Hansard
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 54 of 54
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 853—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the Shared Equity Mortgage Providers (SEMP) Fund: (a) how much of the $100 million fund has been distributed to date; (b) how many applications for the SEMP Fund have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) denied, (iv) received, but a decision is still pending; (c) how many new home units receiving SEMP funding (i) have been completed, (ii) are currently under construction; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c)(i) and (ii) by province or territory and by municipal area?
Response
Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), as of September 30, 2022, under the shared equity mortgage providers, or SEMP, $28.95 million has been committed to date, of which $5 million has been advanced.
In response to part (b), eight applications for SEMP have been received; seven have been approved with a signed letter of agreement, of those two are at the advanced status where we disbursed the funding; one has been denied; and zero are received but pending.
In response to part (c), the program offers to eligible proponents repayable loans from one of two possible funding streams. Preconstruction loans, or stream one, offers funding for preconstruction cost loans to commence new housing projects in which shared equity mortgages will be provided to homebuyers via SEMPs. Shared equity mortgages, or stream two, offers loans to SEMPs to fund shared equity mortgages that they provide directly to first-time homebuyers.
SEMP is not a construction financing program and as such we do not have a view on the stage of construction for projects supported by the program.
In response to part (d), our financial commitments to date under the SEMP program will support the creation of 1,018 new home ownership units, which are all located in Toronto, Ontario.

Question No. 855—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to the government's response to the nationwide shortage of children's pain and fever medications, including children's Tylenol, Advil, Motrin and other medications: (a) when did Health Canada first become aware of the shortage; (b) does the government have any firm commitment or timelines from the manufacturers as to when the shortage will be resolved, and, if so, what are the details; (c) does the government foresee the current shortage as a one-time supply problem, or an ongoing issue for years to come; and (d) what is Health Canada's position with regard to substituting adult pain and fever medication when children's medication is not available?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, addressing the shortage of pediatric and children’s analgesics, ibuprofen and acetaminophen, is a top priority for the government and Health Canada. The department shares the concerns of many parents and caregivers, understands how important these products are to treat fever and pain in infants and children, and is committed to doing its part to address the situation.
Addressing drug shortages is a multistakeholder responsibility. It requires collaborative action from manufacturers, distributors, health care system partners and professionals, provinces and territories, and the federal government. When a national drug shortage occurs, Health Canada works closely with these stakeholders to determine the details and status of the shortage, coordinate information sharing and identify mitigation strategies, which may include regulatory measures to accelerate resupply if possible.
Health Canada first became aware of supply concerns of pediatric and children’s analgesics in the spring of 2022. The department engaged the major manufacturers of these products, as well as the industry association Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada, or FHCP, for information on these supply concerns. It was expected at that time that these products would face some intermittent and sporadic supply issues, but that stock-outs were not anticipated. The supply situation was expected to improve over the summer as manufacturers ramped up production. However, over the summer months, there was an unprecedented and unexpected demand for these products and companies were unable to produce enough to meet demand, causing a shortage.
With regard to part (b), since the shortage began, Health Canada has been in regular communication with manufacturers of these products, the provinces and territories, pharmacy associations, children’s hospitals, the Canadian Paediatric Society, associations representing consumers and retail companies. All stakeholders have been working together to increase supply and to help address demand. The Minister of Health has spoken to stakeholders to reiterate the urgent need to collaborate and mobilize to find immediate solutions to this shortage.
In response to the unprecedented demand, manufacturers have assured Health Canada that they have increased production, some producing at record levels, with additional work under way to further increase production. To supplement this increased supply, we have secured foreign supply of children’s acetaminophen that will be available for sale at retail and in community pharmacies in the coming weeks. The amount to be imported will increase supply available to consumers and will help address the immediate situation. Health Canada has also approved the importation of tens of thousands of units of children’s ibuprofen and infant acetaminophen for use in hospitals. The importation of ibuprofen has occurred and distribution has begun. Health Canada is working closely with manufacturers on proposals to also increase supply in retail settings.
The government is also working to help ease pressures created by the increased demand for these products. Health Canada is convening partners from across the retail landscape to promote strategies that preserve equitable access to these products and to communicate guidance on their safe use. The focus is on promoting the best possible use of Canada’s existing supply, while work continues to increase and stabilize supply.
While Health Canada works to bring an end to this shortage as soon as possible, it is also prioritizing public communication by providing information and advice to Canadians on what they can do and to discourage buying more medicine than is needed. This was done via a Departmental statement, a public advisory and a web page dedicated to the analgesic shortages. Health Canada has also convened stakeholders in the hospital and retail sectors to better understand pressure points of demand and develop strategies to support broader access.
In response to part (c), it is difficult at this time to forecast whether this will be an ongoing issue for years to come. The department will continue to actively engage key stakeholders to help mitigate the effects of this shortage as it does in managing all shortages of critical concern. All options remain on the table, and the department has been using the tools at its disposal, including approving the importation of foreign products to increase supply and working closely with companies authorized to supply the Canadian market to ramp up production, where possible. The department will continue to keep Canadians informed.
With regard to part (d), the practice of medicine is regulated by the provincial and territorial governments. Health Canada regulates the manufacturing of drugs, including over-the-counter pain and fever medication, runder the Food and Drugs Act and the food and drug regulations. Health Canada advises parents and caregivers to speak with a health care professional in cases where they are unable to find pain and fever medications for their children. As with all medications, it is important that children are given the appropriate dose as directed to ensure the safe use of medication. Improper dosing of medication can result in serious harm. Parents and caregivers must always carefully read and understand the information on the product label especially when a new medication is given to a child. This information was communicated in a public advisory, in which Health Canada advised parents and caregivers not to use adult fever and pain medications in children under 12 years of age without consulting a health care professional, as there is a serious risk of overdosing, especially when administering acetaminophen, and a risk of liver injury in infants and children.

Question No. 861—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the statement during Oral Questions on April 7, 2022, by the former Minister of Public Services and Procurement that "With respect to Supermax, following allegations of forced labour from the supplier, we terminated all contracts with the supplier. In fact, as soon as we heard these allegations, we stopped shipments from entering Canada": (a) on what date was the government informed of the forced labour allegations; (b) on what date did the government terminate all contracts with Supermax Corporation Berhad and its subsidiaries, including Supermax Healthcare Canada; (c) on what date was the order made to stop all shipments from entering Canada and what form did the order take; (d) is the order in (c) still in place, and, if not, when did it end; (e) how many shipments have been stopped to date; (f) what are the details of all stopped shipments, including the (i) date it was stopped, (ii) inventory of shipment, including product description and volume; and (g) does the government currently have any contracts or arrangements in place with distributors providing Supermax products, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) name of supplier or vendor, (ii) product they are supplying, (iii) contract value, (iv) date the contract was signed, (v) reasons why the government did not terminate the contract or agreement?
Response
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, on October 21, 2021, PSPC learned from media reports that the United States Customs and Border Protection had issued an order that prohibits imports from Supermax based on reasonable information that indicated the use of forced labour in the company's manufacturing operations in Malaysia.
In response to part (b), all active contracts for Supermax that were managed by PSPC had their shipments suspended on October 25, 2021, and were terminated on January 17, 2022.
In response to part (c), on October 25, 2021, PSPC communicated to Supermax Healthcare Canada that it remained concerned about the risk of forced labor and poor working conditions abroad, seeking an explanation in regard to the media reports of allegations of the use of forced labor. In light of this new allegation, PSPC requested Supermax Healthcare Canada suspend all future deliveries until Canada was satisfied that its contracted gloves were produced without forced labor.
In response to parts (d), (e) and (f), PSPC did not produce an order. PSPC asked Supermax Healthcare Canada to suspend all future deliveries until Canada was satisfied that its contracted gloves were produced without forced labor. On December 16, 2021, Supermax Healthcare Canada provided Canada a summary response to the findings of the first of four audit reports. This audit was conducted at the Malaysian sites by an independent firm. Canada reviewed the report and did not believe it had sufficient information to fully assess the matter. Rather than waiting for the full audit report, which was due in April 2022, on December 22, 2021, Canada and Supermax Healthcare Canada mutually agreed to proceed with a termination of contracts. Contracts were terminated on January 17, 2022.
In response to part (g), this information is not available in the acquisition information system. In order to be able to identify any contracts or arrangements in place with distributors providing Supermax products, a manual review of existing contracts would be required. This work could not be completed in the time allotted to respond to the question.

Question No. 862—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the Canada Digital Adoption Program: (a) what is the number of businesses which have applied, as of October 5, 2022, to the (i) Grow Your Business Online stream, (ii) Boost Your Business Technology stream; (b) what is the total number of businesses which have received funding or assistance through each of the (i) Grow Your Business Online stream, (ii) Boost Your Business Technology stream; (c) what is the number of students hired, as of October 5, 2022, via the (i) Grow Your Business Online stream, (ii) Boost Your Business Technology stream, broken down by week since April 6, 2022; and (d) of the $ 47,122,734 value of the contracts allocated to Magnet to administer the Boost Your Business Technology stream for the 2022-23 fiscal year, what is the dollar amount that has so far been provided to Magnet, broken down by week since April 1, 2022?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding part (a)(i) of the question, as of September 30, 2022, 5,225 small businesses have applied for a grant to the grow your business online stream. Data is reported on a monthly basis and cannot be broken down by a specific day or week; therefore, the number of businesses that have applied is as of September 30.
Regarding part (a)(ii), as of October 5, 2022, 5,584 businesses have applied for the boost your business technology stream.
Regarding part (b)(i), as of September 30, 2022, 1,469 small businesses have received funding or signed a grant agreement through the grow your business online stream. Data is reported on a monthly basis and cannot be broken down by a specific day or week; therefore, the number of businesses that have applied is as of September 30.
Regarding part (b)(ii), as of October 5, 2022, 8,514 businesses completed the digital needs assessment tool, which provides them with an evaluation of their digital readiness and maturity and suggests areas of focus for their digital transformation. The Canada digital adoption program’s boost your business technology stream also provided grant funding to 501 businesses to cover the cost of retaining a digital advisory firm to create a tailor-made digital adoption plan for their business.
With regard to part (c)(i), as of September 30, 2022, 577 e-commerce advisers have been hired under the grow your business online stream. Data is reported on a monthly basis and cannot be broken down by a specific day or week; therefore, the number of businesses that have applied is as of September 30.
Regarding part (c)(ii), the time required for an SME to complete a tailored digital adoption plan with a digital adviser under the boost your business technology stream can take between four to six months. Due to this, only recently have there been requests for youth work placements. Additionally, the youth adviser component is an optional part of the program, as such not every business will request a youth placement. Magnet’s management fees are capped at 12%.
While no student hires have been concluded as of October 5, 2022, numerous businesses were active on the Magnet matching portal. One hundred requests from businesses had been made for youth work placements. Demand for boost your business technology work placements is increasing each month, reflecting the growing number of businesses that have completed digital adoption plans and become eligible for placement referral.
With regard to part (d), the first payment was made to Magnet on October 3, 2022, for $1,271,866.98.

