Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 3 of 3
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 124--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the Optional Survivor Benefit (OSB) for common-law partners and the statement on the government’s website that “The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) was amended so that a member living in a common-law relationship can provide a survivor pension if the relationship begins after age 60. However, the regulations must be amended to specify the details. Consequently, the OSB is not yet available for common-law relationships.”: (a) when will the regulations be amended to make the OSB available to those in common-law relationships that begin after age 60; (b) why have the regulations not yet been amended; (c) what are the government’s projections regarding how many such individuals will be eligible for the OSB; and (d) of the individuals in (c), what percentage does the government project will opt in to the OSB?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces offer competitive salaries and world-class benefit packages that start on the first day of a member’s service, up until after they retire. To ensure members are fairly compensated for their service to Canada, National Defence continues to work on issues, such as the optional survivor benefit for common-law relationships, to better reflect the reality of today’s veterans.
With regard to part (a) of the question, optional survivor benefit regulations are currently in the process of being amended. The amendments are complex and require coordination among multiple departments to ensure they are done properly. This process is being done collaboratively with Treasury Board and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
With regard to part (b), National Defence is currently working collaboratively with Treasury Board and the RCMP to determine a common policy approach for amending regulations. This will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces, public service and RCMP pension plans are cohesive and contain similar optional survivor benefit provisions.
With regard to parts (c) and (d), National Defence does not maintain this information and it is not available to provide a projection at this time.

Question No. 125--
Ms. Nelly Shin:
With regard to expenditures related to legal proceedings involving veterans and veterans' groups, since January 1, 2018: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures incurred to date, broken down by case; and (b) what are the expenditures in (a), broken down by type and line item?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to expenditures incurred in relation to legal proceedings involving veterans and veterans' groups, since January 1, 2018, to the extent that the information requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege or settlement privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total legal costs, including actual and notional costs, associated with legal proceedings involving veterans and veterans' groups since January 1, 2018, amount to approximatively $5,475,000. These costs cover all types of legal proceedings, including individual and class actions brought by veterans, judicial review applications of decisions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and appeals. The Crown is usually not initiating these proceedings but rather acts as a defendant or respondent. The total legal costs are with respect to litigation and litigation support services, which were provided in these cases by the Department of Justice. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and, therefore, no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs are composed of file-related legal disbursements paid by the department and then cost-recovered from the client departments or agencies, as well as the costs of legal agents who may be retained by the Minister of Justice to provide litigation services in certain cases. The amount mentioned in this response is based on information currently contained in the Department of Justice systems, as of October 6, 2020.

Question No. 128--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s reaction to the genocide and human rights abuses of Uighurs in Xinjiang Province, China, and the decision as to whether to place Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible: (a) will the government be placing sanctions under the Magnitsky Act on the Chinese government officials responsible for the genocide; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which Chinese government officials will be subject to the sanctions, and what criteria will the government use to determine which officials will be subject to the sanctions; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, then what is the rationale for not placing sanctions on those responsible for this genocide?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canadian foreign policy and is a priority in the Government of Canada’s engagement with China. The nature and scale of the abuses by Chinese authorities of Uighurs and other ethnic and religious minorities, under the pretext of countering extremism, are deeply disturbing. The Government of Canada is alarmed by the mass arbitrary detentions, repressive surveillance, allegations of torture, mistreatment, forced labour, forced sterilization of women and mass arbitrary separation of children from their parents. These actions by the Chinese government are contrary to its own constitution, in violation of international human rights obligations and inconsistent with the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.
Canada takes allegations of genocide very seriously. We will continue to work in close collaboration with our allies to push for these to be investigated through an international independent body and for impartial experts to access the region so that they can see the situation first-hand and report back.
Canada has continuously relayed its concerns about China’s actions directly to Chinese officials. Canada has also taken action to speak out at the United Nations in co-operation with partners. For example, in June 2020, during the 44th session of the HRC, Canada and 27 other countries signed a joint statement voicing concerns on the human rights situations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Recently, at the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, on October 6, 2020, Canada co-signed, along with 38 other countries, a joint statement on the human rights situation in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. As part of joint communications, Canada and other countries have repeatedly called on China to allow unfettered access to Xinjiang to UN human rights experts and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Canada is judicious in its approach regarding when to deploy sanctions and/or draw on other courses of action in our diplomatic tool kit based on foreign policy priorities. The regulations enacted under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act allow the Government of Canada to target individuals who are, in the opinion of the government, responsible for, or complicit in, gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or acts of significant corruption. Canada takes the matter of listing individuals under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act very seriously. A rigorous due diligence process has been established to consider and evaluate possible cases of human rights violations or corruption anywhere in the world against the criteria set out in the act, within the context of other ongoing efforts to promote human rights and combat corruption. Our government believes that sanctions have the maximum impact when they are being imposed in collaboration with other countries.
Please also note that the trade commissioner service has updated its guidance for businesses on the risks of doing business in China, including risks related to human rights abuses. Ensuring companies adhere to responsible business practices is essential to manage social, reputational, legal and economic risks. The Government of Canada expects Canadian companies active abroad, in any market or country, to respect human rights, operate lawfully and conduct their activities in a responsible manner consistent with international standards such as the UN “Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights” and the OECD “Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises”. Among other things, the Government of Canada expects Canadian companies to adopt global best practices with respect to supply chain due diligence in order to eliminate the direct or indirect risk of involvement in any forced labour or other human rights abuses.
Please be assured that the promotion and protection of human rights are core priorities of Canada’s foreign policy. The Government of Canada will continue to raise its concerns regarding the human rights situation in Xinjiang and all of China, and will continue to call on China to live up to its international obligations.

