottawa Police reported that, of the women who show up at the police station to claim that they have been sexually assaulted, the police do not even write a report for 40% of them. Think about the humiliation for women, of being sexually assaulted and having the courage to go to the police knowing that, if they show up, only one in five cases is even reported, which then may go to trial. A very small percentage of those ever come with a conviction.
Once they come up with a conviction, it is astounding to see the small sentences that people receive in this country for sexual assault. When we look at it on paper, we can see that there are supposed to be minimum sentences of 10 and 14 years for these kinds of offences, but the reality is that it is up to the judge of the day to determine whether he wants to go with a summary conviction, probation or a fine. In fact, in many cases, even for the very small percentage convicted, the punishment for the crime is measured in months, or people are allowed to be on probation or they pay a fine for sexually assaulting a woman.
When one in three women in this country is going to be sexually assaulted in her life, this is totally unacceptable. We know, and it has been pointed out, that indigenous women and members of the LGBTQ community are even more at risk for this kind of sexual violence. It is all the more reason why we need to have training in place that could address parts of this.
I liked many of the recommendations I heard today that said that we have the purview, here in the House, over federal judges. However, that is not the whole story. There are provincial judges. This bill was brought forward and shared with all of the provinces. The report on violence against women and girls in Canada, which brought 45 specific recommendations to address this issue, was shared as well across the provinces. I am sad to say there has been very little uptake of that. Therefore, I was encouraged to hear my colleagues from Quebec tell me that they are starting to look at this and address the issue, because that will be very important.
Police sensitivity has been pointed out as a factor in the murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls recommendations, as well as 40 other reports that went before them on similar terms.
We heard testimony as well that training is needed there, but the reality is we have limited sway. This bill would address training for lawyers who want to become judges. We really wanted to have it address all the justices who were going to hear sexual assault cases, but unfortunately, that was not something we were able to make happen.
Justice Kent showed up at committee. As soon as Rona had tabled this bill, she was very enthusiastic and implemented training for lawyers who wanted to be judges in the federal judiciary, and recommended training to all those who were existing justices. She was unable to force them to take it, but at least there was immediate action taken. While there has been lamenting about the amount of time to pass the bill in full, people have stepped up to the plate and have been able to address some of the needs without even seeing the legislation.
Some of the statistics I find really troubling have to do with young people. Young people aged 15 to 24 are twice as likely to be sexually assaulted. When we were at committee, we heard testimony that 30% of women who attend Canadian universities would be sexually assaulted in the first eight weeks. This is unacceptable and unbelievable. Imagine these young girls in that state of trauma, not understanding the judicial system and having no guidance of any kind to help them manoeuvre through the police, and of course the peer pressure that exists on campus. We can see why we really need to have sensitivity.
The study we did came up with a lot of recommendations, and I am disappointed to see the government did not end up doing much with those. If I look at the importance it placed on addressing this issue, $100 million was put into one of the budgets to address violence against women and girls. If we think about the four million women, plus or minus, who have experienced sexual assault, it works out to 25 bucks for each one. That is not very much when compared, for example, with the government's response to the COVID pandemic, where some $240 billion has been rolled out to date for about 106,000 cases. That is $2.2 million per case of COVID compared with 25 bucks per sexual assault. I just wanted to put that into perspective. Sometimes the math tells us a lot.
Obviously, with this legislation we are trying to address some of the really egregious comments that have been made by judges in sexual assault trials. We know the most infamous one: Robin Camp's comments asking a survivor if she could not just keep her knees together. That was totally unacceptable. We know there was another case in the Atlantic provinces. A woman who had been drinking was assaulted, and the comment from the judge was that she was drunk, as if somehow that justified her being sexually assaulted. Maybe the most egregious to me personally were the comments made about Cindy Gladue, who was sexually assaulted and murdered, and when she was not even there to defend herself, the judge referred to her continually as the aboriginal prostitute. That is unacceptable in the extreme. We absolutely need to see change.
I have pointed out why the bill is needed. I want to spend a few minutes talking about what the bill would do and some the things that have changed over the evolution of the bill. The bill's purpose is to improve the interaction between sexual assault complainants and the justice system, specifically the judiciary. It would restrict the eligibility of who could be appointed to become a judge in Superior Court by requiring them to commit to undertaking and participating in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault and social context, including attending seminars.
It requires the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery of and participation in the sexual assault information seminars established by it, and it requires judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases. It is really important that we understand why written decisions were necessary. When the decisions were not written, there was some evidence that perhaps they were less well thought out, or less likely to be appealed because the wording was not on record. Therefore, that was important.
In the bill itself there is more robust language about the consulting that needs to be done with other organizations for the training. We want to make sure that the training gets at the things it needs to address, so it needs to be “developed after consultation with persons, groups or organizations that the Council considers appropriate, such as sexual assault survivors and groups and organizations that support them; and include instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, as well as education regarding myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault complainants.”
Earlier we heard the member for Oakville North—Burlington recite the history of the legislation that went into place in 1983, which was the rape shield provision. That prohibits someone from bringing up someone's past sexual history as any kind of information that would be relevant to a sexual assault trial. In addition to that, the principle of consent is important and is something that does not just belong in training for judges. I agree also with an earlier member who talked about how it is important to educate children from the time they are young about consent.
If anyone has not seen a very short clip on YouTube called “Tea Consent”, I would encourage members to look at it, because it uses a cup of tea as an example of when we could expect sexual advances to be acceptable or not. We do not give someone tea if they are unconscious. We do not give someone tea if they say they do not want tea. I really think that is an excellent short video, but the education needs to be ongoing.
I am happy to see the consultation here and my hope is that they would consult as well intersectionally to make sure that concerns from the LGBTQ community as well as indigenous communities are heard, who as I already pointed out are more likely to experience assault. The training can be sensitive in all ways.