Question No. 863—
Mr. Mike Lake:
With regard to the commitment by the Prime Minister in the 2021 Liberal election platform to establish a Canada mental health transfer (CMHT): (a) why did the government not fulfill the commitment on page 75 of the platform indicating that the government would provide $250 million to the transfer in the 2021-22 fiscal year; and (b) wiII the government be providing $625 million to the transfer in the 2022-23 fiscal year as stated in the platform and, if not, why not?
Response
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, supporting the mental health and substance use care needs of Canadians is a top priority for the government.
The government reaffirmed in budget 2022 its commitment to engaging with provinces and territories to inform the development of the Canada mental health transfer, or CMHT. When established, the CMHT will build on the significant investment of $5 billion over 10 years that is currently being provided to provinces and territories to expand access to mental health and addiction services, which represents $600 million per year until 2027. The CMHT will assist jurisdictions to expand the delivery of high-quality, accessible mental health services across Canada.
In support of this objective, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has also undertaken and continues to engage with a wide variety of partners, stakeholders and Canadians with lived or living experience through meetings and round tables to gather views to inform the development of the transfer, as well as a comprehensive and evidence-based mental health and substance use strategy.
At the November 7 to 8 health ministers’ meeting in Vancouver, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions engaged provinces and territories on critical issues to improve health care, including addressing health human resources challenges, health data and digital health, and integrated mental health and substance use services.
Canadians deserve better access to family health services as well as mental health and substance use services. The discussions at the health ministers’ meeting are going to inform health funding discussions going forward.

Question No. 864—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, which received Royal Assent on June 23, 2022, and which included amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act, allowing for the forfeiture of assets and property of sanctioned individuals and entities, by the government: (a) how many applications for forfeiture have been made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs since June 23, 2022; (b) what individuals or entities were the subject of such forfeiture applications; (c) from which countries did these individuals or entities originate; (d) what was the total value of assets and property that was the subject of such forfeiture applications; (e) have any court proceedings been initiated as a result of such forfeiture applications, and, if so, what are the details; and (f) have any individuals or governments been compensated with the assets seized under such forfeiture applications, and, if so, what are the details including who was compensated and how much was provided?
Response
Hon. 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.
In response to parts (a) to (f) of the question, Canada and its G7 and other allies jointly decided to take further steps to isolate Russia from the international financial system and impose consequences for its actions, including by establishing the Russian elites, proxies and oligarchs, or REPO, task force. Following the March 16, 2022, meeting of the REPO task force, G7 finance ministers released a joint statement outlining their commitment to take all available legal steps to find, restrain, freeze and, where appropriate, seize, confiscate or forfeit the assets of individuals and entities that have been sanctioned in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This commitment seeks to target the assets of key sanctioned Russian elites and proxies.
Canada moved rapidly and is the first country in the G7 to implement the REPO commitment, further demonstrating Canada’s leadership role in the response to Putin’s unjustified and illegal war in Ukraine. The budget implementation act, which received royal asset on June 23, 2022, established the new asset seizure and forfeiture authorities as part of Canada’s overall sanctions regime, through designated changes to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Foreign Corrupt Officials Act. These changes provide authorities to allow Canadian courts to order seized or restrained property in Canada that is owned, held or controlled by sanctioned individuals and entities to be forfeited to the Government of Canada. Funds resulting from asset forfeiture may be used to compensate victims of human rights abuses, restore international peace and security or rebuild affected states.
Since the enactment of these legislative changes, a whole-of-government effort has been under way to operationalize the new authorities and move forward with respect to the first potential seizure of assets.
At present, the government is actively engaged in identifying and analyzing potential target assets, including building solid evidentiary packages to support seizure and forfeiture orders. Such steps are crucial to the successful implementation of this new regime.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 851—
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency's reduced hours of operation at land ports of entry, broken down by each port of entry: (a) what were the hours of operation in 2019; (b) what are the current hours of operation; and (c) on what date will each port of entry with reduced operating hours compared to 2019 have their hours restored to pre-pandemic levels?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 852—
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to polling conducted by the government since January 1, 2022: what are the details of each poll conducted by the government, including the (i) date conducted, (ii) subject matter, (iii) vendor having conducted the poll, (iv) type of poll (online, phone, etc.), (v) number of individuals polled, (vi) demographics of who was polled, (vii) questions asked, (viii) results?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 854—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to overpayments made by the Public Service Pension Plan (PSPP) since 2014, broken down by year: (a) what is the total value of overpayments made by the PSPP; (b) how many retirees received overpayments; (c) of the amount in (a), how much (i) has since been recovered, (ii) has since been forgiven, (iii) is still outstanding; and (d) what is the breakdown of (a) through (c) by department or agency of the recipient's last place of work and by employment levels (EX, AS, etc.), if known?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 857—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to Health Canada's position on the practice of repackaging single use medications to treat macular degeneration, since 2016: (a) does Health Canada allow the practice; (b) what risks does Health Canada recognize as existing with the practice; (c) has Health Canada studied the risks associated with the practice related to (i) sterility, (ii) cold chain protection, (iii) ultraviolet light protection, (iv) accurate dosing, (v) contamination, (vi) transportation issues, and, if so, what were the findings related to each risk; (d) has Health Canada or the Minister of Health received any warnings or correspondence indicating or suggesting that the practice is occurring in Canada, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) date, (ii) author of the warning or correspondence, (iii) summary of warning or correspondence, (iv) recipient, (v) summary of response given by Health Canada or the Minister's office; and (e) for each warning or correspondence that was received in (d), what follow-up action was taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 858—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to Sport Canada: (a) what are the details of all gifts, including sports tickets, received by officials at Sport Canada since January 1, 2018, including for each the (i) date given (ii) description, (iii) quantity, (iv) value per unit, (v) total value, (vi) title of recipients; and (b) for all gifts that were tickets or included tickets, what are the details of the event, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) description of event, (iii) location, (iv) sport, if applicable, (v) league or sports organization putting on the event, if applicable, (vi) recipient, (vii) quantity of tickets, (viii) total value of tickets?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 859—
Mr. Rob Morrison:
With regard to contracts signed by the government since January 1, 2020, related to the Roxham Road border crossing: what are the details of all such contracts, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the value, (iv) a description of goods or services, including volume, (v) whether the contract was awarded through a sole-sourced contract or competitive bid process?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 860—
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to the government's decision not to list the whole of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity: has the government been lobbied or had any meetings with entities who advocated in favour of the IRGC being allowed to operate in Canada and advocated against the IRGC being listed as a terrorist entity since January 1, 2019, and, if so, what are the details of all such meetings, including, the (i) date, (ii) titles and organizations or who attended, from both the government and third party sides, (iii) location, (iv) summary of what happened at the meeting?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 846—
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to the government's response to the report by the City of Calgary's corporate planning and financial services, which indicated that the federal government's proposed clean electricity regulations that would increase electricity prices in Alberta by $45 billion over 15 years: has the government's analysis also reached the same conclusion, and, if not, what are the government's estimates with regard to the proposed regulations' effect on Alberta's electricity prices?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is developing clean electricity regulations, or CER, to help drive progress towards a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. The proposed regulations have yet to be finalized. They are being designed to ensure the decarbonization of Canada’s already low-carbon grid while ensuring continued energy reliability and affordability. The decarbonization of our electricity grid is an essential prerequisite to achieving a net-zero economy by 2050, as it will enable the electrification of many activities currently supported by emitting sources of energy. This critical energy transition is being supported by the investments that the government is making in clean electricity infrastructure and technology development.
As with all regulatory initiatives, the Government of Canada is undertaking detailed analysis to understand the costs and benefits of the CER for Canadians. These estimates will be included in the regulatory impact analysis statement, or RIAS, which will accompany the publication of the draft regulations in Canada Gazette, part I, or CGI.
Work is progressing on the draft regulations and the accompanying RIAS for CGI publication. A public comment period will follow the publication enabling the government to account for further input on the RIAS and the regulations before finalizing them.

Question No. 850—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to the interim dental benefit provisions in Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing: (a) what are the estimated costs to administer the dental program (i) in the 2022-23 fiscal year, (ii) throughout the interim program, from October 2022 to June 2024; and (b) what is the breakdown, by standard object, of (a)(i) and (ii)?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, per the Prime Minister’s news release of September 13, 2022, the total cost for this two-year interim benefit, including both the administrative cost of delivering the benefit and the funds disbursed to Canadians, is estimated at $938 million. This is fully covered within the funding announced for dental care in budget 2022.
The distribution of this amount is $352 million for the 2022-23 fiscal year and $586 million for the remainder of the duration of the program, which is 2023-24 and 2024-25.
In response to part (b), a breakdown by standard object is not available at this time.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 845—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to the resumption of in-person services at Veterans Affairs Canada area offices across Canada, on an appointment-only basis, broken down by area office and by month since January 1, 2022: how many in-person visits through appointments were made by veterans and how many different veterans made such visits?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 847—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to the federal carbon tax or price on carbon, broken down by year, since fiscal year 2019-20: how much has been collected in the Province of Alberta (i) in total, (ii) broken down by industry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 848—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI): (a) how many projects have been funded to date; (b) how many units do the projects in (a) represent; (c) what is the breakdown, by province or territory and by municipality of the (i) number of projects, (ii) number of units; and (d) what are the details of all RHI projects funded to date for Indigenous housing, including the (i) location, (ii) project description, (iii) number of units, (iv) expected completion date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 849—
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to falconry services obtained or used by the government since 2016, broken down by department or agency: (a) what are the details of all instances where the government has used falconry services, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) a summary of the situation, including reasons for using falconry, (iv) what was accomplished with falconry; (b) what are the details of all contracts related to falconry, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the value, (iv) the start and end dates of the falconry services, (v) a summary of goods or services, (vi) the number of falcons covered by the contract; and (c) for each contract in (b), was it awarded through a sole-source contract or a competitive bidding process?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 836—
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the federal carbon tax or price on carbon: (a) what is the cumulative amount of carbon tax revenue which has been collected from agricultural producers in the (i) 2019-20, (ii) 2020-21, (iii) 2021-22, fiscal year; (b) what is the projected amount of carbon tax revenue which has been rebated to agricultural producers in the (i) 2019-20, (ii) 2020-21, (iii) 2021-22, fiscal year; (c) what is the cumulative amount of carbon tax revenue projected to be collected from agricultural producers in the (i) 2022-23, (ii) 2023-24, (iii) 2024-25, fiscal year; (d) what is the cumulative amount of carbon tax revenue projected to be rebated to agricultural producers in the (i) 2022-23, (ii) 2023-24, (iii) 2024-25, fiscal year; (e) what are the details of how the amount in (a) was calculated, including a breakdown of how much revenue came from gas, electricity, and other items impacted by the carbon tax; and (f) what is the breakdown of (a) through (d) by province where the federal carbon tax is in effect?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal fuel charge is generally not paid directly by consumers of fuel. Rather, the federal fuel charge is generally paid to the Canada Revenue Agency through monthly returns filed by producers or distributors of fuel. These returns only account for aggregate amounts. Typically, once the fuel charge has been paid by a fuel producer or distributor, there is no further reporting of who finally directly bears the cost of the federal fuel charge.
The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or GGPPA, provides significant up-front relief for farmers from the fuel charge. Notably, the GGPPA provides farmers with relief from the fuel charge for gasoline and light fuel oil (e.g., diesel) used in tractors and other farm machinery. The relief is provided through the use of exemption certificates when certain conditions are met. As the fuel charge is ultimately not paid by the registered distributor upon delivery when an exemption certificate applies, there is no reported amount of this relief.
In addition, recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, the Government of Canada recently implemented a refundable tax credit to return a portion of fuel charge proceeds directly to farming businesses operating in backstop fuel charge provinces, currently Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, starting in the 2021-22 fuel charge year. The credit aims to help farmers transition to lower-pollution ways of farming, while also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.
It is estimated that farmers will receive approximately $100 million in the first year with this amount increasing to approximately $122 million for the 2022-23 fuel charge year. Amounts returned for the 2023-24 fuel charge year and beyond are expected to increase further as the price on pollution continues to rise. Actual amounts returned will depend on the number of farmers claiming the credit and their eligible expenses. As this is the first year of implementation, further information on the actual amount returned through the return of fuel charge to farmers tax credit will not be known until the following fiscal year.

