Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 15
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 734--
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to Canadian aid to Burma and the need to enforce the economic sanctions on Burmese military officials: (a) how is the funding from the Joint Peace Fund being allocated since the military coup in February 2021; (b) is any funding being directed to or through state or military-controlled channels, and, if so, what are the details, including the amounts; (c) what is the general breakdown of how Canadian aid dollars for Burma are being distributed and to whom; (d) does the government consider lobbying on behalf of the military regime in Burma a contravention of the Special Economic Measures (Burma) Regulations; and (e) is the government investigating or did it investigate Ari Ben-Menashe of Dickens & Madson (Canada) Inc. for a possible contravention of the Special Economic Measures (Burma) Regulations, and, if so, what is the status of the investigation?
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.
In response to (a), the Joint Peace Fund, a multi-party trust fund managed by the United Nations Office for Project Services, UNOPS, was supporting two grants that brought together the civilian government and the Tatmadaw, the National Reconciliation and Peace Center, NRPC, and the Joint Ceasefire Monitoring Committee, JMC, to support the peace process in Myanmar. These two grants have been suspended following the coup d’état. This decision was taken based on recommendations from the funding board, of which Canada is a member. New funding for civil society organizations will continue on a case-by-case basis based on the terms of reference for the fund.
In response to (b), Canada does not and will not provide direct funding to the Government of Myanmar.
In response to (c), under its initial comprehensive strategy to respond to the Rohingya crisis, Canada dedicated $300 million over three years, 2018-21, to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, support impacted host communities in Bangladesh, encourage positive political developments in Myanmar, ensure accountability for the crimes committed, and enhance international co-operation.
This has been achieved with the help of strong and trusted partners, ranging from multilateral to international, Canadian and local organizations, such as the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, the United Nations Office for Project Services, UNOPS, Inter Pares, Mennonite Economic Development Associates, MEDA, the International Development Research Centre, IDRC, and the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, BRAC.
As of March 31, 2021, Canada has spent the full amount of $300 million dedicated towards Canada’s strategy to respond to the Rohingya crisis.
Budget 2021 proposed that Canada dedicate $288 million over three years, 2021-24, to further respond to this humanitarian crisis, encourage positive political developments, ensure accountability for the crimes committed, and enhance international co-operation. This investment is part of Canada’s ongoing efforts to address the evolving crisis in Myanmar and the ongoing refugee crisis in Bangladesh.
In response to (d), Canada first imposed sanctions in relation to Myanmar under the special economic measures, Burma, regulations, on December 13, 2007, in order to respond to the gravity of the human rights and humanitarian situation in Myanmar, which threatened peace and security in the region.
On February 18, 2021, in response to the coup d’état in Myanmar perpetrated against the democratically elected National League for Democracy government on February 1, 2021, the regulations were amended to add nine additional individuals to the schedule in the regulations. These individuals, who are all senior officials in Myanmar’s military, were either directly involved in the coup as part of the National Defence and Security Council, or are members of the military regime’s new governing body, the State Administration Council. Most recently, on May 17, 2021, Canada announced additional sanctions against 16 individuals and 10 entities under the special economic measures, Burma, regulations in response to the military’s ongoing brutal repression of the people of Myanmar and their refusal to take steps to restore democracy. Canada will continue to review the need for further sanctions as appropriate.
Canada’s sanctions related to Myanmar consist of an arms embargo and a dealings ban on listed persons, including individuals and entities. With respect to the arms embargo, the regulations prohibit persons in Canada or Canadians outside Canada from exporting or importing arms and related material to or from Myanmar. It is also prohibited to communicate technical data, or provide or acquire financial or other services, in relation to military activities or to the provision, maintenance, or use of arms and related material.
With regard to the dealings ban, the regulations prohibit any person in Canada or Canadian outside Canada from engaging in any activity related to any property, wherever situated, held by or on behalf of a listed person, or from providing any financial or related service or entering into or facilitating any transaction in relation to such an activity. It is also prohibited to make any goods available to a listed person or provide any financial or related service to them or for their benefit.
In response to (e), contravening Canadian sanctions is a criminal offence. All persons in Canada and Canadians abroad must comply with Canada’s strict sanctions measures, including individuals and entities. Possible violations and offences related to Canada’s sanctions are investigated and enforced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Question No. 735--
Mr. Paul Manly:
With regard to the government’s acquisition of 88 advanced fighter aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force: (a) in what month are the successful bidder and aircraft expected to be chosen by the government; (b) in what month is a contract expected to be signed with the chosen bidder; (c) will the government conduct a revised cost analysis of the acquisition, and, if so, (i) when will the analysis be conducted, (ii) will the analysis be made public, and, if so, when; and (d) will the government sign the contract before the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s cost analysis of the acquisition is completed and made public?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as outlined in Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, a modern fighter aircraft fleet is essential for defending Canada and Canadian sovereignty and contributing to our NORAD and NATO commitments, now and in the future.
That is why on December 12, 2017, the government launched an open, fair and transparent competition to permanently replace Canada’s fighter fleet with 88 advanced fighter aircraft. This project will provide a modern fighter capability to the Royal Canadian Air Force, ensuring that it maintains the ability to meet complex and evolving threats.
This project will leverage Canadian capabilities while supporting the growth of Canada’s aerospace and defence industries for decades.
In response to parts (a) and (b), the Government of Canada is currently evaluating proposals for the future fighter capability project from the three eligible bidders. Selection of the successful bidder is anticipated in early 2022, at which time the Government of Canada will enter into discussions with the selected bidder to finalize the resulting contracts. A contract is expected to be awarded in late 2022.
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the project timelines, with further impacts being possible. National Defence anticipates having more precise timelines at the completion of the proposal evaluation phase.
In response to parts (c)(i) and (c)(ii), the Government of Canada is currently evaluating the costs of acquisition of the future fighter capability project, as it is evaluating the proposals submitted by the bidders.
Contract values will be made public, once an evaluation of costs is completed and a decision is made on the acquisition of a replacement fighter aircraft fleet.
In response to part (d), the Government of Canada will sign the contract once the future fighter capability project solicitation process has been concluded and appropriate approvals have been granted by Treasury Board.

Question No. 736--
Mr. Rob Morrison:
With regard to the 2021 Census soundtrack: (a) who decided what songs would be included on the soundtrack and what criteria was used to decide which songs would be included; (b) how much is the government paying Spotify and YouTube for the services related to the playlist; (c) what are the details of how artists on the soundtrack are being remunerated for their songs, including the total amount being paid to artists for their songs being on the soundtrack; and (d) what are the costs incurred by the government to create and maintain the soundtrack website, broken down by line item?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the songs included in the 2021 census soundtrack were curated by members of Statistics Canada’s census communications team as part of the engagement activities with Canadians for the 2021 census. Once initial lists were compiled, they were distributed internally to a larger group to validate that selections were reflective of the overarching aim of the project. Once the lists had been reviewed internally, they were approved by census communications senior management.
The selection criteria were as follows: performed by Canadian artists, both main artist and featured artists, where relevant; reflective of Canadian culture and diversity, which was accounted for by developing 11 unique playlists; could not focus on, or make reference to, controversial or derogatory subject matter; non-partisan in nature; clean versions of the original track, no explicit lyrics.
In response to (b), Statistics Canada has procured a six-month Spotify Premium subscription, at a cost of $9.99 per month, for a total of $59.94 plus applicable taxes. The Statistics Canada YouTube Music channel was already existent and Statistics Canada has not paid anything to use YouTube Music.
In response to (c), the Government of Canada does not directly compensate artists for their songs, since they are remunerated by Spotify and YouTube through their own contracts. Any songs that have already been uploaded to either platform are available to be included in public lists to listen to and share at no cost. It is a common practice on these platforms and thousands of users create and share their favorite playlists.
In response to (d), the Spotify subscription is $9.99 per month for six months, for a total of $59.94 plus applicable taxes. Regarding the internal labour costs, 30 hours were spent on coordinating the playlists, developing the web content, coordinating with internal teams, and performing maintenance operations. These services were performed at the rate of $25.68 per hour, for a total of $770.40.
The 2021 census soundtrack web page, available at https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/ref/soundtrack-bandesonore/index-eng.htm, accumulated 52,177 unique visitors since its launch on April 20, 2021.

Question No. 737--
Mr. Rob Morrison:
With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs' trip to the United Kingdom (UK) in early May 2021, and to the Prime Minister’s comments made on January 29, 2021, in relation to the hotel quarantine requirements for international travellers, that “travellers will then have to wait for up to three days at an approved hotel for their tests results at their own expense”: (a) did the minister and his entourage pay for their approved hotel quarantine rooms at their own expense; and (b) did the government cover or reimburse the costs of the rooms for the minister and his entourage during his trip to the UK, and, if so, what were the total costs related to the hotel stays that were paid for by the government, broken down by line item?
Response
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs participated as the head of the Canadian delegation to the G7 Foreign and Development Ministers’ Meeting in London, United Kingdom, May 3-5, 2021. In addition to the minister, the Canadian delegation was comprised of the following: the G7 political director and assistant deputy minister, international security and political affairs; the director of communications, office of the minister of foreign affairs; the deputy director, G7/G20 summits division; and a protocol visits officer.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), the cost for official travel is covered by the international conference allotment managed by Global Affairs, per usual practice for Canadian representation at multilateral meetings.
The preparation of an accurate and comprehensive summary of expenses for participation of the Canadian delegation is in progress.
Once the related invoices and claims are finalized, travel expenses incurred by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the associate deputy minister and the director of communications will be publicly disclosed on the disclosure of travel and hospitality expenses website at www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/publications/transparency-transparence/travel_hospitality-voyage_accueil.aspx?lang=eng.