One of the things I do not like about the current revision is the metrics for tracking how well this is going. Originally, the tracking was going to be the number of sexual assault cases that were heard and the number of cases that had judges who had the training, so we could get a sense if it was working. Do we have judges, 100% being the goal, who have had the training actually presiding over cases?
Instead, the metric has been changed to the number of judges who attended each seminar. It is important to measure the number of people taking the training, but I am more interested in something very specific, which is that the people who are presiding over sexual assault trials have had the training. That is one of the things that brought this forward. The other justices who were somewhat insensitive did not have the training. I do not know if that metric is really where it ought to be, but I am sure that will get hashed out as well when it gets to committee.
I want to talk about some of the other issues that contribute to the whole problem of sexual assault and the ramifications of it. If we think about the victims who have been raped, there is a range of sexual assault that goes from the extreme on down. However, in every case there is trauma.
Many of the women and men who have been assaulted and experience this trauma have mental health issues as a result. Many turn to addictions of various sorts. The opioid crisis and the methamphetamine crisis we studied at health committee, if we look to the root cause of these things, it comes back to sexual assault in many cases. The cost to society is huge and it cannot be overlooked when we look at the importance of getting the legislation in place.
The other thing I wanted to talk about is rape culture. We were studying this whole issue of violence against women and girls and how we get to all of the different solutions. Rape culture is actually a pyramid where at the top we have sexual assault as the most heinous act. However, at varying levels below, there are behaviours that will walk somebody in that direction, starting with the catcalling, heckling and harassing of women and people on buses, for example.
There was an organization locally that came and did a very good presentation on the different behaviours and all the steps that would be needed to make sure people understand these small behaviours become more and more egregious and can, if not interrupted, lead somebody to cross the line and commit sexual assault. That is one thing that definitely needs to be looked at.
The other thing I want to talk about is the length of time all of this takes. We have talked about this particular bill being introduced for the third time, but that is not the only thing. I get very frustrated when I look at the work done at committees, which is very valuable and produces very detailed recommendations on what the government needs to do with violence against women and girls. Members should read the report.
There are 45 recommendations, some of them specific to those young women on university campuses and what we need to do to prevent sexual assault, help these women and guide them through the process. Each university should have a protocol in place to make sure they follow up correctly on the incident without shaming the victim, and to make sure the victim has support as they go through the police and judicial system. There are a lot of good points in there. It takes a long time to get anything to happen and I have not seen much happen with that.
The same is true for many issues affecting women, such as human trafficking, pay equity, corporate boards and systemic discrimination of women during the COVID pandemic. We have had a lot of discussions about how women are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and how many of the programs rolled out did not really hit the mark there.
We need to be more nimble and agile. I heard that word in the throne speech. I am a fan of agility. Some folks in my past have said that I ram things through, but that is not true. I am a person of action and I like to see things done quickly.
In this case, it is something that is very serious. I am definitely going to support Bill C-3 and I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to many of the new members who may not have known the history of the bill as it came through the House, or who may not have been familiar with all of the statistics as to how bad the situation is in our own country.
I do not want to get away from the theme that one of the members talked about in terms of the government's approach of prevention, support and justice. I do think those are the right pillars to move forward with some action. We talked about education and some of the supports, but justice is something I would like to talk about for one minute.
We met with women from other countries that were parliamentary representatives. I remember sitting with a woman from another country and I asked what the sexual assault frequency was in her country. She told me that it is not really an issue for them. When I asked her why that was, she said that there is a mandatory 10-year sentence with no exceptions. That is the take-away.
We need to do something in our judicial system in addition to this bill that actually puts a punishment in place and does not leave it to the discretion of the judges who are preferentially choosing to go with punishments measured in months for the sexual assault of teenagers, people who may have trauma for the rest of their lives.
I thank members for listening and I thank Rona Ambrose for bringing the bill forward. I look forward to questions.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-10-05 13:22 [p.531]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my hon. colleague.
I have the pleasure of being my party's Treasury Board critic, so I will probably have opportunities to discuss a number of issues with my colleague opposite.
I have to wonder how the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board can accept that his government is using all sorts of devious ways to prevent Canadians from accessing the government's data and numbers and from reviewing its spending with full knowledge of the facts.
We are in the middle of a pandemic, and the government is spending enormous amounts of money. It needs to spend to keep the government running and help people work from home. There is a lot of spending, and some of it is absolutely necessary. However, we cannot be certain about all of it, since we have not been able to review it.
How can the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board accept such an attitude from a government that is not being transparent?
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2020-10-05 13:23 [p.531]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Estrie and thank him for his question, although I must reject its premise.
Against great odds, Parliament took action to ensure that it could operate even during the pandemic in order to review government spending. It was by consensus that all members of this Parliament were able to ask the ministers questions and get answers and that they were able to improve the bills authorizing this minority government's spending.
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join all my colleagues virtually, coming live from Teulon, Manitoba.
This is the 11th throne speech I have heard since I was elected in 2004 and this is by far the weakest throne speech I have had to listen to. I even reread it this morning and it is just filled with Liberal dogma. It is about social re-engineering. The only reason we had prorogation by the Prime Minister, since the throne speech is so uninspiring, is the WE scandal. It was not about resetting the agenda; it was about trying to do a cover-up and ensuring the opposition parties could not continue to litigate the government about its scandal and the almost billion dollars it was going to hand over to the WE Charity.
We are going to get around to dealing with that during this session of Parliament, but let us ensure we talk about all the problems the Liberals continue to have, especially with respect to its fiscal mismanagement and how it is building upon that during this COVID-19 crisis.
We have supported the government on ensuring we get timely payments out to Canadians where they are needed, but we have to ensure we take exception to the Prime Minister's comment in the throne speech, when he said, “Canadians should not...take on debt that their government can better shoulder.” Who does the Prime Minister think holds the debt of the Government of Canada? it is Canadians.