Question No. 131--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to isolation housing or quarantine facilities provided to foreign visitors to Canada during the pandemic: (a) how many foreign visitors have required the government to provide isolation housing or quarantine facilities upon arrival to Canada since March 2020; (b) what is the monthly breakdown of the amount spent on housing or quarantine facilities to foreign visitors; and (c) are foreign visitors required to reimburse Canadian taxpayers for the costs related to isolation housing or quarantine facilities, and, if so, (i) how many visitors have paid reimbursements, (ii) what is the total dollar amount collected by the government for such reimbursements?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), federal quarantine facilities are for any travellers arriving in Canada who do not have suitable options to self-isolate or quarantine through their own means. To date, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, has housed approximately 32 foreign nationals in federally designated quarantine sites. This excludes repatriation of cruise ship passengers in March 2020. This accounts for less than 3% of travellers who have used these facilities.
With regard to (b), due to current contracting activities, including potential competitive processes, the exact breakdown of costs cannot be publicly disclosed at this time.
With regard to (c), no, foreign visitors are not required to reimburse the Government of Canada for their stay in federally designated sites. With regard to c)(i), PHAC has received quarantine cost reimbursements, approximately $40,000, from a small number of foreign national crew members of four foreign vessels, because there was a failure by shipping agents to abide by public health measures upon entering Canada. With regard to c)(ii), to date, PHAC has invoiced approximately $40,000 to shipping agents for the quarantine of their crew members in federally designated sites.

Question No. 133--
Mr. Dean Allison:
With regard to the Veterans Affairs Canada area offices, which have all been closed to veterans since March 2020: (a) which offices have reopened to clients and what was the reopening date of each office; and (b) of the offices that are still closed, what is the projected reopening date when they will be open to clients, broken down by location?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Veterans Affairs Canada continues to serve veterans and their families by phone and online. In addition to regular services, Veterans Affairs Canada has reached out to 18,000 vulnerable clients since the beginning of the pandemic.
With regard to (b), the health, safety and well-being of veterans and their families, as well as Veterans Affairs Canada employees, is the priority of Veterans Affairs Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Essentially, all Veterans Affairs Canada employees are equipped to work remotely, enabling Veterans Affairs Canada to continue to provide services to veterans and their families in the midst of this global pandemic.
Veterans Affairs Canada will continue to take guidance from public health officials and work with its partners across government to support easing restrictions in a gradual, phased and controlled manner that prioritizes the health and safety of employees and those accessing services at departmental buildings. While access to Veterans Affairs Canada offices is suspended, veterans and their families are still accessing Veterans Affairs Canada programs and services. Veterans Affairs Canada staff are available, working remotely and prioritizing getting benefits to veterans in greatest need.

Question No. 134--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to sanitizer product purchases since March 13, 2020: (a) how many litres in total have been purchased; (b) of the amount in (a), (i) how many litres have been distributed through the government distribution system, (ii) how many litres of sanitizer have been purchased from off-shore suppliers, (iii) how many litres of sanitizer have been purchased from domestic suppliers; (c) of the amount in (a), how many litres have been purchased from suppliers that have been recalled by Health Canada; (d) have any sanitizers on the recall lists been distributed to Canadian health care providers; and (e) how is the government tracking sanitizer products and other personal protective equipment that has been distributed but later recalled?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), 20,649,819 litres have been purchased.
With regard to (b)(i), 20,649,819 litres have been distributed through the government distribution system.
With regard to (b)(ii), 10,243,813 litres of sanitizer have been purchased from offshore suppliers.
With regard to (b)(iii), 10,406,006 litres of sanitizer have been purchased from domestic suppliers.
With regard to (c) of the amount in (a), none of the sanitizer purchased by PSPC has been recalled.
With regard to (d), none of the sanitizer purchased by PSPC has been recalled.
With regard to (e), none of the sanitizer or personal protective equipment purchased by PSPC has been recalled.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the public consultation for the new five-dollar banknote launched by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada on January 29, 2020 (which ended on March 11, 2020): (a) how many nomination submissions were made nominating a Canadian to appear on the next five-dollar banknote; (b) of the nomination submissions made for a Canadian to appear on the next five-dollar banknote, what names were submitted for consideration; (c) of the names listed in (b), how many nominations did each name receive; (d) based on the analytics software installed or run on the Bank of Canada website and server, how many individuals visited the consultation form listed on the Bank of Canada website between January 29, 2020, and March 11, 2020?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Bank of Canada received 52,971 names during the January 29 to March 11, 2020, public call for nominations, resulting in 625 qualified submissions.
With regard to part (b), the 625 qualified nominees can be found at the following link: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes/banknoteable-5/nominees/.
With regard to part (c), the information is unavailable. The Bank of Canada does not collect information on the number of nominations received for each name.
With regard to part (d), the information is unavailable. The consultation form is not hosted on the Bank of Canada's website. However, the bank can report that 44,485 individuals submitted one or more names to the public call for nominations between January 29, 2020, to March 11, 2020.