Question No. 837—
Ms. Melissa Lantsman:
With regard to the decision by the government to only list one of the five branches of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), namely the Quds Force, as a terrorist entity: (a) why does the government refuse to list the entire IRGC as a terrorist entity; and (b) is there any specific criteria or threshold which the government does not consider to have been met which is preventing the entire IRGC from being listed as a terrorist entity, and, if so, what criteria or threshold has not been met?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has strong measures in place to ensure Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, are held accountable for their support of terrorism, including some of the toughest and most comprehensive sanctions in the world.
Within the last month an additional 42 individuals and 12 entities were announced to be sanctioned under the special economic measures Iran regulations, or SEMA, in addition to the 202 previously listed Iranian entities and individuals. These measures prohibit dealings related to the listed individuals and entities, some of whom have participated in or enabled gross human rights violations, including against Iranian women, and perpetuated disinformation activities to justify the Iranian regime’s repression and persecution of its citizens. The assets these individuals and entities may hold in Canada will be effectively frozen.
On October 7, 2022, the Prime Minister announced the intention to list the Iranian regime and its top leaders, more than 10,000 officers and senior members, as perpetually inadmissible to Canada for their engagement in terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations, by pursuing a designation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA. This includes heads of state, high ranking officials of the IRGC, intelligence officials, senior public servants, diplomats and members of the judiciary.
In addition to these recent actions, Iran continues to be designated as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act.
Moreover, the IRGC’s Quds Force continues to be listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. In addition to the Quds Force, the government lists a number of terrorist entities under this regime that have benefited from its patronage and that have helped advance Iran’s interests and foreign policy. These include Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban Al-Ashtar Brigades, Harakat al-Sabireen and the Fatemiyoun Division. The Criminal Code sets out a terrorist listing regime to help prevent the use of Canada’s financial system to further terrorist activity and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences.
The assessment process for listing a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code is one of continuous analysis to ensure that the process and tools used are rigorous and based on evidence, intelligence as well as domestic and international law.
The government pursues all the tools at its disposal and is working with like-minded countries to continue to keep pressure on Iran to cease its unlawful and terrorist behavior. The government is taking action to ensure that nobody who is responsible for Iran’s egregious actions can operate in Canada. Canadians can be confident in the work performed by our security agencies, which are alert to evolving threats and will not hesitate to take necessary action.

Question No. 842—
Mr. Bob Zimmer:
With regard to the government's response to extraterritorial police forces or similar types of foreign entities operating in Canada: (a) what countries is the government aware of that currently have police forces operating in Canada; (b) what is the government's estimate on the number of individuals currently in the country belonging to each force, broken down by country; and (c) has the government taken any specific action to stop Canadian citizens from being harassed, intimidated or otherwise negatively impacted by members of such forces?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Regarding the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and part (a) of the question, given its mandate and specific operational requirements, CSIS does not generally disclose details related to operational activity. With respect to part (b), given its mandate and specific operational requirements, CSIS does not generally disclose details related to operational activity. With regard to part (c), Canadians should never be subject to harassment or intimidation by foreign actors. As such, CSIS is committed to fulfilling its mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada and the Canadian population. This includes any foreign influenced activity that is detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive, or involve a threat to any person. However, given its mandate and operational requirements, CSIS does not generally disclose details related to specific operational activity.
Regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and part (a) of the question, in order for an international law enforcement agency to operate in Canada they must notify the INTERPOL national central bureau in Ottawa and seek approval under the foreign criminal investigators in Canada, or FCIC, protocol. This protocol sets out Canada’s notification and approval requirements for regulating the entry and monitoring of foreign criminal investigators pursuing foreign criminal investigations in Canada.
The FCIC protocol is aimed at safeguarding Canadian security, sovereignty and public interest, while ensuring adherence by foreign law enforcement and prosecution agencies to applicable Canadian policy and legislation, including the Criminal Code of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Privacy Act. As of October 17, 2022, there are currently no international law enforcement agencies operating in Canada under the FCIC protocol.
That said, the RCMP is aware of and is investigating allegations of unauthorized police presence in Canada. Since the investigation is ongoing, there will be no further comment on the matter at this time.
With regard to part (b), as noted in the answer for part (a), there are currently no international law enforcement agencies operating in Canada under the FCIC protocol. The RCMP is aware of and is investigating allegations of unauthorized police presence in Canada. Given the investigation is ongoing, there will be no further comment on the matter at this time.
With regard to part (c), as part of the RCMP’s international policing liaison officer program, the RCMP organizes regular briefings with foreign partners hosted in country to ensure they remain continuously abreast on Canadian laws and legal requirements.
In terms of actions taken, the RCMP works closely with domestic and international partners to counter any hostile activities by foreign states.
Foreign interference, or FI, entails foreign states, targeting Canada’s democratic institutions, economic systems and diaspora communities to advance their political, economic and security interests to the detriment of Canada’s.
The RCMP is mandated by legislation, under section 2 of the Security Offences Act and ministerial direction, to investigate threats to the security of Canada defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act, breaches of security defined in the Security of Offences Act, or SOA, and Security of Information Act, or SOIA, or any other criminal offence or any other federal statute or Criminal Code offence that may have a national security dimension. Further to this, the RCMP acts against FI threats that are criminal or illegal in nature, including acts involving the harassment, intimidation or coercion of individuals or groups within Canada.
The RCMP has several teams, units and efforts in place that contribute to disrupting FI. The RCMP also engages with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to help inform police of jurisdiction of FI threats and to establish mechanisms for reporting FI incidents. Federal policing participates in several interdepartmental efforts to combat FI, including the security and intelligence threats to elections, or SITE, task force, an initiative consisting of the RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Communications Security Establishment and Global Affairs Canada, or GAC. FP also participates in the GAC-led rapid response mechanism, a G7 initiative established in 2018 that seeks to strengthen coordination across the G7 in identifying, preventing and responding to threats to G7 democracies.
It is important for all individuals and groups living in Canada, regardless of their nationality, to know that there are support mechanisms in place to assist them when experiencing harassment and intimidation. Anyone who feels threatened online or in person, should report these incidents to their local police. If someone in the public is in immediate danger, they should call 911 or contact their local police. Individuals may also contact the RCMP national security information network by phone at 1-800-420-5805 or by email at RCMP.NSIN-RISN.GRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca. Service is available in Canada’s both official languages.

Question No. 843—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to employees at Health Canada, as of September 29, 2022: (a) what is the total number of employees at the director general level or higher; (b) of the employees in (a), how many (i) are a doctor of medicine (MD), (ii) have a doctorate in a medical field, but are not MDs, (iii) have a doctorate in another field, broken down by field; and (c) what are the details of each employee at the director general level or higher that has such a background, including, for each, their (i) title, (ii) relevant degrees?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, the answer is 79. With respect to part (b)(i), the answer is zero employees. Please note that in addition to the 79 executives in part (a), there are six medical doctors at the MD MOF-04 and -05 levels who serve either as senior medical advisers to DG levels or higher; or hold executive positions below the DG level. With respect to part (b)(ii), it is one employee, and for part (b)(iii), it is five employees. With respect to part (c), of the 79 DGs or higher, and the six MD MOF-04s and -05s the breakdown is as follows: six MD-MOFs, one doctorate in a medical field, and five doctorates in other fields. Please note that education is personal information so further details on positions and types of degrees cannot be disclosed.