Additionally, the department publishes expenditures for Canadian representation at international conferences and meetings and travel expenditures for Canadian representation at international conferences and meetings online annually, in Public Accounts at www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/index-eng.html.

Question No. 738--
Mr. Rob Morrison:
With regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on May 4, 2021, that “victims of fraud will not be held responsible for the amounts paid to people who stole their identity” in relation to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) asking victims of identity theft to pay taxes on payments they never received: (a) what specific measures are in place to ensure that CRA does not ask identity theft victims to pay taxes on money they never received; (b) when and by what means was the directive outlined in the Prime Minister’s statement provided to CRA officials; and (c) what punitive measures are in place for CRA officials who ignore the directive and continue to ask victims to pay taxes on payments they never received?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CRA recognizes that there is a significant financial and emotional impact for victims of identity theft and is doing its part to detect, address and prevent transactions associated with identity theft.
With regard to the premise of the above-noted question, it is important to note that the guiding principles of the CRA’s People First philosophy provide a framework for expected behaviours at all levels within the CRA. This includes helping people understand and meet their obligations and responsibilities, and ensuring its decisions are grounded in quality information, fairness, integrity and engagement.
With regard to part (a), as part of the identity protective services, IPS, the CRA will contact taxpayers by telephone in order to support them through the process. The CRA will verify the information on their account, and adjust the accounting as required. In addition, the CRA will ensure that proper protection and corrective actions are taken thereby returning the taxpayer to a seamless interaction with the CRA. If all requested information has been provided to the IPS program and the taxpayer still received a T4A, the taxpayer is encouraged to contact their dedicated officer in order to ensure that the matter is promptly corrected.
The CRA encourages taxpayers who receive a T4A or RL-1 slip from the CRA, for Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, payments which they did not claim, to contact the CRA as soon as possible.
The CRA is prioritizing the calls it receives concerning fraud and identity theft, ensuring that they are being answered as quickly as possible.
When a taxpayer calls the CRA’s individual tax enquiries, ITE, phone line to report a T4A slip that includes amounts for which they did not apply, including amounts relating to CERB, Canada emergency student benefit, CESB, Canada recovery benefit, CRB, Canada recovery caregiving benefit, CRCB, or Canada recovery sickness benefit, CRSB, ITE contact centre agents will triage the call depending on whether the taxpayer has already been identified as a potential victim of identity theft.
If the taxpayer needs to file their tax return before the T4A slip is corrected or deleted, the ITE agent will advise them to report the emergency or recovery benefit income that they actually received, if any, minus amounts they repaid in the same year. The agent will update the taxpayer’s file with a notepad entry to explain that the taxpayer will report a different amount than what is reported on their T4A slip to prevent the taxpayer from being asked for this same information at a later date.
Taxpayers who are confirmed victims of identity fraud will not be held responsible for any money paid out to scammers using their identity, including taxes on those amounts, and the CRA remains dedicated to resolving these incidents. Their T4A slip or RL-1 slip will be corrected as required. Once the issue has been resolved, an amended slip will be issued.
Should a discrepancy exist between the amounts reported by a taxpayer on their tax return, and the T4A slip on file, the CRA has ensured that its system will not automatically add this income to taxpayers’ accounts
The CRA has robust systems and tools in place to monitor, detect and investigate potential threats, and to neutralize threats when they occur. As scammers adapt their practices, the CRA adjusts to introduce new measures and controls to address suspicious activity.
Where appropriate, the CRA works with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, CAFC, financial institutions and local police. In many cases, the CRA will also provide the taxpayer with credit protection and monitoring services.
With regard to part (b), the CRA can confirm the position that taxpayers who are confirmed victims of identity fraud will not be held responsible for any money paid out to scammers, including taxes on those amounts, using their identity and the CRA remains dedicated to resolving these incidents. The CRA is responsible for ensuring that all income, deductions and credits an individual claims are accurately reported and substantiated.
With regard to part (c) the CRA has robust policies and procedures in place, as well as training and quality assurance functions, to ensure that CRA interactions with its clients are conducted consistently, accurately, and with empathy and respect.

Question No. 739--
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces members operating in Iraq between December 2015 to present: (a) how many Canadian Armed Forces members were injured; (b) how many of these members were injured as a result of attacks; (c) what was the nature of each injury; (d) what was the cause of each injury; (e) how many of these injured members received a military decoration as a result of their injury, broken down by type of decoration; and (f) how many of these injured members were repatriated to Canada as a result of their injury?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the care and support of ill and injured military members and their families remains a priority for National Defence.
The Canadian Armed Forces is dedicated to ensuring that every ill and injured member receives high-quality care and support throughout their recovery, rehabilitation, return to duty in the Canadian Armed Forces or transition to civilian life.
This is why the Canadian Armed Forces provides health services across Canada and overseas to Canadian military personnel through the Canadian Forces health services group.
Additionally, Canadian Armed Forces offers a wide range of supports to assist ill and injured members and their families throughout the recovery process, including the Return to Duty program, Soldier On, and the operational stress injury social support program.
Through these efforts, the Canadian Armed Forces will continue to assist its ill or injured members both at home and abroad.
With regard to part (a), the Canadian Armed Forces uses the disease and injury surveillance system to capture the visits of deployed personnel to a Canadian Armed Forces medical facility. The Canadian Armed Forces searched this database and found that 744 Canadian Armed Forces members were injured in Iraq between December 2015 and May 31, 2021.
With regard to part (b), the disease and injury surveillance system provides a categorization of an injury based on the mechanism of injury, such as a battle-related injury. The system does not capture the exact nature of each injury.
A battle-related injury is defined as any injury occurring as a direct consequence of a hostile action which may include direct and indirect fire, bombs, gas attacks, mines, etc. Most battle-related injuries are caused as a consequence of a hostile action, rather than the hostile action itself. For example, a soldier injured by descending stairs into a shelter in response to a rocket attack has suffered a battle-related injury, but was not injured by the rocket itself. These injuries may be mild and fully recoverable, such as a cut or soft tissue injury, or may be severe and permanent.
The Canadian Armed Forces searched the disease and injury surveillance system and found that of the 744 injuries in Iraq between December 2015 and May 31, 2021, 47 were categorized as battle-related.
With regard to parts (c) and (d), a detailed analysis of the nature and exact cause of injury would require a manual search of members’ medical records.
Information contained in medical records cannot be released due to privacy concerns surrounding the potential to identify a member or disclose personal or health information about that member.
With regard to part (e), Canadian Armed Forces members who sustain wounds as a direct result of hostile action during operations in Iraq may be eligible for the Sacrifice Medal.
National Defence awarded two Sacrifice Medals to Canadian Armed Forces personnel as a result of injuries sustained while deployed on operations in Iraq between December 2015, and May 31, 2021.
The official description, eligibility criteria and history of the Sacrifice Medal is available online at www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/medals/medals-chart-index/sacrifice-medal-sm.html
With regard to part (f), information on the number of injured members in Iraq repatriated to Canada as a result of injury is not centrally tracked and would require a manual review of the medical, personnel and operational files related to the 744 medical injuries, which could not be completed in the allotted time.