Question No. 5--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy: (a) what is the number of employers who have received the subsidy; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) sector, (ii) province; (c) what are the total government expenditures to date through the subsidy; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) sector, (ii) province?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, parts (a) to (c), the latest information on the total amount of the Canada emergency wage subsidy expended is available on the Government of Canada website under “Claims to Date–CEWS” at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics.html.
The CRA captures CEWS information regarding the total approved claims broken down by province or territory where the applicant resides, by industry sector and by size of applicant, by period beginning in May 2020, rather than in the manner requested above. The latest information, updated on a monthly basis, is available on the Government of Canada website under “CEWS Claims–Detailed Data” at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics/stats-detailed.html.

Question No. 15--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to government contracts entered into by the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency, for the acquisition of architectural, engineering or other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of an international development assistance program or project 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
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), with regard to government contracts valued between $98,000 and $99,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, the department’s delegation of financial and contracting signing authority delegates officers appointed to specific positions the authority to purchase services, in accordance with all applicable legislation, regulations, policies and directives.
Information on contracts for the time period requested is available under “Proactive Disclosure” at Open Government, https://open.canada.ca/en.

Question No. 16--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Atlantic Raven and the Atlantic Eagle: (a) how many Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) personnel are stationed on each ship by full-time equivalents; (b) how many hours per day while at sea are CCG personnel stationed on each ship; and (c) what are the costs for CCG personnel stationed on the tugs?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following information is for the time period of October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2020.
With regard to part (a), the number of Canadian Coast Guard personnel on board both Atlantic Raven and Atlantic Eagle varies per patrol. There are between one and six CCG employees stationed on each ship for a total of 3976.5 person-days or 10.9 person-years, to date.
With regard to part (b), each CCG employee lives on board and holds a twelve-hour shift while on board.
With regard to part (c), to date the Canadian Coast Guard has paid $206,778 on meals and quarters, and $294,620 on salaries for a total cost of $496,330 while CCG personnel are stationed on the tugs.

Question No. 17--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to personal protective equipment purchases since March 13, 2020: (a) what amount of supplies were ordered and prepaid for; (b) of the supplies in (a), how many units have yet to be received; (c) what amount of N95 or KN95 masks were ordered but deemed unacceptable by the Public Health Agency of Canada; (d) what was the dollar value associated with the masks mentioned in (c); (e) of the supplies in (c), were associated prepayment costs reimbursed to the buyer and if so, how much; (f) what is the dollar amount associated with each contract signed for N95, KN95, and surgical masks to date; and (g) what was the total prepaid to vendors for which no supplies were received or are not expected to be received?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since March, the Government of Canada has been engaged in an unprecedented effort to acquire supplies and equipment to ensure that our front-line health care workers, other essential services workers and Canadians stay safe and healthy. Throughout this pandemic, there has been a surge in global demand for the personal protective equipment, PPE, and medical supplies needed in response to COVID-19. As a result, the government has operated in a highly competitive market and faced risks posed by fragile international supply chains.
With regard to part (a), approximately 40% of PPE contracts have included a component of advanced payments. Such arrangements were necessary to ensure that Canada could secure access to supplies amidst intense international competition.
With regard to part (b), the most recent update on quantities ordered and received is available on PSPC's website at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/aic-scr/provisions-supplies-eng.html.
The quantities ordered for personal protective equipment and medical supplies are intended to meet short-term needs and anticipate Canada’s long-term needs as we continue to respond to COVID-19, while preparing for any eventuality over the coming months. “Quantities received” includes the approximate number of products that have been shipped and are in transit or have arrived at a Government of Canada warehouse. Some contracts are multi-year in nature with delivery scheduled beyond March 2021.
The information released will be adjusted over time as the procurement environment evolves.
With regard to part (c), a total of 9.5 million KN95 respirators did not meet Government of Canada technical specifications for healthcare settings.
With regard to part (d), in order to support the negotiating position of the Government of Canada, this information cannot presently be disclosed.
With regard to part (e), negotiations are still taking place between the Government of Canada and the supplier.
With regard to part (f), as part of our commitment to transparency and accountability, we are publicly disclosing contracting information to the fullest extent possible. Supplier names and contract amounts for contracts entered into on behalf of other government departments for PPE and medical or laboratory equipment and supplies can be found on our COVID-19 contracting information page at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/aic-scr/contrats-contracts-eng.html. The information released will be adjusted over time as the procurement environment evolves.
With regard to part (g), all suppliers are expected to deliver on their contracts.

Question No. 19--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the COVID-19 Supply Council: what are the costs associated with the council, broken down by (i) salary top-ups and or additional pay for an individual sitting on the council, (ii) hospitality expenses, (iii) travel expenses broken down by type, (iv) in-person meeting facilities, (v) service reimbursements like Internet expenses, taxi or Uber costs, (vi) per diem expenses, (vii) incidentals?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of September 23, 2020, there have been no costs associated with the COVID-19 supply council. Members volunteer their time and meetings are held by video conference.