As we are now running right past $350 billion in deficit this fiscal year alone, that is the equivalent of $100,000 per man, woman and child in the entire country. I do not know anyone who has received $100,000 from the Government of Canada. Definitely people have received $2,000 a month through CERB and businesses have received up to $40,000 in CEBA loans that will be repayable. However, if we look at a family of four, nobody has received $400,000, and we are doing all of this without an actual budget in place for this fiscal year. Therefore, as we move forward, we will have to hold the government to account as to where this money has gone.
When I was part of the Harper government and we were running deficits, we had a plan as to how we dealt with it. It was called the three Ts. When we were dealing with deficits, they had to be timely, transparent and temporary. I am worried that some of the social re-engineering the government is looking at will make some of the benefits out there to help during these rough times become more than just temporary funding and turn into permanent programs. That will hurt our overall economic recovery as a nation and further indebt Canadians as the Government of Canada continues to pile up these mountains of debt, which is going to exceed $1 trillion for the first time in Canadian history. They have to be timely. So far a lot of Canadians have had to wait for months for benefits from the government, and these have to be transparent.
We do not have a budget. When this crisis first started and Parliament was not sitting, we know the government tried to get control of the entire public purse, without any oversight, to deal with the so-called recovery from COVID. We are not there yet, so we have to continue to drive forward. However, right now we see this ongoing use of non-disclosure agreements and national security designations as a way to hide any government contracts that have been sole-sourced, like the WE scandal, and as we have seen recently with PPE manufacturing, when it used national security as a way to hide a sole-sourced contract for face masks. That makes no sense at all. We have to continue to hold the government to account.
Nothing in the throne speech did anything to address western alienation. Here in Manitoba, as it is in Saskatchewan and Alberta, there is a real concern that Ottawa knows best and the rest of us in the west can just take a hike. We cannot allow that to happen. As a national Parliament, we have to address every region of our country.
The Conservative leader's first ask was how the Prime Minister would deal with national unity, with the rise of western alienation and the ongoing sovereignist movement within Quebec. There is no plan in the Speech from the Throne that even addresses that.
We do not see any action from the government on how it is going to deal with the COVID-19 health recovery. Months after this pandemic started, we are finally getting approval for rapid testing. All the G8 nations that we deal with, and our partners under NATO and the European Union, have been using rapid testing for months. We are only getting there now.
One of the greatest disappointments in the Speech from the Throne is that the government talks about having an economic recovery and job creation, but the only jobs it can create are the ones it adds to the civil service. It has not done anything to set in motion the economic objectives to build our current economy. Liberals do not even address the fundamentals of our economy, or having a fiscal anchor in how we deal with these ongoing deficits, and they have completely ignored the pillars of our economy.
When I re-read the Speech from the Throne on the computer this morning, I did a search for the word “farmers” and it only appears twice in the document. Once to talk about the Liberals finally paying supply managed farmers for any market losses that they are experiencing because of the free trade agreements we have signed, but we have heard that for five years from the government, and it has not done anything yet.
Then the Liberals talk about wanting to make sure farmers are given support to adapt to the new environmental regulations that are coming out. Farmers and ranchers are partners in the environment and they should be rewarded, not penalized, because they are carbon sinks, and they are securing our food supply. We need to help them, not penalize them.
There is nothing in the speech about fish harvesters. We waited in Manitoba for almost five months after the Prime Minister announced from Rideau Cottage in May that there was going to be support for fish harvesters. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, we have almost 1,000 commercial fishers. These are families in our communities and they waited for months before they could even apply. They have still have not received any cheques in the mail.
Energy workers were ignored. Forestry workers were ignored. Those who work in the natural resource sector were not even mentioned. These are the pillars of our economy, yet there is no support for how we create those jobs. There is nothing for manufacturers.
The real drivers of our economy are small business owners. Almost 90% of businesses in Canada are owned by small business owners, and they are the job creators. There was not much said to help them.
Aviation was completely forgotten about. How do we keep our airlines flying and our airports open? Nav Canada has laid off a pile of people, which is impacting Winnipeg and St. Andrews Airport in my riding. In Churchill, how do we use the gateway to the Arctic without having Nav Canada there to help with the safety and planning of those flights?
As the shadow minister for defence, I want to join with all members who have stood and thanked members of the Canadian Armed Forces, especially those tasked through Operation Lentus, which was the work done in long-term care. It was much appreciated. It was much needed, and I know they stand at the ready to do it again.
Again, there is almost nothing in the speech to deal with the military, or the use the defence industry as a way to drive economic recovery, as well as supply our Armed Forces. I know members of the Canadian Armed Forces are worried about these huge deficits. They remember the last time the Liberals had to start paying down deficits and address the national debt, which led to the decade of darkness. We cannot allow that to happen again.
We have to invest in our Arctic sovereignty. We have challenges from Russia and China, so we need to have an upgraded north warning system, make sure we are working in NORAD and use new capabilities. Speaking of China, I want to mention, as the Prime Minister did in the throne speech, that today is 665 days that Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been wrongfully incarcerated in China.
It is time to get them home. Let us deal with that head on, as we address all the problems we have in our relationship with Beijing.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-09-29 22:11 [p.298]
Mr. Speaker, there is a plan. That is one of the reasons why the session was prorogued. A document called the throne speech was released on September 23. There are 32 pages on the English side that detail a plan, not only for days, but weeks, months and possibly years into the future.
More and more we get Conservatives standing up expressing their reservations in terms of the government spending too much. The question must be asked of many of those Conservatives because that is the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservative Party. We believe we need to support Canadians in a time of need, whether they are seniors—
Some hon. member: With whose money?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: To the member across the way asking with whose money, we are talking about tax dollars and a deficit. I can tell members that today we need to invest and support Canadians, their health and their well-being. Our economy dictates that the government gets engaged.
Does the member agree that if the Government of Canada did not engage to the degree it has and work with the different provinces and other stakeholders, the impact on our country would be far more devastating?
View Gary Vidal Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech with the short question at the end.