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 663--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the government’s response to question Q-488 on the Order Paper and the $941,140.13 provided to China for the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives project: what is the itemized breakdown of the local projects in China that money was spent on, including, for each project, the (i) amount, (ii) project description, (iii) name of the local organization that proposed and implemented the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 665--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to exemptions from the quarantine rules for individuals entering Canada, broken down by month since March 1, 2020: (a) how many individuals have received exemptions from the quarantine requirements, broken down by reason for the exemption (essential worker, amateur sports, etc.); and (b) how many individuals received exemptions from the quarantine requirements after receiving a ministerial exemption, such as a national interest designation, broken down by minister and type of designation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 666--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the government's use of Switch Health for post-arrival coronavirus tests for travellers: (a) what are the service standards in terms of distributing, picking up, and processing tests; (b) what are the service standards for responding to client inquiries or complaints; (c) in what percentage of cases did Switch Health meet or exceed service standards; (d) for cases where standards were not met, what was the reason given; (e) how many of the required post-arrival tests were never completed; (f) of the tests in (e), what is the breakdown by reason (Switch Health unable to provide service in Spanish, traveler refusal, etc.); (g) was there a competitive bid process for the contract awarded to Switch Health and, if so, who were the other bidders; and (h) what are the details of all meetings, including telephone or virtual, that Switch Health had with the government prior to the awarding of the contract, including the (i) date, (ii) names and titles of representatives from Switch Health, (iii) names and titles of government representatives, including any ministerial staff?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 669--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention: (a) what national level research has been conducted on lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, Two-Spirit and queer or questioning populations, people with disabilities, newcomers and refugees, youth, seniors, Indigenous Peoples, first responders since issuance of the framework; (b) where can the public access the findings of the research in (a); (c) is the framework being updated to account for the impact of COVID-19 on these populations; (d) what current support programs are being offered under the framework; and (e) what knowledge-sharing and outreach initiatives have been undertaken since the framework has been implemented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 672--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to costs incurred by the government to scrap decommissioned warships, broken down by ship: (a) what was the total cost related to scrapping the (i) HMCS Fraser, (ii) HMCS Athabaskan, (iii) HMCS Protector, (iv) HMCS Preserver, (v) MV Sun Sea, (vi) HMCS Cormorant; (b) for each total in (a), what is the itemized breakdown of expenses; (c) what are the details of all towing costs associated with the scrapping of ships in (a), including the locations where the ships were towed to and from, if applicable; and (d) what are the details, including totals, for all costs associated with asbestos removal from the ships in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 673--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to all monetary and non-monetary contracts, grants, agreements and arrangements entered into by the government with Huawei and its known affiliates, subsidiaries or parent companies since January 1, 2016: what are the details of such contracts, grants, agreements, or arrangements, broken down by (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) department, (iv) start and end date, (v) summary of terms, (vi) whether or not the item was made public through proactive disclosure, (vii) specific details of goods or services provided to the government as a result of the contract, grant, agreement or arrangement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 675--
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to government-issued credit cards, broken down by department, agency, or ministerial office, where applicable: (a) how many credit cards have payments that are past due as of April 28, 2021; (b) what is the total value of the past due balances; (c) what is the number of credit cards and value of the past due balances in (a) and (b) that were assigned to ministers, parliamentary secretaries, or ministerial exempt staff; (d) how many instances have occurred since January 1, 2017, where government-issued credit cards were defaulted on; (e) what is the total value of the balances defaulted on in (d); (f) what is the total number of instances in (d) and amount in (e) where the government ended up using taxpayer funds to pay off the balances; and (g) what are the number of instances and amounts in (d), (e) and (f) for credit cards that were assigned to ministers, parliamentary secretaries, or ministerial exempt staff?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 676--
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the renovation, redesign and refurnishing of ministers’ or deputy ministers’ offices since February 1, 2019: (a) what is the total cost of any spending on renovating, redesigning, and refurnishing for each ministerial office, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) moving services, (iii) renovating services, (iv) painting, (v) flooring, (vi) furniture, (vii) appliances, (viii) art installation, (ix) all other expenditures; (b) what is the total cost of any spending on renovating, redesigning, and refurnishing for each deputy minister’s office, broken down by (i) the total cost, (ii) moving services, (iii) renovating services, (iv) painting, (v) flooring, (vi) furniture, (vii) appliances, (viii) art installation, (ix) all other expenditures; and (c) what are the details of all projects related to (a) or (b), including the project description and date of completion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 677--
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and deliverables prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by Gartner since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such deliverables, broken down by firm, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 678--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to sole-sourced contracts related to COVID-19 spending since November 25, 2020: (a) how many contracts have been sole-sourced; (b) what are the details of each sole-sourced contract, including the (i) date of the award, (ii) description of goods or services, including volume, (iii) final amount, (iv) vendor, (v) country of vendor; (c) how many sole-sourced contracts have been awarded to domestic-based companies; and (d) how many sole-sourced contracts have been awarded to foreign-based companies, broken down by country where the company is based?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 679--
Ms. Candice Bergen:
With regard to ministers and exempt staff members flying on government aircraft, including helicopters, since September 28, 2020: what are the details of all such flights, including (i) the date, (ii) the origin, (iii) the destination, (iv) the type of aircraft, (v) which ministers and exempt staff members were on board?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 607--
Ms. Kristina Michaud:
With regard to the Centennial Flame unveiled on July 1, 1967, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa: (a) what fuel is used to enable the flame to burn perpetually; (b) what is the price per cubic metre of the fuel used and, if applicable, how much gas is used annually to keep the flame burning; (c) what is the estimated amount of greenhouse gases emitted annually by (i) the flame itself, (ii) the infrastructure supporting the flame’s operation; (d) since the unveiling of the Centennial Flame in 1967, has the government estimated the cumulative amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere; and (e) has the government purchased carbon credits to offset these greenhouse gas emissions and, if so, what is the total amount that has been spent to offset greenhouse gas emissions, broken down by (i) year, (ii) annual amount spent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 608--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to the Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C), 2020-21 and the items listed under Privy Council Office as COVID-19 communications and marketing: (a) what was the total amount actually spent under this line item; (b) what is the detailed breakdown of how the money was spent, including a detailed breakdown by (i) type of expenditure, (ii) type of communications and marketing, (iii) specific message being communicated; (c) what are the details of all contracts signed under this line item, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) detailed description of goods or services, including the volume; and (d) was any funding under this line item transferred to another department or agency, and, if so, what is the detailed breakdown and contract details of how that money was spent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 609--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to training and education benefits provided by Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) of applications for the Veterans Education and Training Benefit, since April 1, 2018, (i) how many veterans have applied for the benefit, (ii) how many family members of veterans have applied for the benefit, (iii) how many applications for the benefit have been received, (iv) how many applications have been denied, (v) how much money have been awarded to veterans and their family members, broken down by fiscal year; and (b) for the Rehabilitation and Vocational Assistance Program, broken down by year since 2009, (i) how many veterans have applied for the program, (ii) how many veterans were accepted into the program, (iii) how many veteran’s applications were denied, (iv) how much was paid to WCG Services to deliver the program, (v) how much was paid to March of Dimes to deliver the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 611--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the Translation Bureau operations: (a) how many hours of simultaneous interpretation of parliamentary proceedings were provided each year since 2016, broken down by (i) sittings of the Senate, (ii) sittings of the House of Commons, (iii) meetings of Senate committees, (iv) meetings of House committees; (b) how many employees have provided simultaneous interpretation each year since 2016 (i) of parliamentary proceedings, (ii) in total; (c) how many freelance contractors have provided simultaneous interpretation each year since 2016 (i) of parliamentary proceedings, (ii) in total; (d) what are the minimum employment qualifications for simultaneous interpreters employed by the Translation Bureau, including, but not limited to, (i) education, (ii) work experience, (iii) profession accreditation, (iv) security clearance; (e) how many of the employees and freelance contractors identified in (b) and (c) meet the Translation Bureau’s minimum employment qualifications listed in (d), including a breakdown of the qualifications specifically listed in (d)(i) to (iv); (f) what is the estimated number of total Canadians who currently meet the Translation Bureau’s minimum employment qualifications listed in (d); (g) what are the language profiles of employees and freelance contractors, listed in (b) and (c), as well as the estimated number of Canadians in (f), broken down by “A language” and “B language” pairings; (h) what was the cost associated with the services provided by freelance simultaneous interpreters, identified in (c), each year since 2016, broken down by (i) professional fees, (ii) air fare, (iii) other transportation, (iv) accommodation, (v) meals and incidental expenses, (vi) other expenses, (vii) the total amount; (i) what are the expenses listed in (h), broken down by “A language” and “B language” pairings; (j) what percentage of meetings or proceedings where simultaneous interpretation was provided in each year since 2016 has been considered to be (i) entirely remote or distance interpretation, (ii) partially remote or distance interpretation, and broken down between (A) parliamentary, (B) non-parliamentary work; (k) how many employees or freelance contractors providing simultaneous interpretation have reported workplace injuries each year since 2016, broken down by (i) nature of injury, (ii) whether the meeting or proceeding was (A) entirely remote, (B) partially remote, (C) neither, (iii) whether sick leave was required and, if sick leave was required, how much; (l) how many of the workplace injuries identified in (k) have occurred during (i) sittings of the Senate, (ii) sittings of the House of Commons, (iii) meetings of Senate committees, (iv) meetings of House committees, (v) meetings of the Cabinet or its committees, (vi) ministerial press conferences or events; (m) what is the current status of the turnkey interpreting solution, using ISO-compliant digital communications services, which was, in 2019, projected to be available by 2021, and what is the current projected date of availability; (n) how many requests for services in Indigenous languages have been made in each year since 2016, broken down by (i) parliamentary simultaneous interpretation, (ii) non-parliamentary simultaneous interpretation, (iii) parliamentary translation, (iv) non-parliamentary translation; (o) what is the breakdown of the responses to each of (n)(i) to (iv) by (i) A language pairing, (ii) B language pairing; (p) how many of the requests for parliamentary simultaneous interpretation, listed in (n)(i), were (i) fulfilled, (ii) not fulfilled, (iii) cancelled; (q) how many days’ notice was originally given of each service request which was not fulfilled, as identified in (p)(ii); (r) for each service request which was cancelled as listed in (p)(iii), (i) how soon after the request was made was it cancelled, (ii) how far in advance of the scheduled time of service was the request cancelled, (iii) what were the total expenses incurred; (s) how many documents have been translated with the use of machine translation, either in whole or in part, each year since 2016, broken down by original language and translated language pairings; and (t) how many of the machine-translated documents listed in (s) were translated for parliamentary clients, broken down by categories of documents, including (i) Debates, Journals, Order Paper and Notice Paper of the Senate and House of Commons, (ii) legislation, (iii) committee records, (iv) Library of Parliament briefing notes, (v) briefs and speaking notes submitted to committees by witnesses, (vi) correspondence, (vii) all other documents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 614--
Mr. Terry Dowdall:
With regard to the trips of the Minister of National Defence, broken down by each trip since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the dates, points of departure, and points of arrival for trips made with military search and rescue aircraft; and (b) what are the dates, points of departure, and points of arrival for trips using Canadian Armed Forces drivers (i) between the Vancouver International Airport and his personal residence, (ii) between his personal residence and the Vancouver International Airport, (iii) between the Vancouver International Airport and his constituency office, (iv) between his constituency office and the Vancouver International Airport, (v) between his constituency office and meetings with constituents, (vi) to and from personal appointments, including medical appointments, (vii) to and from the ministerial regional offices?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 615--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to reports that some arriving air travelers are having their expenses for quarantining at a designated hotel or other quarantine facility covered by the government: (a) how many arriving travelers have had their quarantine expenses covered by the government since the hotel quarantine requirement began, broken down by airport point of entry; (b) what specific criteria is used by the government to determine which travelers are required to pay for their own hotel quarantine and which travelers have their quarantine paid for by the government; and (c) what are the estimated total expenditures by the government on expenses related to quarantining the travelers in (a), broken down by line item and type of expense?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 616--
Mr. Len Webber:
With regard to expenditures on talent fees and other expenditures on models for media produced by the government since October 1, 2017, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) project or campaign description, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) date and duration of the contract, (v) file number, (vi) publication name where the related photographs are located, if applicable, (vii) relevant website, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 617--
Mr. Paul Manly:
With regard to the government funding in the constituency of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, between October 21, 2019, and March 31, 2021: (a) what are the details of all the applications for funding, grants, loans, and loan guarantees received, broken down by the (i) name of the organization(s), (ii) government department, agency, or Crown corporation, (iii) program and any relevant sub-program, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) total amount of funding or loan approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued and that did not require a direct application, broken down by the (i) name of the organization(s), (ii) government department, agency, or Crown corporation, (iii) program and any relevant sub-program, (iv) total amount of funding or loan approved; and (c) what projects have been funded by organizations responsible for sub-granting government funds, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient organization(s), (ii) name of the sub-granting organization, (iii) government department, agency, or Crown corporation, (iv) program and any relevant sub-program, (v) total amount of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 618--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (herein referenced as deliverables) prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by McKinsey and Company, Ernst and Young, or PricewaterhouseCoopers, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such deliverables, broken down by firm, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 621--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the report that the government threatened to pull funding from the Halifax International Security Forum (HFX) if they awarded Tsai Ing-wen, the president of Taiwan with the John McCain Prize for Leadership in Public Service: (a) what are the details of all communications, formal or informal, between the government, including any ministers or exempt staff, and representatives of the HFX, and where there was any reference to Taiwan since January 1, 2020, including the (i) date, (ii) individuals participating in the communication, (iii) the senders and recipients, if applicable, (iv) type of communication, (email, text message, conversation, etc.), (v) summary of topics discussed; and (b) which of the communications in (a) gave the impression to HFX that its funding would be pulled if it awarded the prize to the president of Taiwan, and (i) has the individual who made the representation been reprimanded by the government, (ii) was that individual acting on orders or advice, either formal or informal, from superiors within the government, and, if so, who were the superiors providing the orders or advice?