Question No. 33--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the government’s decision not to exclude costs associated with grain drying from the carbon tax: (a) why did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food say that the impact of these costs on farmers is “not that significant”, and what specific evidence does the minister have to back up this claim; (b) what is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s definition of “not that significant”; (c) what are the government’s estimates on how much revenue will be received yearly from the carbon tax on grain drying, for each of the next five years; and (d) has Farm Credit Canada conducted any analysis or studies on the impact of this tax on the income of farmers, and, if so, what were the findings of any such analysis or studies?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding part (a), according to data provided by provincial governments and industry groups, the estimated cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying increases the costs of farm operations by between 0.05% and 0.38% for an average farm.
Costs of drying grain will vary depending upon farm size, location, province, fuel used, grain type and other factors. Costs will also vary from year to year, with 2019 being wetter than usual in many provinces and, therefore, translating into higher than normal grain drying expenditures.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, obtained estimates of the cost of drying grains, which have either been publicly released or which have been provided to AAFC by external sources, including producer organizations and provincial governments.
Each of these groups arrived at estimates of the cost of grain drying and of carbon pollution pricing associated with this activity using different underlying assumptions, which makes direct comparisons difficult. AAFC standardized the various estimates to arrive at more comparable results. For grain and oilseed farms, the average per-farm cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying was $210 in Alberta, $774 in Saskatchewan, $467 in Manitoba and $750 in Ontario.
Note that the analysis received from Alberta was based on their estimates of what the carbon pollution price would cost in the province. On June 1, 2019, Alberta repealed their own provincial carbon price fuel levy, and the federal fuel charge came into force on January 1, 2020. Therefore, Alberta farmers did not pay a federal carbon pollution price on their fuels used for grain drying during harvest in 2019.
AAFC provided further context to these estimates by relating them to information on net operating expenses. To do this, AAFC calculated the share of the cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying to overall net operating expenses for an average farm in each of the four provinces mentioned above. Net operating costs refer to all expenses, other than financing expenses and income taxes, incurred in the normal course of business, including cost of goods sold, selling and administrative expenses, and all other operating expenses. Data on net operating expenses was obtained from Statistics Canada’s agricultural taxation data program, or ATDP, which includes unincorporated and incorporated tax filer records used to estimate a range of financial agricultural variables. The financial variables disseminated by the ATDP include detailed farm revenues and expenses as well as farm and off-farm income of farm families.
Relating the estimates above to the value of net operating costs implies that the average per-farm cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying in 2019 was 0.05% of net operating costs in Alberta, 0.18% in Saskatchewan, 0.10% in Manitoba and 0.38% in Ontario.
Some variation still remains despite standardization. The estimates for Alberta and Saskatchewan are based on historical averages and, therefore, could be considered estimates for an average year in those provinces. The estimates for Manitoba and Ontario are based on 2019, a wet year, and therefore could be considered estimates for a year with higher-than-normal moisture levels.
AAFC assessed the costs of the federal carbon pollution pricing fuel charge in 2018. That assessment is publicly available at: https://multimedia.agr.gc.ca/pack/pdf/carbon_price_presentation-eng.pdf.
Regarding part (b), the above results show that the estimated costs of carbon pollution pricing to oilseed and grain farms amount to less than 0.5% of net operating expenses for 2019. This is for a hypothetical average farm. The financial impact on individual farms will depend on a myriad of factors, including the quantity of grain harvested, the type of grain produced, the share of grain drying done on farm versus at the elevator, the fuel used in grain drying, prices of fuel and the moisture level of crop at harvest, among other individual farm factors.
In addition, the agriculture sector receives significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors of the economy. The federal carbon pollution pricing system includes relief for farm activities that represents a significant part of the total cost of production that would otherwise impact their competitiveness. Thus, gasoline and diesel fuel used by farmers for agricultural activities is exempt from the fuel charge, and biological emissions, for example, from livestock, manure and fertilizer application, are not priced. Recognizing that greenhouse heating fuel consumption for year-round operations represents a significant cost of production, the system also provides significant relief of 80% for natural gas and propane used by commercial greenhouse operators. Natural gas and propane use for heating, for barns and grain drying, are not exempted under the federal fuel charge as it was not considered a significant cost of production for an average grain and oilseed farm.
Regarding part (c), the purpose of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring that carbon pollution pricing applies broadly throughout Canada.
All direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system are returned to the jurisdiction of origin. In Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the majority of the direct proceeds from the federal fuel charge are returned directly to households through climate action incentive payments.
AAFC assessed the costs of the federal carbon pollution pricing fuel charge in 2018. That assessment is publicly available at https://multimedia.agr.gc.ca/pack/pdf/carbon_price_presentation-eng.pdf.
Regarding part (d), Farm Credit Canada has not conducted analysis or studies on the impact of the carbon pollution pricing on the income of farmers.

Question No. 35--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government's 2019 election commitment to plant 2 billion trees: (a) how many trees have been planted to date; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of trees planted to date by (i) province, (ii) municipality or geographical location; (c) what are the total expenditures to date related to the tree planting project; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by item or type of expenditure?
Response
Mr. Paul Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is fully committed to delivering on its commitment to plant two billion trees over the next 10 years.
At this time, Natural Resources Canada is working closely with other government departments, including Environment and Climate Change Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Parks Canada Agency to develop a comprehensive approach for implementing the government’s plan to plant two billion trees. The government is also collaborating with provinces and territories, municipalities, indigenous partners and communities, non-governmental organizations, industry, the private sector, landowners, researchers and other stakeholders to move this initiative forward.
Existing federal programs are already supporting tree planting, with approximately 150 million seedlings expected to be planted by 2022 through the low carbon economy fund, working with provinces and territories, as well as trees planted through the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, working with communities. The Government of Canada also continues to support the Highway of Heroes tree campaign, which has planted more than 750,000 of a planned two million trees between Trenton and Toronto.
As part of its commitment to supporting Canada’s forests and forest sector, the Government of Canada took early action in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector firms, including tree planting operations, to defray the costs associated with COVID-19 health and safety measures. This funding helped ensure a successful 2020 tree planting season and the planting of an estimated 600 million trees, while protecting workers and communities.
The Government of Canada is also adapting the investing in Canada infrastructure program to respond to the impacts of COVID-19. The program, delivered through bilateral agreements with provinces and territories, is being adjusted to add some flexibilities, expand project eligibility and accelerate approvals. A new temporary COVID-19 resilience stream, with over $3 billion available in existing funding, has been created to provide provinces and territories with added flexibility to fund quick-start, short-term projects that might not otherwise be eligible under the existing funding streams. The new stream will support projects such as: disaster mitigation and adaptation projects, including natural infrastructure; flood and fire mitigation; and tree planting and related infrastructure.