First, let me make very clear, as I said in my comments, that any compassionate society and its leaders have a moral obligation and responsibility to care for those in need. However, from the stories I am hearing, the people in my riding are very concerned about the level of support that has been offered. When we talk $33 billion in one quarter, in excess of the lost wages, we have gone way beyond the goal of replacing income.
I have four kids, three of whom have spouses and one who has a significant other, and I have my first grandchild. That makes 11 of us. This current year of government spending, not including some of the new stuff that will happen over the coming months, means that my family of 11 people has taken on $110,000 of new debt. That terrifies me for my grandchildren.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate as well as to make some comments about the general economic circumstances that frame our discussion of the bill. It is fair to acknowledge that the government's response to this pandemic has been a bit chaotic. We have seen constantly shifting programmatic responses as well as advice from the government. There has been a general lack of consistency on many fronts, but at least there has always been firm certitude that the approach of the day is the right approach, until it changes.
It has been well established that if we had had border measures in place, if we had the right advice on masking earlier on, if we had quickly adopted rapid testing tools that had actually been in place for a long time in other countries, if we had learned from Czech Republic, South Korea or Taiwan and other places, and if we had tracing technology ready to go, then there would not have been that economic shutdown. There would not have been a need for an economic shutdown if a public health plan had been in place. This was all evidently quite avoidable if we see what other countries were able to do to respond more rapidly and avoid the same kind of economic disruption.
The economic devastation that we have experienced is the result of the failure of our health minister to respond early to this public health crisis. We still do not have the rapid testing that we need to ensure early warning and rapid response. We saw how, in the early days, the Minister of Health was saying the risk was low, closing the borders would be counterproductive and so forth. That is why we are here: because of the failure of the government to plan and respond effectively in the early days when it would have made the biggest difference.
Now we are teetering on a second wave. We are into a second wave in some parts of the country while we are desperately trying to avoid a second wave in others, and we still do not really have the public health tools in place. In my province, in Quebec and other provinces, we are not allowed to enter a diagnosis in the government's much celebrated, according to the Liberals, tracing app.
Because of a failure to plan for and respond to the public health challenges we face, we face an economic shutdown. Therefore Canadians legitimately expected financial support to be available to them during a time when they were not able to leave their homes to go to work. That is why some new benefit programs were legitimately created.
Having to stay at home, not working, and therefore receiving benefits was clearly not the first choice of Canadians. Canadians are not at all excited about seeing the government using freshly printed money to pay them to sit at home. The Canadians I know believe the supports should be available if they are not able to work, but people would much prefer to go back to work and in general would prefer for things to get back to normal as soon as possible.
Regardless of the nature of the programs that are in place, people cannot have anything near an acceptable standard of living unless most of the population is engaged in productive work. The health of our economy is dependent on the extent to which we are producing useful things. No economy was ever built by printing and distributing paper money. That much should be fairly obvious.
Fiscal control is not an end in and of itself, but it is a necessary means to the material and social flourishing of society. If we run massive deficits endlessly by constantly printing new paper money, the money gradually becomes less valuable. Money is not intrinsically valuable. It is simply a proxy measure of the value of goods and services that are produced in the economy. If we reduce the level of production, we cannot simply make up for it by printing more money.
The leader of the NDP is so proud of the extra $400 a month that he negotiated as part of the benefit package, but strikingly he seems unconcerned with how out of control spending risks reducing the effective value of that money over time.
Our economy can survive some level of deficit spending as well as supports that are timely, targeted and temporary. Even in those cases, the money has to be paid back. A timely, measured, targeted and temporary response is one thing, but the government's deficit is approaching $400 billion, which is larger than the entire federal budget was when the Liberals took office. The deficit is well over half the size of the entire debt run up in the preceding 150 years of Canadian history. We went through two world wars, the Great Depression, financial crises and even the tenure of the last Prime Minister Trudeau and the first four years of this government, and we are running up more than half as much debt in a single year as we did in the entire preceding period.
In the lexicon of this brave new world, anyone who thinks we should spend even a dime less is accused of peddling austerity, but for these Liberals, austerity is a word that has entirely lost its meaning.
There are many people who understand what austerity truly is. There are people around the world who are starving as a direct result of the humanitarian crisis caused by COVID-19. There are people around the world who have lived through the experience of a national debt crisis in which their money became worthless and their government could not bail them out. There are people in this country who are struggling to pay their heating bill because of the government's carbon tax. There are people who worry that jobs in their sector will never come back, whether that is in oil and gas, manufacturing or other primary and secondary industries that are no longer in vogue across the way. These people understand and are starting to worry about what true austerity would look like in their lives.
Yet, the government pressed ahead with pay raises for elected officials, because to do otherwise would be austerity. It will not rein in profligate spending at the CBC or pull back on corporate welfare handouts to wealthy, connected corporations, because to do so would be austerity. Any review, any efficiency, any constraint whatsoever is considered austerity. Any time people have to pay more to the government, no problem. Any time we suggest that government members should spend less on themselves or their friends, that is called austerity. This is a farce. This is a redefinition of words to mean the opposite of what they actually mean.
I submit that the Liberals generally have no concept of real austerity, because the Prime Minister has not known anything but exorbitant, inherited wealth, and he has tried to transfer as much of the benefits of government to his friends, having three times been caught breaking key ethical rules. What the Prime Minister needs to understand is that austerity for people is when one has to choose between buying food and paying one's heating bill, not when one has to choose between a WE vacation, a French villa and a private island.
If we do not get a handle on public spending soon, we will face real austerity. These deficit levels are completely unsustainable. As it is, they will lead to higher taxes, lower social spending or both in the future, regardless of who is in power, if the situation continues to get worse. We need to sound the alarm on this out-of-control spending, because if we continue at this rate for much longer, we will not be able to afford these types of benefits whether we like it or not. Spending money we do not have, debasing our currency and rendering the government incapable of supporting people in the long run is neither prudent nor compassionate.
Needless to say, the Conservatives are unimpressed by the circumstances that bring us to this debate. The government shut down Parliament for six weeks and is now trying to limit debate on this bill to a mere day. What we see across the board is that the federal government is creating problems and then claiming to be uniquely qualified to offer solutions.