Response
(Return tabled)
View John Barlow Profile
CPC (AB)
View John Barlow Profile
2021-05-05 20:08 [p.6724]
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that I was standing in the House only a couple of weeks ago in another emergency debate on the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe I started off my speech that night saying that I had been here in February in an emergency debate on COVID-19. I certainly hoped that I would not have to be here for a third emergency debate on COVID-19. I was hoping that the government would get its act together and start getting vaccines to provinces for them to distribute, to get Canadians vaccinated and get immunity.
However, here I am, less than two weeks later and we are in a third emergency debate on the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been a very difficult two weeks, certainly this past week, when we are seeing once again very mixed messages from the Liberal government in terms of efficacy and immunity when it comes to certain vaccines.
Today's debate is specifically about Alberta. I want to take this opportunity to talk about what could have been. We had opportunities to have made-in-Alberta solutions to address the COVID pandemic. I want to start with the Alberta pilot project at the airports and land borders. Almost a full year ago, Alberta took it upon itself to initiate a pilot program where travellers would be given a rapid test before they started their travels, either on flights at the Calgary International Airport or at the Sweetgrass Coutts Border Crossing, and were given a rapid test again when they returned.
I want to give some numbers for non-exempt travel participants, or non-essential travellers. During the pilot project timeline in Alberta, 50,929 travellers were tested using the Alberta pilot program rapid test. Of those test results, on the first test at the point of entry, 1.37% of travellers tested positive for COVID. On their second test, 0.7% of travellers tested positive.
The total travellers who tested positive was just over 1%. Of the almost 51,000 travellers tested via the Alberta pilot program rapid test, 1% were positive. Let us put that in perspective. That program was extremely successful at identifying the small number of travellers who had COVID. They were forced to do a 14-day quarantine at home while the rest were able to go about their daily lives. Instead of taking that program, which was successful, and moving it to every other international airport in the country, the Liberal response was to shut that program down.
We had a successful program that was identifying positive COVID results of travellers arriving in Calgary and in Alberta through the land crossing, and the Liberals cancelled it. Instead of taking that program and using that template in other international airports across Canada, the Liberals invoked the hotel quarantine program at a cost of $250 million, not to mention the stress and anxiety that it put on travellers coming back into Canada.
I want to be really clear that these were not just snowbirds coming home or people coming back from sunny locales. These were people who were travelling internationally for funerals, medical appointments and cancer treatments. I have had many of these conversations with my own constituents who were in tears trying to figure out how they could get home, and spending hours on hold trying to book a quarantine hotel with little success.
The Liberals took a program that was working, which put minimal stress and anxiety on travellers and certainly did not cost $250 million, and they scrapped it in favour of a disastrous hotel quarantine program. We know it is even worse now. We are seeing outbreaks in hotel quarantine sites. Sexual assaults have happened in these hotel quarantine sites. It has been a complete and utter disaster.
Instead of scrapping that program and going back to the pilot program, which we knew worked, the results were almost exactly the same. This is the most frustrating thing. The hotel quarantine identified about 1% of the travellers. It is not like it was identifying an exorbitantly different number. It did not work. It does not work. Alberta had a made-in-Alberta solution that could have been copied across Canada.
I also want to talk about an opportunity to address the vaccines. I have spoken about this in the House a couple of times. Providence Therapeutics in Calgary started approaching the government a year ago with the same innovation and technology that other mRNA vaccines were using, such as Moderna and Pfizer, and it could have been produced here in Canada. Now we have the CEO of Providence saying that he is sick and tired of banging his head against the wall trying to get support from the Liberal government. He is now looking to go abroad, either to the United States or the European Union.
I asked this in question period the other day. The minister said there was a $100 million program, and Providence got $10 million from it. Let us put that in perspective in comparison to Moderna in the United States. Through Operation Warp Speed, Moderna has been given $2.4 billion by the United States government. In comparison, when we had the possibility with Providence Therapeutics of a made-in-Alberta, but more importantly a made-in-Canada vaccine solution, which could have been developed and manufactured here in Canada and for which we would not have to rely on unreliable global supply chains, the company was given $10 million by the Liberal government. That is 0.4% of what was given to a comparable company in the United States.
To compare that again, the Liberals were willing to spend $250 million on a hotel quarantine program that does not even work, but they could have supported a Canadian innovator, a Canadian company, to manufacture and develop vaccines right here in Canada. Instead, Providence has been invited by other countries to go to the United States or the EU to develop and manufacture that program.
That is not the first time. Solstar Pharma was in a very similar position. It is based out of Laval, Quebec, but has investors in Calgary. It has been funded by Operation Warp Speed in the United States and its product is being developed in San Diego. That is another one that could have been done here in Canada.
Is the Prime Minister so focused on ignoring Alberta that the Liberals would ignore a made-in-Canada solution just because Providence Therapeutics is based there? I would hope that is not the case. Certainly, that is how those of us who are members of Parliament from Alberta feel. We feel that Alberta has done its part when it comes to trying to address or offer solutions to the pandemic, and we are being ignored. I can certainly understand. I hope members would see how frustrating it is, not only for the elected officials representing Alberta ridings but certainly for our constituents.
Probably the biggest frustration that we have as Canadians, and certainly as Albertans as well, is the mixed messages we are getting from the federal government. The other day, my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill asked the health minister about Canadians who were getting certain vaccines and were not sure about their second ones. I want to add a personal perspective to this. My wife has had her first AstraZeneca vaccine dose. Now she has no idea when she is going to get her second, because AstraZeneca vaccines have been delayed. She wants to know how long her immunity is going to last or if she is going to have to take one or two doses of a Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccine because she is not going to get her second AstraZeneca dose. The minister did not feel it was worth answering real questions from real Canadians who have real concerns. My wife wants an answer to the question of whether she will have to take the AstraZeneca or have to take two doses of another vaccine.
That is the frustration that Canadians are feeling from these mixed messages and the inability to access vaccines. Fewer than 3% of Canadians have had their second dose of a vaccine. I am getting calls, as I know almost all of my colleagues here are, from frustrated, depressed, stressed business owners, moms, dads and grandparents. We want an end to this. We want Canadian businesses back open. We want Canadians back to work. I want to be able to hug my loved ones, whom I have not seen in more than a year. We need a clear path to how this is going to be resolved, and we need to see that sooner, not later.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-05-05 20:37 [p.6728]
Mr. Speaker, my thanks to my hon. colleague from Jonquière for splitting his time with me.
We are in a terrible place now. When we were first getting used to the idea that we were in a pandemic and needed to adjourn Parliament on March 13, 2020, some of us stood in this place to say that by unanimous consent we were going to adjourn until April 20, 2020. It seems absurd now. I clearly remember saying that the Greens had given their unanimous consent, while wondering if we really needed to stay out as long as April 20. It seemed maybe a little extreme, but we would see.
We have learned a lot. We started talking about flattening the curve. We thought that would be adequate, because we were told it would be, but we have learned more. This has been a very steep learning curve. We could have learned faster, gone faster, and followed the models of countries like New Zealand, Australia and South Korea, the countries that decided to go hard and fast, using the kind of advice that the World Health Organization, Dr. Michael Ryan, recommended back then of, “Go hard, go fast. Don't wait to be perfect. Speed trumps perfection.” I thought we were going fast and I certainly am not at the level of someone who wants to start casting blame.
I find this debate tonight difficult because, as much as there is blame to be cast, does it help? I do not want the people of Alberta to feel that the federal Parliament has decided to lay into them with clubs. It is pretty clear that their premier miscalculated badly and cost people's lives.
I want to reflect a bit on something that I do not think gets said enough in this place. I think there is a perception in Alberta that people like me, who want to see the fossil fuel industry shut down, phased out over time and take care of the workers that that somehow means we do not love Alberta. I really love Alberta and I love Albertans.