Question No. 46--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Canadians living in Hong Kong: (a) how many Canadian citizens or permanent residents are currently registered as living in Hong Kong; (b) how many Canadian citizens or permanent residents has GAC confirmed are currently in Hong Kong; (c) what is the government’s best estimate of the total number of Canadian citizens and permanent residents currently residing in Hong Kong; and (d) on what date and what data did the government use to come up with the number in (c)?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
Regarding parts (a) to (d), presently, there are 4,208 Canadians who have registered with the voluntary registration of Canadians abroad service in Hong Kong. As registration with the service is voluntary, this is not a complete picture of the total number of Canadians in Hong Kong.
Global Affairs Canada does not maintain statistics on the total number of Canadian citizens or permanent residents in a specific country or territory. According to a survey led in 2011 by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, an estimated 295,930 Canadians were living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region at that time.

Question No. 48--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to revenue collected from the federal carbon tax: (a) excluding any rebates, what is the total amount of revenue collected by the government from the carbon tax or price on carbon since January 1, 2017; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) year, (ii) province; (c) what is the total amount of GST collected on the carbon tax since January 1, 2017; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) year, (ii) province?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 270 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, GGPPA, the Minister of the Environment must table a report in Parliament annually with respect to the administration of the act. The inaugural edition of the “GGPPA Annual Report” is expected to be published in December 2020, including details of proceeds collected and how they were disbursed.
Under the GGPPA, the federal carbon pollution pricing system has two parts: a regulatory charge on fuel, or federal fuel charge; and a regulatory trading system for industry, the federal output-based pricing system, OBPS.
Consumers do not pay the fuel charge directly to the federal government. Fuel producers and distributors are generally required to pay the fuel charge and, as a result, the price paid by consumers on goods and services would usually have the costs of the fuel charge embedded. Registered OBPS industrial facilities will not generally pay the fuel charge on fuels that they purchase. Instead, OBPS facilities are subject to the carbon pollution price on the portion of emissions above a facility emissions limit. The GGPPA requires that the direct proceeds from carbon pricing be returned to the jurisdiction of origin.
With respect to reporting on the federal fuel charge, the “GGPPA Annual Report” will include a financial summary of fuel charge proceeds assessed, by province and territory, for the first full year that the fuel charge was in effect, April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. During this period, the federal fuel charge applied at a rate of $20 per tonne, as of April 1, 2019, in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; as of July 1, 2019, in Yukon and Nunavut; and, as of January 1, 2020, in Alberta. The federal government has proposed to stand down the federal fuel charge in New Brunswick, as of April 1, 2020, as the province introduced a provincial tax on carbon-emitting products that meets the federal benchmark stringency requirements.
The OBPS came into effect January 1, 2019. Unlike the fuel charge, however, assessments are done on an annual basis. Due to the impact of COVID-19 on reporting, the government extended the due date for reporting under the OBPS system in respect of the 2019 compliance year from June 1, 2020 to October 1, 2020. The final assessed values of proceeds due to the OBPS for this first compliance year, therefore, are not expected to be available until after the publication of the first edition of the “GGPPA Annual Report”.
The question requests information since January 1, 2017. No proceeds would arise from either the OBPS or federal fuel charge in calendar years 2017 or 2018, as these two systems did not come into effect until January 1, 2019 and April 1, 2019, respectively.
With respect to the goods and services tax, GST, the GST is levied on the final amount charged for a good or service. Under the GST, businesses are required to report and remit to the Canada Revenue Agency the total amount of GST collected on all goods and services they supply during a reporting period and do not report the GST collected in respect of specific goods and services or embedded costs.

Question No. 61--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the approximately 20,000 Atlantic salmon that escaped from the Robertson Island pen fire on December 20, 2019: (a) how many of the fish were reported recaptured to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) by Mowi ASA as of February 20, 2020; (b) how many independent reports of caught Atlantic salmon were reported to the DFO, broken down by date and location of catch; (c) how many of the escaped fish were infected with Piscine orthoreovirus; (d) how much funding has the government provided to assist with recapture; and (e) how much compensation has the government provided to Mowi ASA?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), most of the salmon were removed from the pens prior to the escape event, and the rest of the farm was harvested following the fire. Mowi recovered and harvested 1,177 fish from within the predator netting at the Robertson Island site following the incident. Mowi did not recapture any escaped Atlantic salmon that left the site. It is widely believed that the escaped fish have been eaten by sea lions and other predators in the area. As per the company’s condition of licence, the reporting of the fish escape to DFO occurred within 24 of the discovery event.
With regard to (b), there have been no reports of recaptured fish. At the request of the ‘Namgis First Nation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, issued a scientific licence for up to three gillnets to recapture escaped Atlantic salmon from December 26 to December 29, 2019. Despite these efforts, no Atlantic salmon or other fish were caught during that time. Subsequently, the ‘Namgis First Nation requested another scientific licence to continue recapture efforts. This licence was issued from December 30, 2019 to January 3, 2020. However, no fish were recaptured.
With regard to (c), it is unknown whether any of the escaped fish were infected with Piscine orthoreovirus, PRV.
With regard to (d), the federal government has not provided any funding to assist with the recapture. However, DFO regional staff have engaged Mowi and stakeholders in the area to develop a strategic coordinated plan for monitoring.
With regard to (e), the federal government has not provided any compensation to Mowi pertaining to this escape event.