Question No. 844—
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to purchases of COVID-19 vaccine doses by the government: has the government purchased any doses before the doses being approved by Health Canada, and, if so, what are the details of all such purchases, including the (i) manufacturer, (ii) name of the vaccine, (iii) date of purchase, (iv) number of doses purchased, (v) date of the approval by Health Canada?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada built its vaccine portfolio through advance purchase agreements, or APAs, securing future access to COVID-19 vaccines in development at a time when it was not yet known which vaccine candidates would receive Health Canada authorization, and if so, when. This was done in order to ensure that Canada was at the forefront of receiving life-saving vaccines at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, while providing suppliers the opportunity to accelerate product development and production capacity, and to engage in the regulatory process. Vaccine candidates were selected with guidance from the COVID-19 vaccine task force, experts who helped identify a diverse portfolio of different vaccine types that were most likely to be effective and delivered the fastest.
The first two agreements, with Moderna and Pfizer, were announced in August 2020, followed by similar agreements with Janssen for Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca/Verity Pharmaceuticals and Serum Institute of India, and Medicago. The agreements included firm commitments to purchase doses as well as access to optional doses should they be required.
Companies began submitting data to Health Canada for regulatory review as early as September 2020. The ability to review data from early development while later-stage clinical trials are under way expedites the regulatory review process.
Before filing a submission for a continuing review, sponsors of clinical trials are expected to have gathered a certain level of evidence on the safety, quality and efficacy of their vaccine. Vaccine applications are reviewed through an independent process and products are authorized based on scientific rigour and medical evidence. Products are not made available for use in the Canadian market until they have received regulatory approval.
Vaccine agreements with suppliers are as follows. For AstraZeneca Vaxzevria COVID-19 vaccine, the manufacturer is AstraZeneca Canada Inc. The date the initial agreement was publicly announced was May 17, 2020. The number of doses purchased was 20 million, and the date of initial approval by Health Canada was February 26, 2021.
For Covishield, the manufacturer is Verity Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc./Serum Institute of India, in collaboration with AstraZeneca Canada Inc. The date the initial agreement was publicly announced was February 26, 2021. The number of doses purchased was two million, and the date of initial approval by Health Canada was February 26, 2021. The authorization expired September 16, 2021.
For Moderna Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine, the manufacturer is Moderna. The date the initial agreement was publicly announced was November 16, 2020. The number of doses purchased was 44 million. The initial agreement, after some options exercised, amendment for 2022-24 was up to 25 million in 2022, up to 35 million in 2023 and up to 35 million in 2024. The date of initial approval by Health Canada was December 23, 2020.
For Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine, the manufacturer was BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH. The date the initial agreement was publicly announced was July 20, 2020. The number of doses purchased was 51 million. The initial agreement, after some options exercised, amendment for 2022-24 was up to 65 million for 2022, up to 60 million in 2023 and up to 60 million in 2024. The date of initial approval by Health Canada was December 09, 2020.
For Janssen Jcovden COVID-19 vaccine, the manufacturer was Janssen Inc., or Johnson & Johnson. The date the initial agreement was publicly announced was August 14, 2020. The number of doses purchased was up to 38 million, and the date of initial approval by Health Canada was March 5, 2021.
For Medicago Covifenz COVID-19 vaccine, the manufacturer was Medicago Inc. The date the initial agreement was publicly announced was October 23, 2020. The number of doses purchased was up to 76 million, and the date of initial approval by Health Canada was February 24, 2022.
For Novavax Nuvaxovid COVID-19 vaccine, the manufacturer was Novavax Inc. The date the initial agreement was publicly announced: August 14, 2020. The number of doses purchased was up to 76 million, and the date of initial approval by Health Canada was February 17, 2022.
For the Sanofi vaccine, the manufacturer was Sanofi. The date initial agreement was publicly announced was July 29, 2020. The number of doses purchased was up to 72 million, and it is still under review by Health Canada.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 597—
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the ArriveCAN application: (a) how much money did the government spend developing the application; (b) what is the itemized breakdown of all expenditures related to (a); (c) how much has been spent to date maintaining, updating, or promoting the application; (d) how much money did Shared Services Canada spend to initially develop this application; (e) what is the itemized breakdown of all expenditures related to (d); (f) what are the details of all contracts signed by the government related to the application in any way, including, for each (i) the vendor, (ii) the date, (iii) the value, (iv) the start and end dates, if applicable, (v) the description of goods or services provided, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; and (g) what is the total cumulative cost (i) incurred to date, (ii) budgeted related to the application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 834—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), broken down by province or territory, region and year, from 2012 to present: (a) how many Canadians received the GIS; and (b) of those Canadians receiving the GIS, how many (i) lost the benefit because they filed their income taxes late, (ii) are women who are classified as single, widowed, or divorced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 835—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to measures targeted to persons with disabilities in Canada and contained in Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit) and in Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing: (a) how many persons with disabilities will receive the one-time housing benefit and the doubling of the GST rebate; (b) how will the government identify persons with disabilities to receive the one-time housing benefit and the GST rebate; and (c) if the Disability Tax Credit is to be used as the only identifier, what steps will the Canada Revenue Agency take to make sure that the one-time housing benefit and the GST rebate are available to as many persons with disabilities as possible?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 838—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to contracts signed or entered into by the government with Russian vendors since January 1, 2022, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what are the details of each contract signed with vendors based out of Russia or with a mailing address in Russia, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) value, (iii) vendor, (iv) description or goods or services being provided, including quantity, (v) duration of contract, if applicable, (vi) file number; (b) for each contract in (a), was it sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bid process; (c) have any of the contracts in (a) been amended or cancelled as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier this year, and, if so, which ones and how was the contract changed; and (d) have any other government contracts been amended or cancelled as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier this year, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) value, (iii) vendor, (iv) description or goods or services being provided, including quantity, (v) duration of contract, if applicable, (vi) file number, (vii) how the contract was changed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 839—
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regard to any rules, regulations, or policies put in place by the government since February 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each such rule, regulation, or policy, including the (i) date put into place, (ii) date rescinded, or date the measure is scheduled to be rescinded, (iii) detailed summary of the measure put into place, (iv) location or locations where the measure was or is in effect?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 840—
Mr. Jake Stewart:
With regard to lump sum signing bonuses paid out to government officials, broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17, and by department or agency: (a) what was the total amount paid out in signing bonuses; (b) how many individuals (i) at or above the executive (EX) level (or equivalent), (ii) below the EX level (or equivalent), received signing bonuses; (c) what was the total amount paid out in signing bonuses to officials (i) at or above the EX level (or equivalent), (ii) below the EX level (or equivalent); (d) what is the breakdown of (a) through (c) by individuals who were new to the public service versus individuals who were already in the public service; and (e) which specific jobs in the public service qualify for lump sum signing bonuses?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 841—
Mr. Jake Stewart:
With regard to expenditures and other transactions made by the government using the object code 179 (at-risk pay) or any similar code related to risk pay in the 2021-22 fiscal year, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total amount paid out in at-risk pay; (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at or above the executive (EX) level (or equivalent), (ii) below the EX level (or equivalent), received at-risk pay; (c) what was the total amount paid out in at-risk pay to officials (i) at or above the EX level (or equivalent), (ii) below the EX level (or equivalent); and (d) what is the breakdown of (a) through (c) by pay for work conducted (i) in Canada, (ii) abroad?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 777—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the government's ArriveCAN application: (a) what is the government's explanation for why the application has a disproportionately high volume of ratings on Google Play and the Apple App Store, compared to almost every other app in the world; (b) has the government taken any action that would have had an impact on the number of ratings, and, if so, what are the details of any such action, including any amounts spent related to each action; and (c) is the government aware of any third party taking any action that would contribute to the amount of ratings, and, if so, what are the details of what the government is aware of?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the ratings for the ArriveCAN application are voluntarily provided by the users of the application. Since the launch of the app in April 2020, there have been more than 30 million submissions. As of September 26, 2022, there were 608,333 ratings for iOS and 243,015 ratings for Android, totalling 851,348 ratings, which is approximatively 2% of the total number of users. The CBSA is not in a position to comment about the number of ratings of other applications on the Google Play store or the Apple App Store.
With regard to part (b), the CBSA has not taken any action that would have had an impact on the number of ratings.
With regard to part (c), the CBSA is not aware of any third parties taking action that would contribute to the number of ratings.

Question No. 782—
Mr. Luc Desilets:
With regard to the former Ste. Anne’s Hospital’s Residential Treatment Clinic for Operational Stress Injuries (RTCOSI) for veterans, temporarily reopened by the Centre intégré universitaire de Santé et de services sociaux de l’Ouest-de-l’Île de Montréal as a mental health unit: (a) is Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) funding the care and stay of residents in the new clinic; (b) what role did VAC play in the closure of the RTCOSI and its recent reopening as a mental health unit; (c) why are the 15 beds in the mental health unit being offered to non-veterans instead of veterans; (d) what measures are being taken by VAC to reassign these 15 beds to veterans; and (e) does VAC have staff or a dedicated office for overseeing the delivery of health services to veterans at Ste. Anne’s Hospital?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, since April 2020, the Centre intégré universitaire de Santé et de services sociaux de l’Ouest-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, or CIUSSS-ODIM, has been using the unoccupied Residential Treatment Clinic for Operational Stress Injuries, or RTCOSI site, a space they own and operate, to meet provincial needs that they are funding. The CIUSSS-ODIM also redeployed some of the RTCOSI staff to Ste. Anne’s outpatient operational stress injury clinic, which remained open through the pandemic, and to other provincial services at their own cost.
With regard to part (b), the CIUSSS-ODIM, with concurrence from Veterans Affairs Canada, suspended admissions on April 7, 2020, for safety reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision was informed by a member of the Ste. Anne’s medical authority, who communicated that the sanitary measures at the RTCOSI were not at the required level and thus created an increased risk of COVID to veterans attending the RTCOSI and elderly veterans living at Ste Anne’s Hospital. The decision took into account that the program was made up of clients from different regions and provinces who shared accommodations, were treated in groups and travelled in and out of the province of Quebec. To ensure client needs were met when admissions were suspended, all clients on the wait-list were referred to other clinical services and all referring agencies, including Veterans Affairs Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of National Defence, were notified. The CIUSSS-ODIM have used the unoccupied RTCOSI site, which is a space they own and operate, to meet provincial needs.
Regarding part (c), the CIUSSS-ODIM has been using the unoccupied RTCOSI site, which is a space they own and operate, to meet provincial needs that they are funding. Before admissions were suspended in April 2020, the Veterans Affairs Canada-funded RTCOSI at Ste. Anne's Hospital was a 10-bed unit. It did not treat psychiatric emergencies and did not admit patients in crisis. The RTCOSI mainly offered stabilization and did not focus on treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.
Between April 1, 2016, and March 31, 2020, approximately 75% of VAC clients attending inpatient treatment programs received these services at specialized inpatient treatment programs other than the RTCOSI. While this has not been available at the RTCOSI, many of these specialized inpatient treatment programs offer concurrent services for mental health, operational stress injuries, or OSIs, and addiction needs. In addition to providing services for OSIs, including PTSD, many of these inpatient programs are exclusive to, or offer customized services or components to, military members, veterans and first responders. Some also offer specific services for women and the LGBTQ2+ community and provide services in both official languages. Their services are supported by multidisciplinary teams that include psychiatrists or general practitioners, addictions medicine specialists, psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists, nurses and others. The length of stay ranges from four to nine weeks or more and includes individual and group treatment; 24-7 nursing care; family components; peer support groups; integrated care such as yoga, fitness, art therapy, nutrition and sleep; discharge planning; and aftercare resources.
Regarding part (d), no veteran is left without the care, treatment and services they need. Since the RTCOSI became inactive, Veterans Affairs Canada ensured that all veterans were immediately referred to the services attending to the care and treatment they needed, near or in their communities. Veterans Affairs Canada continues to work closely with the CIUSSS-ODIM in regard to future plans at Ste. Anne’s Hospital. The safety and well-being of veterans continues to be Veterans Affairs Canada’s top priority as well as facilitating access for veterans to the best evidence-based treatments and services.
Regarding part (e), Ste. Anne’s Hospital delivers many services to Veterans Affairs Canada clients, including outpatient services for operational stress injuries and long-term care. Veterans Affairs Canada funds the delivery of health services for veterans based on identified needs. The Ste. Anne’s OSI clinic is part of the Veterans Affairs Canada-funded network of OSI clinics across Canada, operated by provincial health authorities. The CIUSSS-ODIM operates and oversees the services offered to the clients of Ste. Anne’s Hospital. Veterans Affairs Canada’s field operations division works together with veterans and their families to identify needs and provide options for appropriate resources and services.