I have so much respect for the grit of Alberta in facing major disasters. I remember very clearly, of course, the 2013 floods in Calgary. I went. I pulled rotted debris from people's basements in High River because I found myself in the days after the 2013 flood in Calgary for the stampede and just thought I could be more useful if I got a friend and we went up to High River to see if we could help. I have the t-shirt that says, “Come Hell or High Water”. Mayor Nenshi decided that even though it looked impossible to have the stampede, they were going to have it. I admire that spirit.
Soon thereafter, during the 2016 fires at Fort McMurray, there was incredible community spirit with no one left behind. There was a very strong image of a patient, orderly evacuation with fires on all sides, and the residents of Fort McMurray moving out along the single road. If somebody's car ran out of gas, they got into somebody else's car. It was inspiring.
For Alberta to be the site of the highest COVID rates in North America is devastatingly frightening, because we know more about this pandemic now. We know about this virus. We know the longer the virus lives among us, the more likely we are in a human petri dish to have more dangerous variants. We do not know yet if it is all about getting vaccines in case a variant overcomes a vaccine. We are in a very dangerous place during this third wave.
Today we are marking Red Dress Day, to think about and to pledge solidarity with all of the families of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It was early June, two years ago, that the government had delivered unto it the report of the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two-spirited peoples. One of the inquiry's key recommendations was to shut down the “man camps”. At that point, the threat to human life was from what were called the “man camps” in the inquiry. Many Canadians may not know the term, but it meant that large construction sites represent a threat to the vulnerable, to the marginalized who have to hitchhike.
I know there was a very strong reaction from people in Alberta, and of course most of the workers are the dads, the grandads, the brothers, the sons and thoroughly decent people, but there is no question but that the evidence shows that missing and murdered indigenous women and girls are at more risk when there are transient camps of workers.
In COVID, I just want to ask why it is that we, public health officials and governments, decided that when other things had to close down, like mom-and-pop shops and various places where people might have been able to be better off than in a concentrated place like a work camp, the work camps were so essential that we could not shut them down. The highest rates of COVID in Alberta right now are in the region of the oil sands. They have very high rates.
In British Columbia the NDP Government of British Columbia has decided Site C is so important to continue, that we would not possibly think of shutting it down when it has outbreaks. We have outbreaks right now at the Site C dam site, the Kitimat LNG facilities that are being built, along the Trans Mountain pipeline construction link, the Coastal GasLink. All the man camps turn out to also be places where COVID flourishes.
One of the key things about the oil sands is that the workers commute by airplane. Members can think of poor Newfoundland and Labrador, where they were in the Atlantic bubble and felt that the rates were low enough to meet the requirement under Newfoundland and Labrador law that new Premier Andrew Furey had to call an election within a few months. Suddenly, they had an outbreak of COVID from the oil sands workers, and they are having them now. If we search this we will find it everywhere that academics and scientists are saying they have a problem with these fly-in, fly-out camps. One expert said that COVID did not just walk in there by itself, it showed up on an airplane.
While we worry about international borders and why we are not being tighter with our borders, how is it that we are so addicted to oil that we turn a blind eye to the impact of these man camps that we should have been shutting down, or at least ensuring that the work force there was not commuting across many provincial borders? There were ways, perhaps, to keep people in the construction industry working when many other industries were shut down, but we have turned a blind eye to the fact of these squashed, busy workplaces like slaughterhouses. We have shut down parts of our economy, but turned a blind eye to the places that seem to me, in reviewing the evidence, to be the places where COVID flourishes.
We have seen the mayor of Lethbridge, Chris Spearman, say, “We have done the least of the provinces. We’ve tolerated protests against masks and at the hospital and rapid vaccination clinic.” We need to do more. One of the Albertans I admire the most, because he is brilliant, is journalist, Andrew Nikiforuk, who wrote a piece just a few days ago in The Tyee entitled “A Coronavirus Hell of Kenney’s Own Making”. I only mention the title so members can look it up.
He said the “numbers reflect, first and foremost, Premier Jason Kenney’s callous and persistent disregard for scientific findings and mathematical reality.” One of those mathematical realities is exponential growth. Alberta is in a dangerous place right now, and it is certainly not the fault of Albertans. We had a government in Alberta that, over Christmas, had a fairly significant portion of its elected provincial leadership decide it was okay to go on a vacation. As I dug into it, I found one of the ministers excused herself by saying she wanted to make sure she was helping the airlines in this economic crisis. I thought it was a facetious comment that would not land well, but then I read further and found that the premier had thought it was a good way to help WestJet and that there would be a kind of safety on an Alberta-to-Hawaii corridor that could somehow live outside the reality of COVID.
There were problems in leadership. There were problems of not leading by example. There were problems in not wanting to address the science of COVID by allowing the policies to be ideological. None of us can let this be ideological. We have to set aside whatever partisanship we bring to this and end up where Andrew Nikiforuk's article ended, which was, “It's time to pray for Alberta,” and I will also note that faith by itself does not do the work.
We need to do the work to help Alberta and Albertans in any way we can.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-05-05 21:19 [p.6733]
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is really frustrating people is the inconsistency of messaging that has happened from the federal government and different provincial lockdowns. We really feel uncoordinated as a federation in dealing with this pandemic. Would the member not agree that we would be better off if we had a task force to deal with this? We have medical health officers working together province to province, but there are people travelling from province to province for work.
I really feel for the folks in Alberta. My daughter's Albertan boyfriend cannot come here to visit. He can cross the border into British Columbia into one zone, but my daughter cannot leave Vancouver Island because there are lockdowns here. We have very inconsistent rules. We have a right to travel from province to province, but—
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
I must say that there are a number of worthwhile points in the Conservatives' motion. It is true that the COVID‑19 restrictions have had serious economic and mental health impacts on Canadians and Quebeckers. Governments around the world, in Quebec, in Canada, in the United States and in the United Kingdom had no choice but to implement increasingly severe restrictions to protect people from the spread of COVID‑19. Some of the restrictions were questionable, but the majority of them were necessary. I am absolutely not trying to defend the government; I am simply trying to put things in perspective.
Yes, COVID‑19 has had and continues to have some serious economic and mental health impacts. I read something on Twitter yesterday that really stuck with me. Jean‑Marc Léger, an economist and the founding president of Quebec polling firm Leger, said, “The 1st wave was a health crisis and seniors were hardest hit. The 2nd wave was an economic crisis and companies, businesses and workers were hardest hit. The 3rd wave is a mental health crisis and young people are being hardest hit.”
He was referring to an article in Time about the deterioration of the mental health of youth in the United States. We can say that the situation is similar in Canada. According to one poll, psychological distress among young people 18 to 34 is greater than in other age groups. The social and emotional development of youth and the establishment of romantic relationships results from socialization with their peers. Restrictions that were designed to reduce gatherings, for example, have had a significant impact on youth. Experts say that the mental health of youth was already an issue before the pandemic. Today, 26% of millennials say they have suffered from depression. That is a very high percentage. There is a lot of talk about the economic cost of this pandemic, but, unfortunately, there will also be an extremely high cost in terms of mental health.
This is not the focus of my speech today because, as we know, health is a provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has everything at hand to efficiently manage its health system. All that is missing is the federal government's financial assistance, which it is still waiting for.
Certainly, governments had to respond to COVID‑19 and rapidly institute temporary restrictions. These restrictions are temporary, not permanent, and that is an important distinction. Although some are more drastic than others, these measures are in place for a reason. As the motion states, the temporary measures were put in place primarily to alleviate pressure on health care systems. I think it is premature to lift some of those restrictions before the crisis is under control. The Conservative motion specifically targets restrictions in areas of federal competency, such as air travel and border restrictions. It calls for a clear, data-driven plan to support safely, gradually and permanently lifting these restrictions.
Thinking about lifting these restrictions makes me think of when they were put in place not that long ago. Today I would like to share with the House some particularly interesting tidbits I read in a very relevant book by the journalist Alec Castonguay entitled Le Printemps le plus long: au cœur des batailles politiques contre la COVID‑19, a behind-the-scenes look at the politics of fighting COVID‑19. The author interviewed dozens of key actors, politicians, bureaucrats and scientists who played a role in managing the crisis in Quebec and Canada. I learned a lot of things that are probably already public knowledge, but that I feel it is appropriate to mention here and now.
First of all, I was surprised to learn that the Global Public Health Intelligence Network did not detect any signals of the emergence of the COVID-19 virus in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. GPHIN, which is a unit of the Public Health Agency of Canada, acts like a smoke detector and was created in the late 1990s so that countries would not be taken by surprise by new fatal viruses, particularly following the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s.
I was surprised because, over the years, GPHIN had become the main early warning system for emerging infectious diseases for 85 countries. Normally, the World Health Organization relies on GPHIN for approximately 20% of its reports of new viruses in the world every year. That is quite a lot. However, in the case of COVID-19, GPHIN was apparently unable to sound the alarm earlier, mostly because of a lack of staff and funding. In fact, it seems that GPHIN's role was called into question by Stephen Harper's Conservative government in 2014 and that, since then, the work of its scientists has been valued less highly. Unfortunately, the arrival of a Liberal government in 2015 did nothing to change that. GPHIN scientists stopped issuing alerts in May 2019, seven months before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in China. Even the Minister of Health said that she did not know that GPHIN had ceased normal operations.
I may be droning on a bit about this, but I do have a point to make.
Scientists have been predicting a pandemic for decades, but we were not ready. The federal government was clearly not ready. The cuts to health care obviously did not help. One of the most overlooked aspects was the procurement of personal protective equipment, but that is a subject for another day.
According to the book, the Liberal cabinet first learned about the existence of the Chinese virus on January 18, 2020.