By proroguing Parliament, the Liberals created a problem, the problem being that benefits were going to run out if legislation was not passed at an unprecedented pace. Their programming motion is presented as a solution to a problem that they themselves created. However, it is bigger than that. The need for these benefits is a problem that was created by the government through a failure to have a plan in place to manage the pandemic, a failure to close the border in time, a failure to implement rapid testing and a failure to learn the lessons of other countries.
When we challenge government members on their spending, they come back to us and ask, “How would you solve the problem? What would you cut? What would you spend less on?” The Conservative answer to this is quite simple: We would not have created the problem in the first place. Even at this late stage, we would ensure rapid approval of rapid testing technology, build benefit programs that provide the greatest possible incentive for people to return to work and quickly approve new development and resource projects, providing a public-dollar-free, private sector stimulus to help workers in our natural resource sectors get back to work. Natural resource workers are not looking for a “just transition” out of their jobs into unemployment. What they want is their jobs back.
Benefit programs can be very generous for people who are out of work as long as we are taking all the necessary steps to ensure that there are as few people out of work as possible. That is why Conservatives have led in putting forward constructive alternatives, in advancing the idea of a back-to-work bonus, in pushing the government to have a private sector stimulus of our natural resource economy and encouraging it to take up the public health measures that will allow people to work in safety.
I am pleased to report that hope is on the horizon. The member for Durham will soon be ready to emerge from isolation. He understands that there is an alternative to the profligate spending that we are seeing from the government and that this alternative does not mean cutting off people in need. We can reduce government spending by reducing people's need for government; by supporting economic growth, a stronger public health response and measures that allow people to return to work in all sectors, including our natural resource sectors; and by creating the wealth that allows all of us to prosper together.
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
View Peter Kent Profile
2020-09-28 13:34 [p.168]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
Canada is facing a critical moment in the continuing COVID crisis. Millions of Canadians are still in need of emergency funding of one sort or another. Although the early soaring numbers with tragic loss of life in seniors homes and beyond were brought down by the first lockdown with a range of precautions and restrictions, as imperfect as it might have been, we are concerned now about the sharp resurgence of infection in some urban areas and among certain groups whose compliance with the advice of public health officials and government at all levels relaxed far too soon.
The COVID crisis is not just a health crisis. COVID has taken a terrible toll on our Canadian economy, as it has on economies around the world. Canada today has the highest unemployment rate in the G7, despite having almost the highest spending in the G7. With the amendment to Bill C-2, now before us today, Canada's deficit and debt would soar to historic record new levels.
The government must recognize that a significant number of businesses and industries, despite COVID restrictions and precautions, have gradually been able to safely reactivate their workplaces to bring back workers safely and fire up their respective corners of the economy. Over the past month, I visited large industrial manufacturers and small businesses, and I have been impressed at how they are safely, defiantly, coping with the challenging new realities of their workplaces. However, I have also heard from a range of small, medium and large employers and members of chambers of commerce and boards of trade who say that government needs to balance essential emergency financial support with meaningful incentives to return to work where it is safe to do so.
When we first saw Bill C-2 last week, after six weeks of prorogation with the Liberals in hiding from scandalous revelations in committee, the estimated costs of the post-CERB expanded benefits were enormous: $37 billion in one year. The estimated costs are now in the mid-$40 billion range with another $17 billion in ongoing COVID program spending attached to this bill. We are debating almost $60 billion in new spending in two days. The deficit for 2021 is now certain to be well past $400 billion.
There is no question that the three principal elements of Bill C-2, the Canada recovery benefits act, would provide a lifeline to millions of workers and folks left out of earlier support. The government's decision to effectively embrace our Conservative back-to-work bonus proposed in June is an overdue step forward, a work incentive that would allow workers to earn beyond the benefit payments with a 50¢ on the dollar repayment of earnings if they exceed $38,000 in annual income. However, the original expectation of a minimum taxable payment of $400 a week expired when the Liberals caved in to NDP demands that $400 a week was not enough.
The Liberals caved in again on Friday when the NDP demanded more, a two-week paid sick leave demand, without any consideration by the House or Parliament of its possible negative impact on Canada's struggling economy. One must consider the continuing disincentives discouraging many healthy workers from safely returning to workplaces that can provide assurance of strict adherence to public health guidelines.
In my province of Ontario, under the new legislation an individual who works full time for just over three weeks will be able to access EI for six months at $500 a week. An Ontarian working full time at minimum wage, $14 an hour, receives $525 a week.
That said, the three pillars of the Canada recovery benefits act are needed: first, the CRB, the Canada recovery benefit for workers who are self-employed or not eligible for EI; second, the CRCB, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit for eligible Canadian households where a parent cannot work because they must care for children or a high-risk dependent; and third, the CRSB, the Canada recovery sickness benefit for workers who are sick or must self-isolate because of COVID-19.
Unfortunately, the time wasted in prorogation and the closure vote tomorrow, a most offensive application of the legislative guillotine, prevents the due diligence these benefits deserve.
The last-minute amendment to the sickness benefit that the Liberals caved into Friday, which provides for what the act calls a “leave of absence”, lacks answers to abundant questions on how it may be used or abused.
The amendment says that “every employee is entitled to and shall be granted the leave of absence” from work of “up to two weeks—or, if another number of weeks is fixed by regulation” if the employee is unable to work because, one, “they contracted or might have contracted COVID-19”; two, they have underlying conditions, are undergoing treatments or have contracted other sicknesses that, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, person in authority, government or public health authority would make them more susceptible to COVID-19; or three, “they have isolated themselves on the advice of their employer, a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, person in authority, government or public health authority for reasons related to COVID-19”.
There are huge legitimate, logical questions in these provisions. Pre-existing underlying conditions like asthma, diabetes, weakened immune systems, etc., don't go away in two weeks, and the provision for cabinet to extend coverage weeks is unlimited. There are some very big questions here.