Question No. 786—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s approach to China and Taiwan: has the government made any plans related to how it will respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and, if so, what are the plans?
Response
Hon. 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.
As a Pacific nation, Canada is committed to being a reliable partner in the Indo-Pacific. Canada will always look for ways to work with partners to advance common interests for peace and security. Canada’s defence and security engagement is increasing across the region, including through frequent naval deployments and participation in exercises and training activities such as Operations Neon and Projection, and a growing and consistent contribution to the ASEAN Regional Forum.
Canada continues to monitor all major regional and global political developments, including those across the Taiwan Strait.
Canada is concerned about possible actions or incidents that could result in further escalations across the Taiwan Strait. Canadian officials have communicated to China concerns over the situation in the region and have worked with our partners in the G7 and multilaterally to call for restraint. The department will continue to monitor cross-strait developments closely and will respond appropriately to future challenges. Canada remains focused on supporting constructive efforts that contribute to peace, stability and dialogue across the Taiwan Strait.
While remaining consistent with our one China policy, our government will continue our multifaceted engagement with and on Taiwan, which includes collaborating on trade, technology, health, democratic governance and countering disinformation, while continuing to work to enhance peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

Question No. 792—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Substance Use and Addictions Program, since its creation in 2016: (a) what applications for funding have been denied, including, for each proposed project, the (i) organization, (ii) project title, (iii) description, (iv) primary focus, (v) location, (vi) contribution amount sought from the Government of Canada, (vii) project duration, (viii) reason the funding was denied; (b) what approved applications have received less funding than requested, including, for each proposed project, the (i) organization, (ii) project title, (iii) description, (iv) primary focus, (v) location, (vi) project duration, (vii) contribution amount sought from the Government of Canada, (viii) approved contribution agreement amount from the Government of Canada, (ix) reason a lesser amount of funding was approved; and (c) how much funding has been applied for compared to the total amount approved to date?
Response
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, information containing project names, titles and other such specific details is not included in this response to adhere to the principles set out in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act on protecting sensitive, third party data. The information being provided is structured around budget allocations received in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Data regarding funding sources prior to 2019-20 is not being provided, as it is not systematically captured and therefore cannot be retrieved and presented in this form in the allotted timeframe for this request.
The substance use and addictions program, or SUAP, is a federal contributions program delivered by Health Canada that provides financial support to provinces, territories, non-governmental organizations and key stakeholders to strengthen responses to drug and substance use issues in Canada. Each application submitted to SUAP undergoes a rigorous assessment process to ensure that it addresses the priority areas identified. Only projects that meet pre-established criteria and a range of factors, including geographic distribution, are selected for funding.
In response to part (a) of the question, in 2019 there were 189 proposals, requesting $344.93 million, that were not selected for funding. However, 38 of those proposals were noted as having merit and were retained for future funding consideration. All applications received were evaluated using a robust set of criteria that considers evidence, value for money, project sustainability and geographic distribution. In addition to this, a variety of other factors, such as alignment with health and social priorities, demonstrating a realistic work plan and sufficient organization capacity to deliver project objectives, were taken into consideration in order to determine where available funding would best be allocated. Advice on funding decisions was also sought from experts in various policy fields and other levels of government, and by external stakeholder groups.
The reasons for not selecting proposals are determined through this process based on funding availability and the required criteria. $10 million was also transferred to the Province of Quebec as per the existing agreement between Health Canada and the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux.
In 2020, no project proposals were denied through this process.
In 2021, 306 proposals were not selected for funding, representing a total funding ask of $290.73 million.
All applications received were evaluated using a robust set of criteria that considers evidence, value for money, project sustainability and geographic distribution. Regional distribution of funding was considered against the formula used for Health Canada’s 2018 emergency treatment fund, which accounted for both population and regional substance-use impacts. In addition to this, a variety of other factors, such as alignment with health and social priorities, demonstrating a realistic work plan and sufficient organization capacity to deliver project objectives, were taken into consideration in order to determine where available funding would best be allocated. Advice on funding decisions was also sought from experts in various policy fields and other levels of government, and by external stakeholder groups.
The reasons for not selecting proposals are determined through this process based on funding availability and the required criteria. A reserve list of 138 of these 306 proposals that showed merit were retained in the inventory for future funding consideration. $24 million is also earmarked for the Province of Quebec, to be redistributed to projects in its jurisdiction.
In response to part (b) of the question, information on approved applications that have received less funding than requested is collected only during the calls for proposals. In 2019, the original amount requested for these proposals was $36.08 million; the total amount of approved funding for these applications was $32.25 million, and the approved amount was lower than the requested amounts due to various considerations, such as ineligible expenditures, available funding amounts and, in some cases, shorter budget cycles.
In 2020, the original amount requested for these proposals was $26.71 million; the total amount of approved funding for these applications was $15.9 million, and the approved amount was lower than requested, since the project timelines had to be adjusted from a four-year to a two-year time frame.
In 2021, the original amount requested for these was $56.7 million; the total amount of approved funding for these applications was $59.8 million, and the approved amount was higher than the requested amounts due to adjusted project timelines to reflect the available funding period.
In response to part (c) of the question, information on how much funding has been applied for compared to the total amount approved is collected only during the calls for proposals. The total amount of funding requested for the 2019 call for proposals, or CFP, was $407.7 million. Funding of $32.25 million in 2019 and $15.9 million in 2020 added up to a total of $48.15 million in funding stemming from CFP 2019. The total amount of funding requested for the 2021 CFP was $350.53 million, and the total amount funded was $59.8 million.

Question No. 793—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the recommendations made by the Expert Task Force on Substance Use to Health Canada in its May 2021 and June 2021 reports: (a) which recommendations does the government fully accept; (b) which recommendations does the government not accept in whole or in part; (c) for recommendations the government does not fully accept, what is the rationale for the disagreement; and (d) what steps have been taken to date to implement the recommendations?
Response
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s approach to substance use harms, including the overdose crisis, has been guided by the Canadian drugs and substances strategy, or CDSS. This strategy takes a comprehensive, collaborative and compassionate public health-focused approach, covers all substances and lays out our framework for evidence-based actions to reduce the harms associated with substance use across the areas of prevention, treatment, harm reduction and recovery.
In 2021, the Minister of Mental Health and Addiction established an expert task force on substance use. Its mandate was to provide Health Canada with independent, expert advice on the federal government’s drug policy, as outlined in the CDSS, and potential alternatives to criminal penalties for simple possession of controlled substances while maintaining support for community and public safety. The task force delivered two reports to Health Canada with 29 recommendations on the government’s drug policy, the CDSS, and alternatives to criminal penalties for simple possession of controlled substances.
The government agrees with the spirit of the task force’s recommendations. The government is assessing the suite of recommendations and their policy implications to inform its current work and the advancement of a comprehensive drug strategy, as per the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health’s mandate letter. While this work continues, and recognizing the urgency of the overdose crisis, the government is taking immediate action where it has existing powers and authorities.
Since the onset of the overdose crisis, the Government of Canada has responded quickly to implement a wide range of measures to help save lives and meet the needs of people who use drugs, with investments, as of October 2022, totalling more than $800 million. These actions align with the intent of the task force’s recommendations. Key highlights of recent federal actions include but are not limited to the following.
The government is investing in the full spectrum of supports for people who use substances, including prevention and public education programs to raise awareness of the harms of substance use, such as the “Know More Opioids” experiential marketing tour aimed at youth and young adults to inform them about the harms associated with opioid use and how to respond to an overdose, national advertising campaigns to reduce harms and stigma around opioids and substance use and raise awareness of the Good Samaritan law, and the “Ease the Burden” public education campaign to raise awareness and reduce harms associated with the use of opioids and other substances and stigma, especially for men in physically demanding jobs; supporting provinces and territories and community-based organizations in scaling up key lifesaving measures in harm reduction and treatment, such as the substance use and addictions program; and launching the development of national mental health and substance use standards for quality of care.
The government is also providing British Columbia a time-limited exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act related to the personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal drugs, supported by rigorous monitoring and third party evaluation; reintroducing Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the CDSA, which, if passed by Parliament, would require police and prosecutors to consider diverting people to treatment or other services instead of laying charges for possession offences; launching a new education campaign addressing stigma for men in the trades and providing further support for an awareness campaign for opioids and anti-stigma training for law enforcement; establishing committees such as the People with Lived and Living Experience Council and the expert advisory group on safer supply to engage directly with people impacted by substance use, including people who use or have used drugs, people in recovery and people with loved ones impacted by substance use, an approach that incorporates their perspectives, experience and knowledge in the development and implementation of federal policy and programs; funding research into alcohol-related best practices and supporting community-based approaches to alcohol use, focusing on harm reduction, treatment and prevention, as well as funding the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction to update the low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines to be released in fall 2022; introducing the 2022 proposed tobacco product packaging and labelling regulations, which would see Canada become the first country to place warnings on individual tobacco products; and supporting the scale-up of safer supply by investing directly in 27 safer supply pilot projects and helping to build evidence around this promising practice.
The Government of Canada continues to assess the expert task force recommendations as it reviews its substance use policies and programming to inform its current work programs and actions.

Question No. 796—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to firearms and crime statistics held by the government, broken down by year since 2009: (a) how many fatal shootings, excluding suicides, in Canada, were from (i) legally, (ii) illegaly or improperly, registered firearms; (b) how many legally registered firearms were being operated by someone with a legal firearms licence; and (c) how many illegal or improperly registered firearms were being operated by someone with a legal firearms licence?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for part (a), Statistics Canada has limited information on the registration status of recovered firearms that are used in homicides. Statistics Canada is unable to provide a definitive answer on the exact number of homicides committed with registered firearms versus unregistered firearms.
For parts (b) and (c), Statistics Canada does not have data on the legal registration status of firearms used outside of homicides.