Question No. 63--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the government's ethical apparel policy PN-132 and contract clause A3008C, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many times has the contract clause been breached by companies doing business with the government; (b) what are the details of each instance where a breach occurred, including (i) the date that the government advised the vendor that they were in breach, (ii) vendor, (iii) brand names involved, (iv) summary of breach; (c) for each instance in (b), did the government terminate the contract or issue a financial penalty to the vendor, and, if so, what are the details and amounts of the penalties; (d) how many investigations have been conducted to ensure compliance with PN-132, and, of those, how many vendors were found to be (i) in compliance, (ii) not in compliance; (e) does the policy consider ethical procurement certification for contracting below the first-tier subcontractor level; (f) what specific measures has the government taken, if any, to ensure that all vendors, including any contractors or sub­contractors of such vendors, are in compliance with the policy; (g) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken to ensure that any products produced by forced labour camps, and specifically the forced Uyghur labour camps in China, are not purchased by the government; (h) what is the government's policy, if it has one, in relation to the termination of contracts in cases where a second-, third-, or any level below the first-tier subcontractor are found to be noncompliant with PN-132; (i) what is the total number of employees or full-time equivalents assigned to ensure compliance with the ethical apparel policy; and (j) for each employee in (i), what percentage of their job has been assigned to investigate or ensure compliance?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. With regard to parts (a) to (d), presently, there are 4,208 Canadians who have registered with the voluntary registration of Canadians abroad service in Hong Kong. As registration with the service is voluntary, this is not a complete picture of the total number of Canadians in Hong Kong.
Global Affairs Canada does not maintain statistics on the total number of Canadians citizens or permanent residents in a specific country or territory.
According to a survey led in 2011 by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, an estimated 295,930 Canadians were living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, SAR, at that time.

Question No. 64--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to what the Prime Minister describes as the "due diligence" conducted by government officials in relation to the original decision to have the WE organization or WE Charity administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG): (a) how many officials were involved in conducting the due diligence; (b) who conducted the due diligence; (c) who was in charge of overseeing the due diligence process; (d) did the due diligence process examine WE's recent corporate governance or financial issues; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, why did the officials still recommend that WE be chosen to administer the CSSG; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why were such issues not examined in the due diligence process; and (g) on what date did the due diligence process in relation to WE (i) begin, (ii) end?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, officials from ESDC explained in several appearances before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance that contribution agreements are regularly used by the government to further policy objectives and engage a wide diversity of skills and resources outside the government.
ESDC began discussions in early May 2020 with WE Charity. Prior to entering into the contribution agreement, ESDC assessed the organization’s eligibility and capacity to deliver a project against the terms and conditions of a program or initiative and the policy objectives and parameters of the Canada student service grant, CSSG; considered WE Charity’s standing, including its completion of projects, results achieved and good financial standing on previous projects, by reviewing past projects where WE Charity received funding for project delivery from ESDC; and articulated clauses in the contribution agreement on accountability and results to mitigate any risks associated with the project development.
ESDC also outlined financial controls in the contribution agreement to govern the organization’s appropriate use of funds, by including the following: payment clauses to advance funds based on project activities and to minimize the potential of overpayment; interest clauses requiring that any interest earned be either directed towards the project or returned to the Crown; repayment clauses governing the return of ineligible expenditures or funds that were not used for the project; project records, reporting and audit clauses holding the funding recipient accountable, allowing the department to track project progress, document results, provide financial accounting and track compliance; and a requirement for audited financial statements to reconcile expenditures at the end of the project.
Given the nature and amount of the agreement, due diligence was performed at all levels by employees and management within the skills and employment branch, program operations branch, chief financial officer branch and legal services branch within ESDC from the time negotiations on the contribution agreement commenced on May 5, 2020.