As well, employment lawyers and experts have long raised red flags about this intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction, because most workers are governed provincially. One noted Ontario employment lawyer, Lior Samfiru, says that new incentives may be required to provinces and to employers in the form of tax cuts to get the buy-in in those jurisdictions. There have been, as well, fears expressed by economists and employers that 10 paid sick days could have a serious negative impact on productivity, that said with an eye to some public service unions' exploitation of already-contracted sick days. Then there is the unanswered question of monitoring and enforcement of a violation of the program criteria.
All of these issues should have and could have been explored during the six weeks of the WE scandal turtling by the Liberal government, rather than the clumsy presentation of Bill C-2, followed by the Liberals' second desperate concession to the NDP, and this debate and tomorrow's taking place in the shadow of the legislative guillotine of closure.
As I said at the top, millions of Canadians need emergency funding and many of them are caught now between the ending of CERB and when they will be able to access the new programs. They are caught in dire circumstances again because of the latest self-inflicted stumble by the Liberal government.
Conservatives believe extraordinary emergency funding has been needed and continues to be needed to support Canadian workers, employers and all those in need of support from the start of this COVID crisis, but we lament the lack of transparency and accountability of the Liberal government, the unacceptable neutering of Parliament, the time lost during the unnecessary prorogation for all-party consideration, debate and more reasonable outcomes, and the rush now to confect legislation on the run in the interest of self-serving partisan survival.
Even as we all struggle to do our part to deal with the resurgence of infection spread in certain areas, Conservatives lament the lack of a meaningful recovery plan with the investments, the tax cuts and regulatory improvements that will build competitiveness, incentivize workers and employers, and make Canada a better place to invest, to rebuild and to safely live.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-09-28 17:58 [p.210]
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to have contrast here. We have a Conservative member who is making it very clear. The debt that is being accrued because of the programs we are bringing into place is very upsetting and appears to be something which the member does not support. She is giving the impression that we should not be borrowing as much money as we are. On the other hand, she tries to give the impression that she supports all these programs.
Looking specifically at this bill, the member is complaining about the $50 billion, but she is supporting the programs. She cannot have it both ways.
Does the member believe that we should continue to support Canadians through programs that are largely, in part, being financed through debt? Does she believe we should do it or should we not do it?
View Stephanie Kusie Profile
CPC (AB)
View Stephanie Kusie Profile
2020-09-28 18:00 [p.211]
Madam Speaker, my point is that we never should have been put in this place that we have to do this. This is again and again as result of the poor planning of the Liberal government: first, in not preparing before the pandemic arrived; second, the poor preparation and the inability to recognize the magnitude of the pandemic; and third, adequately addressing the needs of all Canadians and all businesses several times over.
Thank goodness my leadership team had the foresight to put in the provisions to not let this spending get completely out of control. Yes, Canadians need our support, but it could have been done in a far more responsible, accountable fashion.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent and, very humbly, as the official opposition House leader.
I want to sincerely give thanks for all the support for my colleagues in the official opposition and, obviously, for my leader, the hon. member for Durham, leader of the official opposition and of all Conservatives in Canada from coast to coast. As we know, he and his wife are now fighting COVID-19. He will get back here stronger than ever; I can assure the House of that.
We are gathered here today after the House was prorogued for five weeks. During the summer, committees were working to shed light on the government's serious, unacceptable ethical lapses, but the Prime Minister decided to prorogue the House. Parliamentary committees were all suspended. We could not do our jobs in the House or in committee. We are now back in the House after the throne speech.
A Speech from the Throne is a unique and exceptional opportunity to bring Canadians together, to talk about national unity and the fact that the provinces and the federal government must work together and respect jurisdictions. This is an opportunity for the government to show that it has a clear plan and knows where it is going, all while effectively managing government spending. The throne speech is an opportunity for the government to show that it has a plan. What we saw yesterday was anything but a plan. The government gave a classic Liberal speech and completely ignored these three fundamental elements.
First let us consider the issue of spending. We all realize that in a crisis like the one we are experiencing now, investing is essential. Yes, unfortunately, that creates deficits. We faced that reality in 2008-09. We are not happy about it, but we understand that it has to be done. However, we still need to know where we are heading. What the Prime Minister and his government showed us yesterday, given the speech delivered by the Governor General, is that they do not realize that the money being spent today does not belong to us. Yesterday's speech was all spend, spend, spend, but there was nothing about controlling that spending. That is unacceptable.
Of course we must invest in certain sectors. Yes, we must do something for the workers who have lost their jobs because of the crisis. Yes, we must do something for the businesses that have to close temporarily, and will have to take advantage of a potential economic recovery. We must be there to support them. We still need to know where we are heading, and the government has done everything but control spending. We all remember the economic snapshot provided by the former finance minister. We all saw that the deficit was approaching half a trillion dollars and that our debt load had reached over one trillion dollars. The former finance minister never mentioned those two significant figures, and with good reason, because that is not a record to be proud of.
We believe that investments must be made, but there must be a plan. Yesterday's throne speech shows us that the government wants to spend money we do not have and does not know where it is heading. I remind members that money we do not have is a debt that must be paid by our children and grandchildren. The Conservatives are thinking of the younger generation. Yes, the next generation will have to pay for the government's unbridled spending. When we ask for better control of spending, we are thinking first and foremost of young Canadians.
Furthermore, true to Liberal tradition, the government is picking fights with the provinces. No sooner was the Speech from the Throne a wrap than the Premier of Quebec took to social media to express his disapproval on the grounds that the speech sidelined collaboration and scorned jurisdiction. I want to make it perfectly clear that jurisdiction is no mere academic notion meant for the likes of professors and constitutional experts. The government needs to understand and act on its responsibilities while allowing the provinces to take care of theirs. Yesterday, the government said it would invest in health, education, child care and so on, but those are basically provincial responsibilities, not federal ones. What the federal government is responsible for is making sure tests are approved so they can be done as efficiently as possible, but the government is not even meeting its own expectations in that regard. It is minding the business of others instead of taking care of its own.