Question No. 798—
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to medical assistance in dying (MAID) and Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), since 2016: (a) how many times has a (i) VAC employee, (ii) third-party contracted by VAC, advised or suggested that a veteran consider MAID; (b) what is VAC's policy related to its (i) employees, (ii) contractors, suggesting MAID to veterans; and (c) on what date did the policy in (b) come into effect?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as directed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs Canada, Veterans Affairs Canada is conducting a thorough internal investigation on what occurred in August 2022 regarding Veterans Affairs Canada and medical assistance in dying, or MAID. This occurrence is isolated to a single employee and is not indicative of a pattern of behaviour or a systemic issue.
Veterans Affairs Canada issued a directive to staff on this issue after what occurred in August 2022 regarding MAID.
Veterans Affairs Canada employees are not mandated to discuss, provide advice or suggest to veterans anything on the issue of MAID. This service is not within Veterans Affairs Canada’s scope of work. Veterans Affairs Canada’s direction to its employees is that, if a veteran is seeking advice or assistance in pursing MAID, the employee must refer the veteran to their primary care provider.

Question No. 799—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the government's decision to keep various travel restrictions, including the mandatory usage of the ArriveCAN application in place during the 2022 summer travel season: does Destination Canada or the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance have any estimates on the amount of tourism revenue lost and the lower number of American tourists as a result of this decision, and, if so, what are the estimates?
Response
Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Destination Canada does not typically measure the impacts of a specific public health measure.

Question No. 803—
Mr. Richard Martel:
With regard to the government taxation policies and the statement by the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance during Oral Questions on Tuesday, September 20, 2022, “That is real money in the pockets of real Canadians”: what is the minister's definition of a real Canadian?
Response
Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing rising costs and difficult decisions about how to afford the groceries they need or rent at the end of the month. These affordability challenges are driven in large part by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on global supply chains and by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Government of Canada has continued to introduce supports to help Canadians through this cost of living crisis.
The comments by the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance explain that these supports, and the individuals who receive them, should not be viewed as merely abstract statistical or financial data points but real, material supports that have a tangible impact on the lives of Canadians across the country.
For example, Bill C-30 would provide additional support to the roughly 11 million people and families who already receive the goods and services tax or harmonized sales tax credit, GST/HST credit, including approximately half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors.
It would mean up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children and nearly $500 in the pockets of couples with two children. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average. This builds on a package of supports that the Government of Canada has already announced.These supports mean a couple in Thunder Bay with an income of $45,000 and a child in day care could receive about an additional $7,800 above their existing benefits this year.
As another example, a single recent graduate in Edmonton with an entry-level job and an income of $24,000 could receive about an additional $1,300 in new and enhanced benefits, or a senior with a disability in Trois Rivières could receive over $2,500 more this year than they did last year.
In short, the support measures have the potential to provide real and significant benefit to individuals across the country.

Question No. 804—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to Pacific Economic Development Canada (PacifiCan): (a) what is the total amount of project funding announced by the agency since its inception; (b) what is the total amount of project funding where the funding has actually been transferred to the recipient since the agency's inception; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by year; and (d) what are the details of all projects which have been funded by the agency to date, including, for each project, the (i) location, (ii) date of announcement, (iii) project description, (iv) amount of funding being provided by PacifiCan, (v) percentage of total project costs represented by the amount in (iv), (vi) start date, (vii) expected completion date, (viii) amount of PacifiCan funding actually delivered to the recipient to date, (ix) recipient?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of International Development and Minister responsible for the Pacific Economic Development Agency of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all contracts over the $10,000 amount and all grants and contributions contribution agreements of any dollar amount are proactively disclosed on this website: open.canada.ca. All contracts are proactively disclosed on a quarterly basis.

Question No. 809—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to performance audits or similar types of assessments related to passport processing times which were completed or ongoing between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021: what are the details of each audit or assessment, including, for each, the (i) start and end date of the time period audited or assessed, (ii) summary and scope of the audit or assessment, (iii) findings, (iv) recommended changes to improve processing times, if applicable, (v) changes actually implemented, (vi) entity responsible for conducting the audit or assessment?
Response
Ms. Ya’ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the internal audit services at Employment and Social Development Canada did not complete a performance audit or similar types of assessments related to passport processing times between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021.

Question No. 810—
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to the request made by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) to the government to list noma on the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of neglected tropical diseases: (a) what is the government rationale for (i) supporting, (ii) not supporting, the request; and (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, what are the details, including the dates, of how this support has been communicated to the WHO?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the questions, the Government of Canada is supportive of a review by the World Health Organization’s strategic and technical advisory group, or WHO STAG, for neglected tropical diseases, or NTDs, to determine the suitability of noma for inclusion on the WHO’s list of NTDs.
The Government of Canada signed the Kigali declaration in support of the implementation of the WHO’s NTD road map, 2021-30, in June 2022, in support of efforts to eliminate tropical diseases, including noma. The government also recognizes the opportunity of the WHO STAG review of NTDs to raise the profile of this rapidly progressive and often fatal infection of the mouth and face.
Regarding part (b), in Canada’s statement on May 26, 2022, to the World Health Assembly’s Committee A on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases, including oral health, the government supported the call for the WHO STAG to review and consider the suitability of noma for inclusion on the NTD list, highlighting the importance of access to primary health care and basic services to help prevent the disease.
On September 26, 2022, Canada’s Minister of Health signed a letter to the Minister of Health of Nigeria, indicating that the Government of Canada supports a review by the WHO STAG on NTDs to determine the suitability of noma for inclusion on the WHO’s list of NTDs. Nigeria may include this letter in the dossier they intend to submit to WHO in support of the review.

Question No. 812—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the public service, and broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) as of September 23, 2022, how many employees were working (i) in person, (ii) at home, (iii) in a hybrid situation; (b) of those employees working in a hybrid situation, what is the breakdown by the number of days per week in the office versus from home; and (c) excluding those who normally work from a mission abroad, how many employees in (a)(ii) are working from a location outside of Canada?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, deputy heads each have the authority to determine how their employees will work, and decisions regarding hybrid work arrangements are being made in each individual department and agency. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. TBS concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
Across government, organizations are now implementing their plans for a hybrid workforce, which will see most employees scheduled to work both on site and off site. TBS continues to support deputy heads in their transition to hybrid work models by providing guidance and best practices to promote a coherent approach while respecting the different operational realities of federal organizations.
To further support the implementation of hybrid work, “Guidance on optimizing a hybrid workforce: Spotlight on telework”, available at https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/staffing/guidance-optimizing-hybrid-workforce-spotlight-telework.html, has been prepared as a tool for departments. This guidance contains overarching principles, steps to follow and key considerations for organizations, managers and employees when implementing a hybrid approach to work.

Question No. 823—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-701, which stated that the new front of packaging labelling requirements will produce a direct benefit valued at $2.33 billion over 15 years: what is the detailed breakdown, including the methodology used, of the $2.33 billion figure, and how the government came up with that number?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the details of the cost-benefit analysis are included in the regulatory impact analysis statement published with the regulations amending the food and drug regulations (nutrition symbols, other labelling provisions, vitamin D and hydrogenated fats or oils) in the Canada Gazette, part II, on July 20, 2022.
The regulatory impact analysis statement can be located at the following address: https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-07-20/html/sor-dors168-eng.html.

Question No. 827—
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the NEXUS program: (a) what is the current number of backlogged applications; (b) what is the cause for the Canadian offices to remain closed, while the American offices are open; (c) when will the Canadian offices re-open; (d) in 2019, how many times did a traveler use a NEXUS line at a Canadian (i) point of entry, broken down by type (land, airport, etc.), (ii) airport security screening location, broken down by airport; and (e) if the information in (d) is not tracked, what are the government's estimates?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, as of September 27, 2022, the NEXUS interview backlog was approximately 331,700.
In response to part (b) of the question, Canada and the United States are in discussions about the reopening of Canadian enrolment centres. These discussions are focused on clarifying legal protections for U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers while they are working in Canadian enrolment centres.
As regards part (c) of the question, Canada and the United States are in discussions about the reopening of Canadian enrolment centres. The CBSA will take a national approach to reopening all enrolment centres at the same time.
Concerning part (d)(i) of the question, in fiscal year 2019-20, there were 6,961,000 NEXUS passages at the 21 land points of entry where NEXUS is offered, and 2,692,000 air passages at nine Canadian airports.
In answer to part (d)(ii) of the question, the CBSA does not gather the information requested, which falls under the responsibility of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA.

Question No. 828—
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the non-budgetary loans, listed on page 306, Section 9 (Loans, investments and advance) of the 2021 Public Accounts of Canada, Volume 1: (a) which loans to foreign governments currently outstanding had interest rates based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR); and (b) for each loan in (a), what are the details, including the (i) country, (ii) amount of the loan, (iii) purpose of the loan, (iv) length of payback period, (v) year when the loan is expected to be paid off, (vi) previous interest rate formula used based on LIBOR, (vii) new interest rate formula following the phasing out of LIBOR?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Export Development Canada concluded that due to statutory prohibitions and confidentiality, specifically when administrating the Access to Information Act and the Export Development Act, a comprehensive response to this question is not possible.

Question No. 829—
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to the September 6, 2022, announcement by the Prime Minister that the federal government will provide a $1.4 billion loan to build nearly 3,000 homes on traditional lands in Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood: what are the details of the loan, including the interest rate and the timeline of the repayment plan?
Response
Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response the question, in processing parliamentary returns, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and, therefore, cannot disclose the information requested as this information is not publicly available and deemed confidential as per agreement terms.