Question No. 65--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to Transport Canada’s (TC) announcement on November 1, 2017, to improve local maritime situational awareness and reduce marine traffic congestion through the Oceans Protection Plan, specifically with respect to the $500,000 national Anchorages Initiative (NAI) to “bring together government, the marine industry, Indigenous peoples and stakeholder communities to develop a sustainable national anchorage framework”: (a) in terms of subject matter, what areas of research has TC contracted, and who are the vendors; (b) who is currently directing the NAI and which of TC's federal and regional offices reports to the said director; (c) what concrete governmental actions, as a result of the NAI, can be expected by the initiative’s estimated completion date of fall 2020; (d) which First Nations peoples and affected West Coast communities (i) have been consulted, (ii) have arrangements for NAI consultations in place; and (e) at the present date, how much of the $500,000 budget allocated for the NAI remains unspent?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the World Maritime University completed three comparative research studies for Transport Canada. These studies examined the impacts of anchoring and related mitigation measures, technologies and practices; the demand for anchoring outside the jurisdiction of major public ports in Canada; and international approaches to the management and oversight of anchorages outside the jurisdictions of major public ports.
With regard to part (b), the anchorages initiative is led by Transport Canada’s marine policy directorate in the national capital region.
With regard to part (c), Transport Canada will consult on a proposed approach to clarifying the governance and management of anchorages outside current port boundaries, with a view to mitigating socio-environmental impacts while promoting economic efficiency. As part of this work, best practices for the behaviour of large vessels at anchor will be advanced.
Given the impacts of COVID-19 on timelines and the need to ensure effective consultations with indigenous groups and other key stakeholders, the anchorages initiative will continue its work through to the end of the five-year mandate of the oceans protection plan.
With regard to part (d)(i), the following first nations peoples and affected west coast communities have been engaged: Snuneymuxw First Nation, Stz'uminus First Nation, Cowichan Tribes, Halalt First Nation, Lake Cowichan First Nation, Lyackson First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, Tseycum First Nation, Pauquachin First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation, Tsawout First Nation, Malahat First Nation, Tsawwassen First Nation, Cowichan Nation Alliance, Coast Salish Development Corporation, Islands Trust, Gabriolans Against Freighter Anchorages Society, Anchorages Concern Thetis, Cowichan Bay Ship Watch Society, Plumper Sound Protection Association, Protection Island Neighborhood Association, Stuart Channel Stewards, Saltair Ocean Protection Committee and Lady Smith Anchorage Watch.
In addition, the anchorages initiative participated in the following oceans protection plan engagement sessions attended by first nations, industry, government and community groups: Pacific Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Winter 2020, Vancouver, B.C., January 30, 2020; North Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Fall 2018, Prince Rupert, B.C., November 22, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Presentation to Comité de concertation sur la navigation, Bécancour, Quebec, October 30, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Fall 2018, Vancouver, B.C., October 22, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Indigenous Workshop Spring 2018, Nanaimo, B.C., May 8-9, 2018; Atlantic Region Oceans Protection Plan Day with Indigenous Groups and Industry, St. John’s, NFLD, March 28, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Spring 2018, Vancouver, B.C., March 20-21, 2018; North Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Spring 2018, Prince Rupert, B.C., March 8-9, 2018; Atlantic Oceans Protection Plan Day with Indigenous Groups, Moncton N.B., January 26, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Presentation at the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Commercial Fisheries Conference, Moncton N.B., January 25, 2018; Atlantic Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Dartmouth, N.S., June 19, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Quebec, Quebec, June 12, 2018 ; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Quebec, Quebec, November 7-8, 2017; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Vancouver, B.C., November 2, 2017.
With regard to part (d)(ii), additional engagement with indigenous groups and west coast communities will be undertaken once a proposed approach to the governance and management of anchorages is confirmed. No dates have been set at this point.
With regard to part (e), at the present date, the $500,000 budget allocated for the NAI has been spent.

Question No. 78--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard: (a) was a cost-benefit analysis of implementing such a regime conducted, and if not, why not; and (b) if such analysis was conducted, what are details including (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) when was it conducted, (iii) what were the national results, (iv) what were the provincial or territorial results, (v) what is the website address of where analysis results were published, if applicable, (vi) if results were not published online, what is the rationale for not releasing the results?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed clean fuel standard regulations are on track to be published in Canada Gazette, part I in fall 2020, followed by a 75-day comment period. A regulatory impact analysis statement, which includes a cost-benefit analysis, will accompany the publication of the draft clean fuel standard regulations in Canada Gazette, part I. The cost-benefit analysis will provide an opportunity to engage with provinces, territories and stakeholders on, among other elements, the regional and sector economic impacts of the regulations.
Since the announcement of the clean fuel standard in 2016, there has been significant engagement on the design of the regulations. This has included engagement on the compliance pathways, including assumptions around technology update and costs.
In February 2019, Environment and Climate Change Canada released the Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for the Clean Fuel Standard for comment. The framework can be found at www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/energy-production/fuel-regulations/clean-fuel-standard/cost-benefit-analysis-framework-february-2019.html.
Most recently, an update to the framework was provided in June 2020.

Question No. 85--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to government employees working from home during the pandemic, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total number of employees whose primary work location was, prior to the pandemic (or as of January 1, 2020), (i) in a government building or office space, (ii) at a home office or private residence, (iii) other, such as outdoor or travelling; (b) what is the total number of employees who worked from a government building or office space as of (i) April 1, 2020, (ii) July 1, 2020, (iii) September 28, 2020; (c) what is the total number of employees who worked from a home office or private residence as of (i) April 1, 2020, (ii) July 1, 2020, (iii) September 28, 2020; (d) what is the number of employees who initially were advised or instructed to work from home during the pandemic; (e) how many of the employees in (d) have since returned to work in a government building or office space, and when did they return, broken down by how many employees returned on each date; (f) of the employees in (d), how many were able to (i) complete all or most of their regular employment duties from home, (ii) some of their regular employment duties from home, (iii) few or none of their regular employment duties from home; (g) how many employees were provided with or had access to government laptop computers or similar type devices so that they could continue performing their regular employment duties from home during the pandemic; and (h) how many employees, who were advised or instructed to work from home during the pandemic, were not provided or had access to a government laptop or similar type of device while working from home?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting employees, whether physically in the workplace or at home. Together and apart, the government will continue to deliver information, advice, programs and services that Canadians need.
The Government of Canada continues to take exceptional measures to curb the COVID-19 pandemic and to protect the health and safety of its employees. The vast majority of public servants are working, either remotely or on site, to continue effectively delivering key programs and services to Canadians under these unprecedented circumstances.
Public health authorities have signalled that physical distancing requirements must remain in place. This means that many public service employees will continue to work remotely, and effectively, for the foreseeable future. Decisions regarding access to worksites are being made based on government-wide guidance and take into consideration the local public health situation and the nature of the work. Access to federal worksites for employees varies from organization to organization, based on operational requirements.
The physical and psychological health and safety of employees remain an absolute priority for the Government of Canada. As many parts of the country are seeing a resurgence in cases, the Government of Canada continues to be guided by the decisions of public health authorities, including Canada’s chief public health officer, and the direction of provinces/territories and cities. While the COVID-19 pandemic presents ongoing challenges for Canadians and for the public service, the government has been moving collectively and successfully towards managing COVID-19 as part of its ongoing operations and the continued delivery of key programs and services to Canadians.