There is a solution to this, one that the leader of the official opposition proposed two and half weeks ago after meeting with the Premier of Quebec, and that is increasing health transfers to the provinces. That would be a legitimate and important step forward, as indicated by the member for Durham, the leader of the official opposition, our Conservative leader, after meeting with the Premier of Quebec, and we are proud of it. This is classic Conservative: We respect provincial jurisdictions.
As we all know, there are new needs related to health care. The COVID-19 crisis has brought this to light with regard to seniors, among others. We know that transfers do need to be increased, and if there is one area where we need to spend—if we are fortunate enough to win Canadians' trust—we would definitely invest more in health by increasing transfers to the provinces, since health is a provincial jurisdiction. That happens at the provincial level, not the federal level.
Lastly, a Speech from the Throne should emphasize Canadian unity. All of us Canadians need to stand shoulder to shoulder and work together. Whether we are from Ontario, Vancouver, British Columbia, or wherever, we need to work together. There was absolutely nothing in yesterday's speech that would support and foster a strong, united Canada. There was not a single word about Quebec's aerospace industry, not a single word about natural resources in the west, nothing in the speech to bring Canadians together.
Let me be perfectly clear. Some hear “natural resources” and automatically think of the west, but 50,000 people in Quebec work in the petrochemical industry. That is a lot of people. That is why we believe all provinces must be involved and must work together to make Canada a better place.
The Speech from the Throne is a unique opportunity to underscore that. It is the ideal time for us all to work together for the good of Canadians, and for all Canadians, no matter where they live, to make a tangible contribution to our recovery.
Sadly, the Prime Minister failed to do that. I therefore move, seconded by the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, that the motion be amended by adding the following:
And regrets to inform Your Excellency that your government has failed to provide a plan to approve and deploy new rapid testing measures to aid the provinces in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic;
Further regret to inform Your Excellency that your government has failed to provide an adequate plan to support the future of Canadian workers and small businesses inclusive of a program for wage subsidization that protects Canadian jobs while effectively promoting the value and dignity of work, along with a more extensive plan for commercial rent assistance and effective small business supply chain protection;
Further regret to inform Your Excellency that your government continues to neglect the unity problems that its policies have created in the Western provinces by undermining the role that resource workers, and resource producing provinces have played in paying for quality public services across the Federation;
Further regrets to inform Your Excellency that your government has not acknowledged the need for a new policy regarding Communist China that reflects its responsibility for imposing a new police state-style security law on the over 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong, as well as committing a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Uyghur Muslims in the Chinese area of Xinjiang; and
Also further regrets to inform Your Excellency that your government has failed to provide adequate transparency to the House with regard to the relationship between the organization known as the WE Charity, the Prime Minister’s family, the relevant government ministries, and outside organizations involved in the development of the Canada Student Services Grant program.
View Kenny Chiu Profile
CPC (BC)
View Kenny Chiu Profile
2020-07-21 13:54 [p.2685]
Madam Speaker, I believe in helping Canadians, and I also believe this should not be a controversial statement. After all, all of us gathered here today have come together as elected members of Parliament to represent the larger body of Canadians and act in their best interests.
How did the government best help Canadians in this unprecedented time? Let us review.
At first the government believed that this goal would be best accomplished through a massive power grab. The Liberals shamefully tried to use a public health crisis to give themselves the power to raise taxes, debt and spending, without parliamentary approval, until January 1, 2022. When this failed, they reverted to the more tried and true strategy of reckless spending and handouts, telling bureaucrats to bypass necessary checks and balances. Many of the programs developed for aid were ill-conceived and poorly implemented. Parliament needed to be recalled multiple times to correct programs, as outlined by my esteemed colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. All the while, they were racking up a deficit of $343 billion, which will push our national debt over $1 trillion. We are the only G7 country that will receive a credit rating drop.
Of course, this has also culminated in scandals. As we are all aware, the Ethics Commissioner is investigating the $912-million contract to WE Charity, an organization with close ties to the Prime Minister's family. The Prime Minister is the only Canadian prime minister formally found to have broken ethics laws, and the only one who has achieved it multiple times. It has resulted in the steady erosion of the trust Canadians place in their governing body and in their politicians. It makes Canadians question the integrity of government leadership. They do not believe the programs in bills like Bill C-20 will help them in times of need, as they are just another way to line the pockets of certain friends.
The Prime Minister promised sunny ways. He said sunlight was the best disinfectant. Now we are in the middle of summer and there is plenty of sunlight to disinfect any dirty laundry. All he has to do now is agree to subject himself to such exposure by appearing before committees and co-operating honestly with the Ethics Commissioner to the fullest, or else he has failed to live up to his word, once again becoming another example of why Canadians doubt measures in Bill C-20.
I remind my esteemed Liberal colleagues of their duty to hold higher standards. If they stand behind such incompetence and corruption, are they not complicit in the degradation of Canadian governments and the betrayal of public trust? Surely they too must feel some tinge of betrayal from the actions of their leader. The trust they have placed in him to make Canada a better place for their constituencies is eroded, and they are no longer able to hold their heads high and take pride in what they represent, because many find what they represent to be mere sponsorship-scandal-type underhanded politics, a lust for power and a greed to line the pockets of friends.
What I would like to see is a change of mindset in our government and the restoration of the honour of the governing party. We must work together toward economic recovery. As the Prime Minister has stated, “Conservatives are not our enemies; they're our neighbours.” The government ought to do the neighbourly thing and listen when the Conservatives give voice in Parliament to the outcry of citizens impacted by the economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
While we encourage non-partisan efforts to help Canadians and wait for the government to accept them, the Conservatives will continue to press the government to implement the back-to-work bonus and plan to make the Canada emergency response benefit more flexible and generous so that workers can earn higher wages as businesses gradually open. This will truly improve the situations of Canadians in need and help place our economy on the path of recovery.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-07-20 13:10 [p.2591]
Madam Speaker, it was tough listening to the member opposite. I think of the Fraser Institute and the Conservative Party coming together.