Question No. 832—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to consultations undertaken by the government further to the “Just Transition” for energy workers, since 2021: (a) how many unique submissions were received; (b) how many and what proportion of submissions were from (i) energy industry workers, (ii) human resources or skills training professionals, (iii) environmentalists; (c) of the submissions received from environmentalists, what proportion of respondents demonstrated expertise in either the energy sector or skills training; (d) what proportion of submissions mentioned a variation on the theme of a brain drain of skilled workers leaving Canada for energy-producing jurisdictions; (e) what proportion of submissions mentioned which other economic activities demand skills comparable to those of energy workers; and (f) what proportion of submissions mentioned the compensation offered by so called green jobs for which the “Just Transition“ would retrain energy workers and whether that compensation is comparable to that of the energy sector?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada acknowledges the importance of, and the need for, a global clean energy transition. While this transformation will take time, the government is committed to the bold action required to decarbonize Canada’s energy and natural resources sectors while creating unprecedented economic opportunities and good jobs for Canadians in every region of the country.
This global shift to a low-carbon future can be accomplished without phasing out Canada’s oil and gas sector. The cause of climate change is not fossil fuels themselves but the carbon emissions associated with producing and burning them. Canada’s challenge is to aggressively reduce those emissions, because hydrocarbons will continue to have a role to play in a net-zero economy.
Canada’s oil and gas sector is part of this shift. For example, the Pathways Alliance, which is composed of companies accounting for more than 90% of the oil sands’ annual production, has committed to being net zero by 2050. The government is working with the industry to cap its emissions as outlined in Canada’s 2030 emissions reduction plan, which indicates that the government is developing measures to cap oil and gas sector emissions at current levels and ensure that the sector makes an ambitious and achievable contribution to the country’s 2030 climate goals while reducing emissions at a pace and scale needed to align with net-zero emissions by 2050.
In addition, the government is establishing joint partnerships with each province and territory, through regional energy and resource tables, to identify and accelerate opportunities to transform their traditional resource industries and advance emerging ones. Through these regional tables, the government will also engage with indigenous partners and enlist the expertise and input of union partners, municipalities, industry, workers, experts and civil society, to advance the top economic priorities by aligning resources, timelines and regulatory approaches.
Central to seizing this moment is ensuring that Canadians are at the centre of everything the government does to achieve a net-zero future. After all, there is no low-carbon economy without skilled and well-trained workers.
This people-centred approach goes to the heart of a just transition: an equitable, inclusive and sustainable transformation of every sector of the economy and every region of the country to make sure all Canadians have what they need to succeed in the rapid shift to a net-zero world.
This is why the government is committed to moving forward with comprehensive action, including sustainable jobs legislation, to support workers and communities as Canada transitions to a low-carbon economy.
The government has released a discussion paper and encouraged Canadians to provide their feedback. These public consultations were launched in July 2021 and included 17 three-hour virtual round table sessions with stakeholders from across the country, including labour organizations, industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, youth and experts in skills, training, and diversity and inclusion. While those consultations have concluded, the government is still compiling input from the provinces and territories and Indigenous partners.
Regarding part (a) of the question, the Just Transition inbox received approximately 30,000 email submissions as of September 27, 2022, of which approximately 29,000 originated from five letter-writing campaigns.
Regarding parts (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the purpose of these consultations was to gather feedback from Canadians on proposed elements of sustainable jobs legislation, including guiding principles and a proposed sustainable jobs advisory body. Submissions were received via email as opposed to a contact form and Canadians were not asked to provide any personal or professional details with their specific feedback.
Feedback from the written submissions was summarized and aggregated. Therefore, producing a comprehensive response is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
Aboultaif, ZiadApplication processApplication softwareAssociate Minister of National DefenceAudience ratingsBacklogsBarrett, MichaelBendayan, RachelBloc Québécois CaucusBordersBrière, Élisabeth ...Show all topics
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 775—
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the report from the Mass Casualty Commission entitled "Public Communications from the RCMP and Governments after the Mass Casualty", dated June 13, 2022: (a) what instructions did RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki give to RCMP officers in Nova Scotia with respect to releasing specific information about what types of weapons were used in the mass shootings in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020; (b) were any written communications exchanged between RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki or her staff and Supt. Darren Campbell with respect to releasing specific information about what types of weapons were used in the mass shootings in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020, and, if so, (i) what was the date of those communications, (ii) who participated in those communications, (iii) what specific instructions or advice were provided in those communications; (c) were any written communications exchanged between RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki or her staff and Lia Scanlan, then Director of communications for the Nova Scotia RCMP with respect to releasing specific information about what types of weapons were used in the mass shootings in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020, and, if so, (i) what was the date of those communications, (ii) who participated in those communications, (iii) what specific instructions or advice were provided in those communications; (d) were any instructions, directions, or advice given by the then Public Safety Minister, Bill Blair, or by staff in the Minister of Public Safety's office to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki with respect to releasing specific information about what types of weapons were used in the mass shootings in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020, and, if so, which individual or individuals provided such instructions; (e) were any instructions, directions, or advice given either by the Prime Minister, staff in the Office of the Prime Minister, or by officials in the Privy Council Office to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki with respect to releasing specific information about what types of weapons were used in the mass shootings in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020, and, if so, which individual or individuals provided such instructions; (f) what, if any, undertakings or promises were made by RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to either the then Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair, the Prime Minister, staff in the Office of the Prime Minister, or officials in the Privy Council Office, with respect to releasing specific information about what types of weapons were used in the mass shootings in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020; (g) were any communications materials or plans developed after April 19, 2020, by the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Office of the Prime Minister, or the Privy Council Office, which discussed both the mass shootings in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020, and the Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, registered on May 1, 2020, and, if so, on what date or dates were those materials or plans developed; (h) were any communications materials or plans developed after April 19, 2020, by the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Office of the Prime Minister, or the Privy Council Office, which discussed both the mass shootings in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020, and Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) from the 2nd Session of the 43rd Parliament, and, if so, on what date or dates were those materials or plans developed; and (i) were any digital or analog recordings made of any conversations between RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki and any other staff at the RCMP, and, if so, (i) where are these recordings, (ii) were they deleted, (iii) were they deleted in accordance with statutory government practice regarding the preservation of records, (iv) can they be recovered, (v) what efforts are being made to recover said recordings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 776—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the government purchases of military equipment meant to assist Ukraine, since the beginning of 2022: what are the details of all contracts related to such purchases, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the amount, (iv) the description of goods or services, including the volume, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process, (vi) the delivery date for products or services?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 778—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Rental Construction Financing Initiative announced as part of budget 2016, as of September 16, 2022: (a) how much has been spent, by fiscal year, on (i) administering the program, (ii) promoting the program, (iii) investments in individual projects, broken down by federal electoral district; (b) what are the specific locations, by street address, where housing projects have been funded within the Calgary Metropolitan area; (c) what are the details of all contracts over $5,000 related to the program, including, for each contract, (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the description of the project, (iv) the duration of the contract, if applicable, (v) the vendor, (vi) the file number, (vii) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bid process; (d) what is the current occupancy rate of each of these projects; (e) what percentage of these units are used for short-term (defined as a term not exceeding 30 calendar days) rentals on Airbnb or other similar platforms or sites; (f) what measures are in place to ensure that the units continue to qualify for, and are being used as, social housing; and (g) what metrics are being used to measure the success of the program and to what extent have these metrics been achieved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 779—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to government submarines: (a) what are the reasons for the extension of the Victoria Class Submarine In-Service Support Contract (VISSC) l contract to Babcock; (b) what are the top 10 risks related to extending this contract, including how it aligns with the requirements under the Financial Administration Act for fair competition; (c) what potential impacts does the government anticipate as a result of the contract extension on the potential bid for VISSC II; (d) what are the top five impacts this contract extension might have on potentially undermining a competitive process in the planned procurement for VISSC II; (e) how will this be mitigated under the Financial Administration Act; (f) what is the total amount of funds spent so far by Canada on the VISSC I contract, broken down by year and supplier; (g) how many new sub-mariners have been (i) recruited, (ii) trained in Canada, in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and how many hours have each spent on a submarine in each year, from 2019 to 2022; (h) how many sub-mariners does the government intend to recruit over the next 10 years, and what plans does the government have to maximize training opportunities and sea days; (i) how many days at sea has each sub-mariner had since 2018, broken down by submarine and year; (j) does the government view submarines as an essential part of the Royal Canadian Navy fleet; (k) what is the value to the Canadian Armed Forces, Royal Canadian Navy and NORAD of submarines in comparison to frigates, in terms of costs and operational effectiveness; (I) what does the government intend by planned engagement in 2022-23 within the industry as part of CAF QUAD Charts, including (i) the future capabilities it is consulting on, (ii) who the government intends to consult, (iii) the areas or issues the government intends to consult on with industry and governments, (iv) the specific timelines for consultations; (m) does the government view submarines as an essential part of NORAD contributions, and, if so, how are they essential; (n) does the government intend to acquire nuclear or conventional submarines; (o) has the government ruled out increasing the size of the submarine fleet from four to 12, and what are the areas of planned operations; (p) what are the proposed costs of future submarines in terms of (i) acquisition, (ii) operations, (iii) training, (iv) facility infrastructure; and (q) what are the top 10 risks with respect to the current fleet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 780—
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to expenditures by the Department of National Defence or Global Affairs Canada relating to visits to Canada by senior members (senior officers and generals or higher ranking officers) of foreign militaries, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such trips where expenditures were incurred, including, for each, the (i) dates, (ii) reason for the visit, (iii) country of military member, (v) number of senior military members visiting Canada, (v) rank of military members, (vi) total expenditures incurred to date related to the visit, broken down by type of expenditure (flight, hotel, meals, etc.), (vii) who approved the expenditure?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 781—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to Health Canada's planned phase-out of using strychnine to control Richardson ground squirrels on March 4, 2023: (a) has the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, or departmental officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) made any representations to Health Canada regarding this matter, and, if so, what are the details; (b) has AAFC conducted studies or analysis on how this measure by Health Canada will negatively impact certain agricultural industries, and, if so, what are the details, including findings of any studies or analysis; (c) did the Minister of Health consider any negative impact on agriculture that the regulation would have when approving the measure, and, if not, why not; (d) did Health Canada seek any feedback from AAFC or the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food prior to making the decision to phase-out strychnine, and, if so, what are the details, including what feedback was given; (e) will the (i) Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, (ii) Minister of Health, ensure that a full analysis on the impact such a ban would have on farmers is conducted and considered before any related regulations come into effect; and (f) what, if any, data does AAFC or any other department collect related to the negative impacts of phasing out strychnine?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 783—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the ArriveCAN application: (a) what are the details of all memoranda or other documents received by any minister, ministerial office or senior official related to the ArriveCAN application, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) sender, (iv) title, (v) type of document, (vi) summary, (vii) subject matter, (viii) file number; (b) of the items in (a), which ones contain any reference to the “Known Traveller Digital Identity” program, or the “Digital Identity Program”; (c) what are the details of the government’s long-term policy objectives with regard to the application and any plans to expand its use beyond travel; (d) has the government done analysis on making it mandatory for all cross-border travel beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings of the analyses; (e) what (i) privacy, (ii) constitutional, risks, has the government identified with regard to expanded and ongoing use of the application; (f) which international organizations and their institutions has the government submitted Canadians’ personal information to, as per the application’s privacy notice; (g) what kind of personal information and how has this information been shared to the organizations in (f); and (h) under which conditions are Canadians’ information shared with the organizations identified in (f)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 784—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the special immigration measures and program announced by the government for Ukrainian migrants following the start of the further Russian invasion on February 24, 2022: (a) how many people have come to Canada under these measures; (b) how many applications to come under these measures are currently in process; (c) how many applications to come under these measures have been rejected; (d) what is the average processing time for applications through the program; (e) how many of those accepted under the program were (i) women, (ii) under 18 years old, (iii) over 60 years old, (iv) men between the ages of 18 and 60; (f) what is the complete demographic breakdown of those accepted under the program; (g) how many of those accepted through the program were living outside of Ukraine prior to February 24, 2022; and (h) what is the breakdown of (g) by country where they were living?