Let me briefly lay out the timeline of events. The WHO declared an international public health emergency a few days later, on January 30. As Mr. Castonguay put it, the alarm went off, but no one woke up. In late February 2020, Canadians returning from all over the world—not necessarily from China—began bringing the virus home to Canada. While public health experts around the world believed that all suspected travellers should be tested, not just those returning from China, the Public Health Agency of Canada maintained its risk level in Canada at “low”. With the exception of travel to China, Global Affairs Canada was not discouraging Canadians from leaving the country.
On March 11, the WHO officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. On March 16, a team from the Government of Quebec and Montreal public health went to the Montreal-Trudeau airport to inform travellers, since, strangely enough, the federal government had yet to put strict screening and information measures in place. Let us not forget that the government had been aware of the virus for two months by then.
Between March 1 and March 21, 42,000 foreign travellers and nearly 250,000 Canadians arrived at the Montreal-Trudeau airport from all over the world, including several countries that had major outbreaks.
In addition, 157,000 Quebeckers returned home by land, and nearly 37,000 Americans drove in from especially hard-hit states, including New York and Massachusetts. Travellers brought back nearly 250 different strains of the virus to Quebec alone.
Looking back, it is clear that a travel ban should have been instituted in mid-February in order to have an impact on transmission. Canada had just a few cases at the time, and Quebec did not have any. We know that it would have been hard for the government to justify such a measure.
Could we have done better with the little information available to us? That is a good question.
Border restrictions could certainly have been implemented more quickly. I am convinced that more could have been done, and more quickly, whether it was checking travellers' temperature, requiring rapid tests before boarding, or banning non-essential travel.
There was a delay between the time when GPHIN and the Public Health Agency of Canada started to become increasingly concerned and the time when the Liberal government finally decided to act. Had there not been this delay, things could have been very different.
Delaying traveller screening may possibly have allowed the variants to spread more easily within our borders. This recent experience has shown us that it is never too early to make plans to better prepare for the future. However, as we enter the third wave of the virus, lifting restrictions appears to be premature.
Right now, vaccination is the best way to get out of this pandemic. Until the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers are vaccinated, it would be completely irresponsible to allow people to travel freely again. Vaccinations are finally happening, but there have been delays.
If the Liberal government had been more proactive, it would not have waited until June to create a vaccine task force. Because the government failed to be proactive, no vaccines will be manufactured here until the end of the year and, more importantly, Canada is fully reliant on foreign manufacturers for its vaccine supply.
I appreciate the Conservatives' motion and sincerely believe that the government must present some kind of plan for getting out of this crisis. I honestly do not think the government has had a plan all along. The government is acting blindly and focusing more on its election platform than on getting us out of this crisis.
However, before suggesting that the temporary COVID‑19 restrictions be lifted, both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party should take the time to look back and admit that measures were too slow to be implemented and that if the government had acted more quickly, we could have saved thousands of lives. This is about lives lost. Just a few days ago, we paid tribute to the more than 22,000 lives lost, including 10,000 in Quebec.
I think that we have a short memory. We know that the financial and mental health consequences are enormous, but we have to remember that these measures are in place to protect our people's health and safety. I think that is what matters most during a pandemic.
There were definitely problems with the mandatory hotel quarantine, but we must remember that, before and during the holidays, the government was unable to make sure that returning travellers were actually quarantining. With variants surfacing around the world, I think self-isolating for 14 days upon arrival is still essential. The same goes for land border restrictions. People who do not have an essential reason to travel should stay home. That is part of the effort we must all make to combat this accursed virus.
The government could certainly be more understanding and more flexible in some situations, such as family reunification or if a person has proof of vaccination. However, given that managing travellers and borders was such a mess from the start, I feel it is all the more urgent that everything be in order before we consider lifting restrictions.
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 186--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to expenditures on social media influencers, including any contracts which would use social media influencers as part of a public relations campaign, since December 1, 2019: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) campaign description, (iv) date of contract, (v) name or handle of influencer; and (b) for each campaign that paid an influencer, was there a requirement to make public as part of a disclaimer the fact that the influencer was being paid by the government and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

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

Question No. 356--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the use of government aircraft since April 1, 2020: (a) how many times have government aircraft travelled outside of Canada since April 1, 2020; and (b) what are the details of the legs of each such flights, including the (i) date, (ii) type of aircraft, (iii) origin, (iv) destination, (v) purpose of the trip, (vi) names of passengers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 358--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to expenditures on social media influencers, including any contracts which would use social media influencers as part of a public relations campaign, since October 23, 2020: (a) what are the details of all such expenditures, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) campaign description, (iv) date of the contract, (v) name or handle of the influencer; and (b) for each campaign that paid an influencer, was there a requirement to make public, as part of a disclaimer, the fact that the influencer was being paid by the government, and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 359--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the use of transport or passenger aircraft, either owned or chartered by the government, between November 1, 2020, and January 25, 2021: what are the details of all flight legs, including the (i) date, (ii) type of aircraft, (iii) origin, (iv) destination, (v) purpose of the trip, (vi) names of passengers, (vii) vendor and cost, if aircraft was chartered?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Pursuant to section 15(3) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, it is my duty to lay upon the table the list of all sponsored travel by members for the year 2020, with a supplement as provided by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, for those wondering why we are debating the Standing Orders in the midst of a pandemic, we have an obligation, according to our own Standing Orders, to have this debate within a brief period after the start of a new Parliament. That is why this discussion is happening today.
I would remind people that everything we are talking about is referred to the procedure and House affairs committee of the House of Commons. That committee does the follow-up on revisions to the Standing Orders. I will be referencing the procedure and House affairs committee, but from here on I will be referring to it by its short name, PROC.
COVID has really shown that we can modernize our Standing Orders. Members will recall that from the date of Confederation we have had Standing Orders in place based on the supposition that a member of Parliament, for example, from my area of New Westminster in British Columbia, would be taking the train right across the country and staying in Ottawa throughout the parliamentary session, so that I would be here for that entire period.
Following the Second World War, we moved to Standing Orders that better reflected the ability of members of Parliament to go to and fro across the country through air travel. Now, through COVID, we have seen a modernization, albeit during a pandemic, showing that we can modernize in the digital age. I would like to start there, because the idea of having virtual votes and virtual committees as tools available to parliamentarians is something that PROC should be considering.
First is the reality of being in our constituencies, particularly if we come from the north or from British Columbia, which are farther away from Ottawa. I have been in that situation since I became a parliamentarian, travelling back and forth across the country for a vote. Travelling to Ottawa and back, I have a 20-hour round trip for what is a two-second action, standing in the House of Commons and voting. Virtual voting allows me to better serve my constituents, and it is something that PROC should look into.
Second, if we are trying to make a family-friendly Parliament, the reality, again, of a member of Parliament having to leave their children to come to Parliament for that two seconds of voting, as opposed to using the various tools that we have put into place during COVID, is something that PROC should look at.
Finally, there is the environmental cost and the implications for greenhouse gases of going back and forth across the country either for that two-second vote in the House of Commons or for committees. Numerous times over the course of the last few years, I have been called to Ottawa for committee hearings in majority governments that had been convened by the opposition members, and the majority of parliamentarians who belonged to the government side have shut down those committee meetings. That has resulted in a two-minute meeting and a 20-hour trip back and forth.
We need to have PROC look into the advisability of using these tools, for the environment, for family and for better service for our constituents. Also, the principle of deferred votes is something that we need to keep in mind. Hopefully PROC will study that important ramification, rather than all of us being in Ottawa for a vote that could come at any moment. Having a deferred voting schedule would make more sense.
I am not going to get into the issue of the confidence convention. I raised it with the member for Winnipeg North. I will not get into the issue of aligning our main estimates, for more transparency, with the budgetary process. These are things that my esteemed colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, and my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who is also very dedicated to parliamentary traditions, will be speaking to.
I want to go over five other areas where things could be improved in the Standing Orders. Again, these are all suggestions for PROC to study.
First, on accountability, a majority government not being able to change the Standing Orders is something that needs to be looked at.
Second, the issue of time allocation or closure needs a stricter framework so that it cannot be used so simply.
Third is the issue of prorogation and whether or not that respects parliamentary norms. Having it in the Standing Orders, of course, gives the Governor General more ability to accept, or not, a request for prorogation when it has been improperly formulated.
Then there is the issue of opposition days. My colleagues mentioned not having them on Wednesdays or Fridays, which the member for North Island—Powell River mentioned very eloquently a few moments ago.
Having more late show question periods was another issue. If we have virtual ability, of course sometimes ministers could participate as well. We could have more late shows as a follow-up to question period answers that are not sufficient or adequate.
Then there is the issue of take-note debates. We could potentially allocate them to recognized parties or have them triggered through petitions.
These are all things that would increase accountability, and hopefully PROC will be looking into them.
Then there is modernizing committees. Currently, we have a very laborious process around dissenting and complementary reports. They should be automatic for opposition parties, and all recognized parties should be able to table and speak briefly to them when they are tabled in the House of Commons.
We have a very complex process after an election with the steering committees and vice-chairs, and if there are allocations to all recognized parties, it eliminates what can be complex negotiations. As well, giving committees the ability to table bills after carefully studying something seems to be an interesting idea that PROC should more fully explore.
For question period, a number of my opposition colleagues have mentioned the ability to have more of a back-and-forth. We certainly see this in committee of the whole. This is a way of getting more information to the public. The model for committee of the whole, with the back-and-forth between members of the opposition and members of government, is something that should be explored. We could have it once a week or perhaps have a major modernization of question period as a whole.
Then there is the issue of Private Members' Business. We have a problem of logjam with the Senate. It means that often private members' legislation is passed and then just sits in the Senate. We need to find a way to expedite, through the Senate, legislation passed by democratically elected members of the House of Commons. We also need more time allocation for Private Members' Business in the House.