On the one hand, the member talked about why the government needed to do more for businesses, why it needed to do more for individuals. The greatest expenditure of the government today is related to supporting Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in part doing it through programs like the CERB, which the member referenced, and by supporting businesses through wage subsidies. All of that will no doubt cost a considerable amount of money, as the member knows full well. Then the member concluded his comments with regard to fear of the debt.
Does the member support the government spending the money to support Canadians through programs like the CERB and supporting small businesses?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-07-20 13:11 [p.2591]
Madam Speaker, we of course believe that government should compensate the businesses and workers who it has banned from working. When we ban people from earning an income, we have to replace that income somehow, and that is what governments across the world have had to do.
Unfortunately, the Liberal government has created the highest unemployment in the G7. Why? Because the programs it created were designed to punish people for working and businesses for operating, even those that had approval from lower levels of government to reopen safely in the COVID-19 period. It punished people for earning more than $1,000. It punished businesses for recovering more than 70% of their pre-COVID revenue. Therefore, it is no surprise that our unemployment is the highest in the G7. The government designed programs expressly to make it so. It was as though it was setting out to suppress the economy, to punish entrepreneurs and workers, and it succeeded in all those objectives.
We had different objectives over here, which is to unleash the power of our workers and entrepreneurs to go back and bring our economy back to life. That is what we will continue to champion on this side of the House until we get to that side of the House and start implementing it.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2020-07-08 12:53 [p.2543]
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General tabled only three reports. Typically in a session they would table seven or eight.
When will the government fully fund the Auditor General so the Auditor General can do her job?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
2020-07-08 12:54 [p.2543]
Mr. Speaker, there is unfortunately not enough time to commend the work of the Auditor General and to say how much work we need to do. We look forward to working with her.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, so much of what the finance minister just said is not true. I do not have enough time to enumerate it all, because we only have a few minutes for questions and comments.
The government was wrong. It was wrong to leave our borders open for longer. It was wrong when it said it was going to have enhanced screening at airports, and it was slow to fix the gaps in its own programs. So many Canadians have been let down by the government. It has refused to fix the wage subsidy. It has refused to remove the back-to-work penalty for people who want to take available shifts, and it has refused to implement the back-to-work bonus that Conservatives have proposed to help people fill available shifts and help local businesses get back on their feet.
The government has also refused to fund the Auditor General so that she can keep track of this massive amount of new spending and historic levels of deficits and debt. All she wanted was about $10 million to make sure she could go through the programs, but the minister did find $15 million kicking around for the Deputy Prime Minister's political office.
Can the finance minister tell the House exactly what the $15 million that he gave the Deputy Prime Minister will be going to?
View Bill Morneau Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bill Morneau Profile
2020-07-08 14:29 [p.2559]
Mr. Speaker, we have, during the course of the last number of months, taken as our very first order of business to support Canadians, to back them up, to create jobs and to help provide a bridge toward the future, but at no time during this period have we forgotten that governing our country is equally important. We have tried to make sure that we could continue to have the government work to make sure that we could actually deliver for Canadians.
One of the biggest challenges we have faced as we have done this is thinking about how we actually deliver to Canadians. When the history of this pandemic is written, I think that history will say that we delivered not only at scale, but at speed, and that is because we not only came up with the right policies, but we found a way to deliver them.
I will say that our government will continue to make sure that the resources to be able to create that policy and to be able to deliver those results to Canadians are there. I would say that the Deputy Prime Minister is one of those important people in our government who have helped us to make an enormous difference during this challenging time, and she will continue to do that as an important member of our government.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-07-08 15:12 [p.2565]
Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
Whereas the fiscal snapshot identifies “increased capacity at the Privy Council Office”, this measure would increase the capacity of the Privy Council Office to ensure that it can continue to meet its mandate following the creation of the role of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and International Trade in the amount of $7 million next year and $15 million for each year after that, the House calls on the government to transfer this full sum from the Office of the Privy Council to the Office of the Auditor General.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
As was mentioned earlier today, we are doing things a bit differently because of the format we are in. Therefore, at this point I am going to ask all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion to please say nay. Also, I would ask anybody who is saying no virtually to raise the hand on his or her virtual screen. That would be of assistance.
Some hon. members: Nay.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-06-17 18:33 [p.2523]
Madam Chair, when the government claimed that Canada was back, we did not realize how far back it expected to take us.
Today, Canada was trounced under this leadership by both Ireland and Norway at the UN, so I would ask any minister responsible for this failure to tell us: How much did the government spend on its diplomatic campaign to lose a seat on the Security Council?
View Karina Gould Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Karina Gould Profile
2020-06-17 18:34 [p.2523]
Madam Chair, as I have already expressed, Canada can be extremely proud of the campaign that we ran over the past five years. I want to continue to express my gratitude to the officials, diplomats and everyone on Team Canada who worked so hard and was able to showcase Canada's values and our commitment on the world stage.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-06-17 18:34 [p.2523]
Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the members for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and Huron—Bruce.
That was not the question. The question was: How much did Canada spend on its failed campaign to secure a Security Council seat? How much?
View Karina Gould Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Karina Gould Profile
2020-06-17 18:35 [p.2523]
Madam Chair, the work that Canada does diplomatically is to advance our interests and our values, and to share what Canada is doing on the world stage. We are committed to multilateralism. We are committed to continuing to work in the UN system to make sure that we can advance the interests of peace and security globally.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2020-06-17 18:35 [p.2523]
Madam Chair, how much did the government spend on travel and hospitality as part of its global failed campaign for a security council seat?
View Karina Gould Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Karina Gould Profile
2020-06-17 18:35 [p.2523]
Madam Chair, as the hon. member knows, Canada's work internationally is to advance human rights, advance gender equality and to fight climate change. We do this work because we believe in a—
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)