Question No. 87--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the government's firearms prohibitions and buyback program: (a) did the government conduct, either internally or externally, any analysis on the impacts of alternative mechanisms to address firearms related crimes; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each such analysis, including (i) the alternate mechanism analyzed, (ii) who conducted the analysis, (iii) the date the analysis was provided to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, (iv) findings, including any associated cost projections?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on May 1, 2020, the Government of Canada announced the immediate prohibition of over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms that are specifically designed for soldiers to shoot other soldiers. The prohibition limits access to the most dangerous firearms and removes them from the Canadian market.
For decades, police chiefs had been advocating for such a measure. In 1986, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, CACP, declared there was a “worldwide surplus” of accessible firearms that were designed for warfare and for the federal government to “take the steps necessary to end this increase in available weapons.” In 1994, the CACP declared that “military assault rifles” were produced for the “sole purpose of killing people in large numbers” and urged the Minister of Justice to enact legislation to “ban all military assault rifles except for law enforcement and military purposes.” Last September, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police declared their support for a prohibition on all military-designed assault rifles. In their view, “these weapons have no place in our communities and should be reserved for use by Canada’s military and law enforcement.” Additionally, the current chief of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has declared that this prohibition “finds balance” as it “ensures the safety of our members” while not limiting “those that recreationally participate in hunting or those that actually live off the land.”
Between October 2018 and February 2019, the government held extensive public engagement on the issue of banning handguns and assault-style firearms with the provinces and territories, municipalities, indigenous groups, law enforcement, community organizations and industry to help inform policy, regulations and legislation to reduce violent crime involving firearms. While the engagement was framed by the examination of a potential ban, the discussion explored several potential measures to reduce violent crime including enhanced enforcement capacity for law enforcement and border services, investments to support initiatives that reduce violence, and strengthening safe firearms storage requirements to help prevent theft. Many participants expressed that a ban on assault-style firearms was needed in order to protect public safety.
We put in place an amnesty to give existing owners time to come into compliance with the law. The amnesty order also provides a temporary exception for indigenous persons exercising section 35 constitutional rights to hunt and for sustenance hunters to allow for continued use of newly prohibited firearms, if previously non-restricted, until a suitable replacement can be found. The government remains committed to introducing a buyback program during the amnesty period. However, the costs associated with implementing a buyback program have not yet been finalized.
While the prohibition was a crucial initiative, it was only the first step in the government’s gun control agenda. The government also intends to bring forward targeted measures to further address the criminal use of firearms. We will strengthen firearms storage requirements to deter theft. Following hundreds of millions of dollars cut by the previous Conservative government, we will continue to make the necessary investments to enhance our tracing capacity and reduce the number of guns being smuggled across the border. We will continue to also work with our partners from other levels of government to develop an approach to address handguns.
The government also intends to build on previous investments in youth and community measures, because we know that better social conditions lead to a reduction in crime and violence.
These initiatives were identified as a priority by our government, both in the throne speech and in the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and we are committed to addressing these important issues as soon as possible.

Question No. 88--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the firearms regulations and prohibitions published in the Canada Gazette on May 1, 2020, and the proposed gun buyback program: (a) what is the total projected cost of the buyback program, broken down by type of expense; (b) is the projected cost a guess, or did the government use a formula or formal analysis to arrive at the projected cost; and (c) what are the details of any formula or analysis used by the government in coming up with the projected cost?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government remains committed to introducing a buyback program that offers fair compensation to affected owners and businesses, while making sure implementation and management costs of such a program are well priced and sustainable. To assist in meeting this dual objective, Public Safety is seeking to obtain professional services through a competitive process for the provision of advice on options and approaches to further inform ongoing efforts to develop a buyback program. Specifically, this advice would focus on firearms pricing models, as well as on the design, implementation and management of a buyback program for recently prohibited firearms.
As such, the costs associated with implementing and managing a buyback program have not been finalized yet and will be further refined in the coming months as program design development work progresses. Public Safety, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, and its partners are looking at a range of options, and will work with the provinces and territories to get this right for law-abiding gun owners and businesses.
Albas, DanAnimal diseasesAtlantic salmonBibeau, Marie-ClaudeBuy backCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCanada Student Service GrantCanadians in foreign countriesCarbon taxChampagne, François-PhilippeCharitable organizations ...Show all topics
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
Results: 1 - 3 of 3

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data