Of course, if we are using the virtual tools we have used during COVID, we can extend the hours of Parliament. If there is more flexibility around votes, obviously it could make a difference, as we could include more time for Private Members' Business. Private Members' Business should have a priority over Senate bills.
Currently, when a private member's bill is deemed non-votable and there is an appeal, the member of Parliament who brought forward the appeal loses their right to their private member's business if the appeal is not accepted by the House of Commons. This is something PROC should be exploring.
Finally, there is the issue of making the Order Paper easier to read. It tends to be very gummed up at the end of a parliamentary session.
In short, we can modernize all the Standing Orders of the House so that we can use the tools that were implemented during the pandemic in order to be more helpful and responsive to our constituents, especially for those members who are outside the greater Ottawa area. This would also be respectful to members who have families and would be much kinder to the environment.
The whole issue of confidence is not something that the government should be allowed to define unilaterally. This study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be an opportunity to provide guidelines for matters of confidence and prorogation and all of these questions that are important whether we have a minority or a majority government.
I will be happy to answer my colleagues' questions and comments.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2021-02-01 13:37 [p.3818]
Mr. Speaker, as other members have said, I will be giving my own personal opinions. I have not talked to any member from any party about my ideas.
As a former chair of PROC, I think the results of this debate may depend on how PROC deals with it. PROC is a very busy committee. It has a lot of things to do, and there have been serious, major issues raised today that PROC just would not have time to get to. To deal with some of the major issues like electronic voting or a second chamber, I think PROC should consider creating subcommittees that could have other members, not just PROC members. Some of these issues may then actually be dealt with.
My major point today is one on which I have been pushing for years now, and I will take this opportunity to push it again. It is that when we return to the House, we should have electronic voting there. I am chair of the parliamentarians of the Arctic nations, and every one of the seven Arctic nations has electronic voting.
I do not think it serves people well when what now takes several hours for a few votes could be done in a couple of minutes. Millions and millions of dollars are being spent on this. I do not think workers in Canada appreciate it when millions and millions of dollars of their money are being spent just so that members can stand up before the results go in Hansard. That is where everyone finds out how we vote. The record is in Hansard. If there were a button on our desks, we could just push it. The results would show up on a screen, and then they would go into Hansard and everyone would know how we voted.
There is also the opportunity cost. Members are constantly saying they want more time to discuss important bills, yet we are taking hours upon hours in each session for people to stand up one at a time to vote.
For members who have questions about this, we could have trials. There could be certain votes that it would not apply to and for which members would still have to stand. We could do trial sessions, as has happened in the hybrid Parliament. As the Green Party member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands has said, I think we need to get into the 20th century, even, and make Parliament more efficient in that way. Perhaps the Library of Parliament could do a study, and maybe they already have, on how this is done around the world.
I would like to raise some other potential points. First, I do not think it makes sense to require unanimous consent to start the committees. Second, Sweden has votes only Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and that type of discipline would certainly free up a lot of members who have other urgent things to do and who may not be able to be in the House for votes or, as an NDP member said, be able to travel 20 hours for a 10-minute vote.
Another point is that PROC has dealt with electronic voting before and has said it was something that could be discussed in the future, as it did with the idea of a second chamber. The House of Commons in Britain and the House of Representatives in Australia both have a second chamber. That gives more MPs time to speak. We hear time and time again that more MPs would have liked to speak on a bill, as we heard again today. A second chamber would allow that, as it does in those other parliaments. This is great timing for PROC to do a study on that, because we have a second chamber being built in the Centre Block and we have this one in the West Block.
The other point is that in a pandemic or an emergency, such as damage to a House, we would be ready to go. That is another reason to do that as well.
As we have proven in the virtual Parliament, Friday sittings work very well. There is no reason Friday sittings and even Monday mornings could not be done by virtual Parliament. Sometimes in the past, because of my travel of 28 hours and eight airports every weekend, I would get home Saturday night, depending on delays and airplanes and everything, and have to leave eight hours later to get on four planes at 4:00 a.m. Sunday to get back here. Friday and Monday sittings are terribly inconvenient for my young family.
I once again go on record to say that I hope PROC reports on the Centre Block renovations. I have been pushing for a playground in the empty courtyard, particularly for women with children.
I do not think we should require a vote regarding the Standing Order that allows a member to be heard. There should be another process for that, because it is a good way for any party to waste time if it wants to.
What PROC or one of its subcommittees should discuss are the rules for pandemics and other emergencies that could occur, such as a fire. We need more detailed rules so that we can carry on regardless of what happens. Good examples would be a standing order related to social distancing during a pandemic or for a fire that requires movement to another building, such as a second House of Commons.
The points made about unanimous consent are very important. Sometimes we go through three reading stages, hours in committees, three votes, and then the same process in the Senate, to discuss major issues that are important to Canadians. They are given very thoughtful consideration throughout our system. There are a lot of protections to make sure this process is done right and is carefully thought out. However, someone can raise a motion for unanimous consent, and then we have 10 seconds to think about something major and make a decision on it. We have to look at how that could be made more efficient, relevant and appropriate.
I agree with what was mentioned today, I believe by an NDP House leader or former House leader, with respect to the order of the private members' draw. I too was in Parliament for well over a decade before my name was drawn for a private member's bill. One way that problem could be fixed is if the order could be carried over from one Parliament to the next for members who are re-elected. I know that solution has been proposed before.
Programming in general and the programming of government bills is a very good idea. It is done in many other houses. The opposition parties and the government sit down to decide how things would be discussed and for how long. If the Library of Parliament or a perceptive journalist were to do a study on how much time was spent on some very serious issues compared to some that could be dealt with very quickly, they would find that the time spent was not appropriate. That is because programming is not done. Programming would allow more time for things that have very serious consequences and are very important to Canadians. It would also provide for more orderly progress in the House and avoid the extensive delays that we see, which are not productive and which reduce the number of times a person can speak on very important matters they want to speak on.
There are a lot of things that PROC could discuss, but it is going to have to work out how it can do it because its plate is already full. It would have to set up committees or a process to be able to deal with some of these serious issues. There are so many of them that we need a process to deal with them all.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No. 97--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to flights on government aircraft for personal and non-governmental business by the Prime Minister and his family, and by ministers and their families, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all such flights, including the (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) names of passengers, excluding security detail; and (b) for each flight, what was the total amount reimbursed to the government by each passenger?
Response
(Return tabled)
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development8555-432-1 CC-150 Polaris8555-432-10 Government programs and services8555-432-11 Recruitment and hiring at Gl ...8555-432-12 Small and medium-sized businesses8555-432-13 Government contracts for ser ...8555-432-14 Government contracts for arc ...8555-432-18 Public service employees8555-432-20 Non-restricted and restricte ...8555-432-21 Defaulted student loans8555-432-22 Canada Emergency Response Benefit ...Show all topics
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2020-11-05 15:55 [p.1753]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House today to speak to the NDP motion, which is drawing a straight line from the inequalities that existed before the pandemic, the situation that so many Canadians find themselves in now and exacerbated by different issues, whether that be poverty or people living with disabilities, seniors or indigenous people who face particular challenges in the pandemic context, right through to the question of how we build a better Canada on the other side. All these things are connected.
I have had occasion to talk in the House before about some of the very real challenges that Canadians are facing right now in the midst of this pandemic. Some of those challenges come from before the pandemic and have just been made worse by the pandemic. Some of them are new problems. When we are trying to solve those problems, we should be thinking about how we emerge from this on the other side in a much better state and with much less inequality between Canadians.
One of the groups I want to speak about I have not had the opportunity to speak about in the House so far, but I want to raise them as an example of how we can respond to a current crisis and then build for better on the other side. It is the example of independent travel agents, who have faced real challenges through this pandemic because a lot of their income is earned on commission and, of course, that commission does not get paid until their clients take their trip.
They found themselves without income, supporting a lot of clients who have had to make alternative arrangements or, mostly, cancellations of their travel, and have been frustrated at the fact that they cannot get the airlines to reimburse their money. Now, in some cases, airlines are offering reimbursements, but contingent on the travel agents' sending their commission back to the airlines so that it can be returned to the customers.
Here we have a situation where there is a lot of hard-working people who are very frustrated, continuing to do work and getting by on CERB and now the CRB. They are looking to have extended coverage because they know that, even when they go back to work and when people start booking travel again, they are not going to see money for a very long time. It is not until those trips are taken that the commissions start coming in.
What is the significance of this? First of all, they are calling for a special extension on their part, because of their circumstances, for the CRB to apply to them. That is something that makes a lot of sense, given the nature of their industry. We want to make sure that Canadians get through this and come out on the other side without losing their homes, so that the economy can get back up and going as quickly as possible and with a minimum of disruption.
If we had in place, already, a policy for a guaranteed basic livable income for every Canadian, this transition would have been a lot smoother. It is something that we should be looking at doing because, before the pandemic, there were far too many Canadians living in poverty and after the pandemic there will continue to be Canadians who have need of assistance in order to be able to live with the dignity that every human being deserves.
When we look at responding to the current challenges of the pandemic, and I gave one small example of where there is serious need, and we talk about building for a better future, there is no question that a guaranteed livable basic income has to be a part of that solution. That is part of the motion today.
Another important problem that the pandemic has highlighted is the trouble that so many Canadians have in getting access to pharmaceutical drugs. That has been exacerbated by the pandemic because many people who were able to get that access by way of a benefit plan at work, when they lost their job as a result of the pandemic, they also lost their drug coverage.
I think that is another example of one of the real needs of the pandemic. All of those Canadians who had drug coverage and now do not because of a loss of employment, that is a problem we need to address. Many Canadians did not have drug coverage prior to the pandemic and continue to live through this pandemic without drug coverage. That is a problem that needs to be addressed as well.
The way to do that is not a temporary fix, but building a proper public universal national pharmacare plan that will cover everybody irrespective of their employment status, so that when there are large economic upheavals, whether they are because of a pandemic or the result of some other kind of economic downturn, people could rely on their national pharmacare plan in order to get the medication they need and would not be beholden to economic circumstances in order to get basic health care. This is something that has been the case with respect to pharmaceutical drugs for far too long here in Canada, and something that we absolutely need to change.
One of the other problems that, again, existed before the pandemic but has gotten worse, and I think threatens to get even worse yet, is the question of affordable housing in Canada and ensuring that everybody can put a roof over their heads. That has something to do with income. A guaranteed livable basic income could help with that, in terms of ensuring that people have income to pay rent, but the other piece of that puzzle is meaningful investment in public housing, of the kind that we saw in the post-war years and really have not seen since the 1990s.
There has been some new investment in public housing in the last five years, but it has not gotten us back to the point where provinces and organizations could engage in a consistent planning cycle over the long term. Restoring that capacity is something that is very important.
I want to make sure that I reserve time for what I think is probably the most important part of this motion. We can talk about all the things and all the ways we want to support Canadians in living a good life and living with dignity, but we do have to address the question of how it is that those things get paid for.
I want members of the House to recall what my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who spoke just before me, had to say. If we want to save money, the way to do that is to look after people and to care for people. I want to remind members of the House that, actually, we already pay a huge cost for not doing these things up front. We pay for them later. We pay those costs in emergency rooms and we pay them in jails, because people who are not well looked after end up interacting with the justice system and they end up interacting with the health care system. Instead of proactively, with their family doctor, they do it reactively in the emergency room once the problem has gotten so bad they have no choice but to present to the emergency room.
First of all, I want to say, and this is not just an article of faith, there is a lot of evidence to show that when these kinds of investments are made, serious cost savings can be realized to the public purse over time if the investments are made up front.
However, the really critical piece about this motion is to say that one of the ways we can pay for these things is, first of all, to recognize that since the pandemic began, Canada's billionaires are $37 billion richer than they were in March 2020. These are people who can afford to pay more in order to ensure that the rest of Canada is able to get the support that it needs. Asking those folks to pay more is not a stretch. It is not too much to ask. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, there is something deeply wrong with a situation where we do not ask them to pay their fair share.
For far too long, Canada's richest families and largest corporations have been assessed at lower tax rates. They have been given options to funnel their money out of the country, and not illegally. They can do this legally, investing their money in tax havens. It is why the NDP has proposed a wealth tax on fortunes of over $20 million. It is why we have proposed a temporary excess profit tax for the pandemic, looking at corporations that have made vastly more money since the pandemic began than they did last year, to say that they should pay a larger share of tax on those profits, over and above what they made in previous years.
That is how we are going to go from addressing the inequalities that existed before the pandemic, which were exacerbated by the pandemic, and land ourselves in a Canada that is more fair and better to live in for everybody on the other side.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the fabulous MP for Vancouver East.
Today, we are in debate on the reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is a throne speech that the government said was necessary, because the pandemic has transformed our economy and way of life in six short months. Whether a five-week prorogation, a complete shutdown of Parliament, was necessary to write this speech is another question entirely, and to which the answer is almost surely no. However, COVID has indeed impacted every riding across the country, and I would like to spend most of my time on experiences in my riding.
South Okanagan—West Kootenay, as everyone here knows, is one of the most beautiful ridings in the country with mountains, forests, sparkling lakes, sandy beaches, mighty rivers, bountiful orchards and the best wine in Canada. It is a wonderful place to live and a great place to visit. It is no wonder that tourism is one of the major drivers of the economy.
When COVID-19 hit in March, tourism was hit immediately. People stopped travelling. Within weeks, Air Canada stopped flying into Penticton and Castlegar. Pacific Coastal stopped flying into Trail. WestJet cut back most of its flights. While a few of these flights have returned, my constituents remain very concerned about the continuation of air service into regional airports. A recent announcement by NavCan about possibly closing towers across the country brings extra concern.
As travel stopped, motels and hotels emptied, restaurants closed and up until June. Things looked very bleak for tourism in the South Okanagan—West Kootenay, but after travel guidelines were relaxed in June, tourism was surprisingly busy. Many restaurants did well. Hotels and motels along the beaches in the South Okanagan were packed. Private campgrounds, public campgrounds, rough campgrounds back in the woods were filled beyond capacity. Boat and RV dealers were busy, and bike dealers sold stock as fast as they could get it.
Every year, I ride my bicycle around the riding in the last week of August. Before I left this year, I dropped into one of the local bike shops to get a spare tire just in case something untoward happened along the trails. The dealer said that he would lend me one, but made me promise that I would bring it back if I did not use it. He was happy that I already had extra tubes, because he said that he had not had any normal tubes in months. People wanted to get out and enjoy the South Okanagan—West Kootenay. They came from all over B.C., Alberta and the rest of Canada. I cycled over 400 kilometres of trails and roads while going around the riding, and those trails were very busy. One of the common complaints I heard in the Slocan Valley was that there were so many tourists, they were taking up all the secret campgrounds that used to be used only by locals.
I do not see this changing significantly after the pandemic subsides. People have really discovered the joys of getting out into the woods, hiking mountain trails, and boating on the lakes of Canada. It is clear that we need to invest more in trail and other outdoor infrastructure to provide proper camping, hiking and biking experiences for the future.
I also want to mention the performing arts, which is a sector that does so much to make our lives worth living, and COVID has brought that sector to its knees. Any facility based on a live audience and live performance has been hit hard all spring and summer, whether it is the big South Okanagan Events Centre in Penticton, the small but mighty Dream Cafe, the Venables Theatre in Oliver, Gold Fever Follies in Rossland, the Bailey Theatre in Trail or any event held in any of the community halls across my riding. These theatres and the workers, musicians and actors who work in them have seen their professional lives comes to a halt. Most of these workers are gig workers, living precariously from job to job. They, like millions of other Canadian workers, generally do not qualify for EI. They would have literally been out on the street with no support if the NDP had not pressed for broader benefits that resulted in the creation of CERB.
I spoke with representatives from a coalition of performing arts workers from B.C. last week, and while they were very grateful for those supports, they were concerned about what lay ahead and how we would rebuild our social safety nets that COVID has exposed as entirely inadequate.
The agriculture sector was hit by delays and difficulties getting foreign workers in to work in the orchards and vineyards. I want to thank the BC Fruit Growers' Association, the Government of B.C., and the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen for their hard work in coming up with protocols and funding supports, so that at least some of these workers could quarantine and work in conditions that were safe for them, as well as safe for the broader community.
The forestry sector was already hurting from low prices and illegal tariffs when COVID-19 hit. There were some shifts cut back in some mills, but fortunately lumber prices rebounded through the summer. I want to give a big shout-out to Kalesnikoff Lumber. In the middle of the pandemic, it finished building a new mass timber facility in South Slocan that is now producing engineered wood products for projects in Victoria, Vancouver and Toronto. Along with Structurlam in Penticton, I now have two of the top mass timber facilities in North America in my riding. They are part of a trend that is changing how we build large buildings that are safe, beautiful and good for the environment.
I want to talk now about some of the health impacts of COVID. I have to say that my riding was relatively untouched by the virus, thanks in large parts to the steady guidance of Dr. Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia, and it will hopefully remain so.
We all saw the horrific news from long-term care facilities across the country, especially in Ontario and Quebec. I have been concerned about long-term care centres for years. Even before COVID, it was clear that funding and staffing at these sites was often completely inadequate. We need to bring long-term care centres into our national health care system, with national standards and adequate funding. We need to pay care workers, and all the other workers on the front line of COVID, fair wages, so that they will know that we value them as the heroes they truly are.
I was shocked to find out, when I first talked to care workers pre-COVID, that many of them who had worked for over 20 years at the same facility were now making less money than when they had first been hired.
Once COVID is behind us, we must once again focus on the real crisis facing the world, and that is global warming. We must focus on renewable energy, electrification and energy efficiency. For the past five years, I have pressed the Liberal government to seriously invest in building retrofits. It passed that responsibility on to the provinces in the pan-Canadian framework and then on to the municipalities in the last budget.
The government needs to take direct action now so that all Canadians can access funds to make their homes and businesses more energy efficient, and so that workers can find good jobs across this country.
If the infrastructure minister is looking for shovel-ready projects that need federal investments, there is an irrigation canal in Oliver that has been seeking that support for the last four years. I am happy to see that irrigation has finally been added to the list of qualifying projects for the latest program.
The NDP has been completely focused for the past six months on finding solutions that will make life better for Canadians. We pointed out that the initial COVID benefits would have let many workers and businesses fall through the cracks, and we presented positive solutions to improve those benefits.
When the government said it was going to reduce CERB by $400 in the new CRB, we forced it to keep the payments the same, so that Canadians who still have no jobs to go back to could continue to live in dignity. We forced the government to put forward a meaningful paid sick leave program, so that workers will not go to work with COVID.
We will continue that focus as we face the second wave of COVID, and as we build for a better Canada.
Does the Speech from the Throne give us confidence in that future? It is the actions that flow from the speech that will count. The speech mentions pharmacare, something the Liberals promised back in 1997. It mentions child care, something the Liberals have been promising since 2005. It mentions pay equity, something the NDP forced the Liberals to act on in 2015. They are still talking about it.
We look forward to real action. The NDP has been and always will be a party that strives for a fairer, greener and more prosperous Canada for all Canadians.
Results: 1 - 15 of 15

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data