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 785—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada and the Tigray region of Ethiopia: (a) how much money did the government spend on international development for people in the Tigray region between September 1, 2021 and September 1, 2022; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by programs and projects which received the funding, including how much each program or project received; (c) what is the government’s position on the recent resumption of fighting in Tigray; (d) what is the government’s position on the air raid that hit a kindergarten in Tigray on August 26, 2022; (e) did the government release any statements or make any representations to the Ethiopian government regarding (c) or (d), and, if so, what are the details, and, if not, why not; (f) is the government considering sanctions against any person or entity in Ethiopia in relations to actions taken in Tigray, and, if so what persons or entities are being considered; (g) has the government made any offers to the Ethiopian government or any other party to mediate in the conflict in Tigray, and, if so, what are the details; (h) what is the government’s understanding of the situation related to whether or not the Eritrean army is active in Tigray; (i) has the government made any representations to the government of Eritrea regarding the conflict; (j) is the government considering sanctions against any person or entity in Eritrea in relations to actions taken in Tigray, and, if so, what persons or entities are being considered; and (k) has the government spoken or raised questions about the situation in Tigray in any international forum, and, if so, what are the details including, for each instance, (i) the date, (ii) the forum in which it was raised, (iii) who spoke or raised question, (iv) summary of what was asked or said?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 787—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s response to this year's report from the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, on human rights abuses in Xinjiang: (a) what is the government’s position on the report and its conclusions; (b) does the government acknowledge that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in China are facing an ongoing genocide; (c) does the government acknowledge that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in China are facing crimes against humanity or other international crimes; and (d) does the government plan to state what specific international crimes are being committed against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, and, if so, when will the government be making such a statement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 788—
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Recovery Benefit, broken down by each program: (a) what is the number of individuals who received notices from the government asking them to repay an amount received under the program; (b) what is the cumulative dollar amount of the repayment notices; (c) of the individuals in (a), how many have repaid the amount owed; (d) what is the cumulative dollar amount (i) collected, (ii) still outstanding, of the repayment notices; and (e) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by reason for the notice (double payment, income too high, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 789—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the creation of a Canada mental health transfer to assist provinces and territories expand the delivery of mental health services: (a) what stakeholders have government representatives met with since November 22, 2021; and (b) on what dates were meetings in (a) held?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 790—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to formal consultations conducted by the government with small business owners about the government's Clean Fuel Regulations, since 2018: what are the details of each such consultation, including (i) the date, (ii) which business owners were consulted, (iii) who conducted the consultation, (iv) how the consultation was conducted (round table, survey, etc.), (v) a summary of the input received by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 791—
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to the National Parole Board and offenders who have been granted parole since January 1, 2016: (a) how many offenders granted parole were the subject of an arrest warrant following their release from custody; (b) of the offenders in (a), how many are still the subject of an arrest warrant or otherwise unlawfully at large; (c) what is the recidivism rate for violent offenders granted parole since January 1, 2016; and (d) for violent offenders who reoffend after being granted parole, what is the average and median amount of time between being granted parole and reoffending?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 794—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, between the fiscal year 2012-13 and the current year: what are all the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities, regional district associations or First Nations, national parks, highways, other entities, broken down by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 795—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to firearms seized by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), including any instances where the CBSA is working with another Canadian agency or a law enforcement entity: (a) what is the total number, broken down by year from 2009 to the most recently available, of firearms seized (i) at Canadian land borders, (ii) at all ports of entry other than land borders, (iii) by the CBSA as part of an investigation, outside of a port of entry; (b) broken down by each part of (a), how many of the firearms were (i) registered to Canadian firearms owners or Canadian firearms businesses, (ii) registered to American firearms owners or American firearms businesses, (iii) registered to firearms owners or firearms businesses outside of Canada and the United States, (iv) unregistered or untraceable; and (c) of the unregistered or untraceable firearms in (b)(iv), how many originated from (i) inside Canada, (ii) inside the United States, (iii) neither inside Canada nor inside the United States?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 797—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to Mifegymiso, since January 1, 2016: (a) what studies have been conducted by, or on behalf of, Health Canada on the side effects of Mifegymiso, including (i) the date, (ii) the methodology, (iii) who conducted the study, (iv) the location, (v) the findings; and (b) what data has been collected on the side effects of Mifegymiso, broken down by (i) each of the known side effects of Mifegymiso, (ii) Health Canada's estimate on the number of Canadians affected by each of the known side effects of Mifegymiso?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 800—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the government’s participation at the World Economic Forum and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance’s role as board trustee of the organization: (a) what are the details of all documents received by the minister, ministerial staff or government officials to support the minister’s role as board trustee, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) sender, (iv) title, (v) type of document, (vi) summary, (vii) subject matter, (viii) file number; (b) what are the details of all documents or correspondence the minister has received from representatives at the World Economic Forum since 2019, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) sender, (iv) title, (v) type of document, (vi) summary, (vii) subject matter; and (c) what are the details of the meetings the minister has had with representatives from the World Economic Forum in her capacity as Minister of Finance or Deputy Prime Minister since 2019, including, for each meeting, (i) the purpose, (ii) the agenda items, (iii) the names and titles of individuals in attendance, (iv) the date, (v) the location, (vi) whether the meeting was in person, virtual, or hybrid, (vii) the decisions made, if any?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 801—
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to private security companies being hired or contracted by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) for the enforcement of quarantine rules, since February 1, 2020: (a) which companies did the PHAC hire or contract; (b) for each company in (a), what was the (i) start date, (ii) end date or anticipated end date, of the quarantine enforcement; (c) what is the total amount spent to date on quarantine enforcement by private security companies; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by company; (e) what recourse is the PHAC making available to individuals who are harassed or mistreated by a private security officer or firm who is acting on behalf of the PHAC; (f) how many instances of complaints about an officer or firm in relation to quarantine or testing rule is the PHAC aware of; and (g) what is the breakdown of (f) by month and by type of complaint or alleged incident?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 802—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA): (a) how many CEWS recipients were in arrears or had an amount owing related to (i) GST/HST remittances, (ii) other required tax payments, when they received funding under CEWS; (b) what is the dollar amount of owed taxes in (a)(i) and (a)(ii); (c) how many CEBA recipients were in arrears or had an amount owing related to (i) GST/HST remittances, (ii) other required tax payments, when they received funding under CEBA; and (d) what is the dollar amount of owed taxes in (c)(i) and (c)(ii)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 805—
Mr. Larry Maguire:
With regard to briefings that Canadian government and military officials have received from the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) of the United States Office of Naval Intelligence, since 2016: (a) on what dates did Canadian embassy staff receive briefings from the former head of the UAPTF, John F. Stratton; (b) on what dates did the Royal Canadian Air Force receive briefings from the US National Intelligence Manager for aviation on the issue of Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon; and (c) what are the details of all other briefings received from the UAPTF, including, for each, (i) the date, (ii) who gave the briefing, (iii) who was briefed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 806—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada and Nigeria: (a) how much money did the government spend on international development for people in Nigeria between November 4, 2015, and September 1, 2022; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by programs and projects which received the funding, including how much each program or project received; (c) what is the government’s position on the human rights violations committed by Boko Haram, the Islamic State in West Africa and Fulani militants, and the ongoing reports of Nigerian Christians being victims of abduction, murder and imprisonment, and their villages targeted for destruction, including (i) the abduction of 14-year-old Leah Sharibu, (ii) the abduction of Alice Ngaddah, (iii) the abduction of the Chibok girls on April 14, 2014, by Boko Haram, (iv) the March 24, 2022, attack in Nigeria’s Kaduna State, (v) the June 5, 2022, attack on St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Ondo State, (vi) the June 19, 2022, attacks on St. Moses Catholic Church and Maranatha Baptist Church in Nigeria's northeastern Kaduna state; (d) did the government release any statements or make any representations to the Nigerian government regarding (c), and, if so, what are the details, and, if not, why not; (e) is the government considering sanctions against any person or entity in Nigeria in relations to actions taken in (c), and, if so what persons or entities are being considered; (f) has the government made any offers to the Nigerian government or any other party to assist in ending the human rights violations, and, if so, what are the details; and (g) has the government spoken or raised questions about the situation in Nigeria in any international forum, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each instance, (i) the date, (ii) the forum in which it was raised, (iii) who spoke or raised question, (iv) the summary of what was asked or said?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 807—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to Deputy Minister Working Groups and working groups which report to a deputy minister or equivalent: (a) how many such groups exist as of September 23, 2022; and (b) what are the details of each group, including, for each, (i) the title or name, (ii) the purpose, (iii) the number of members, (iv) the titles of members, (v) the number of meetings the group has had since January 1, 2022, (vi) whether or not the group issues reports, (vii) the date and title of the last report, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 808—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the 4-year post-payment verification plan identified in the 2021 Spring Report of the Auditor General: (a) how many recipients of payments under the CERB have been identified as fraudulent or otherwise ineligible; (b) what dollar amount of payments were received by the recipients in (a); (c) what amount of money has been recovered to date in relation to the recipients in (a); and (d) of the recipients in (a), from how many have funds been (i) partially, (ii) fully, recovered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 811—
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to the commitment of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in January of 2022 to eliminate backlogs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic by the end of the current year: (a) what are the current backlogs, broken down by immigration stream or program; (b) will the backlogs be eliminated by the end of the year; and (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, when will the backlogs be eliminated?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 813—
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the discussion document entitled "Options to cap and cut oil and gas sector greenhouse gas emissions to achieve 2030 goals and net-zero by 2050", released in July 2022, as of September 26, 2022: (a) what recommendations have been received from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources, as referred to under section 8 (Guiding principles) of the document; and (b) which specific inefficient fossil fuel subsidies the government is looking to rationalize, as outlined on page 15 of the document?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 814—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, broken down by province and territory, and fiscal years from 2018 to present: (a) how many work permits have been processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and are expected to be processed for 2022-23; (b) of the permits in (a), how many of those migrants have come to Canada to fill jobs; (c) what employment sectors have those jobs been in; (d) what is the expected duration of the work permits for the migrants in (b), in each sector; (e) what was the average processing time for work permits in each employment sector; (f) what was the average wait time between application, processing and arrival time in Canada to begin employment, for each economic sector; and (g) is the government providing new opportunities for these migrants to become permanent residents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 815—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, broken down by province and territory, and fiscal years from 2018 to present: how many Labour Market Impact Assessments have Employment and Social Development Canada (i) undertaken, (ii) completed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 816—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to government spending on foreign aid, since 2016: (a) has the government provided any funding to entities which are currently on the Public Safety Canada's terrorist entity list, and, if so, what are the details, including the (i) date, (ii) entity, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of funding, (v) program under which funding was provided; and (b) what specific measures are in place to ensure that foreign aid money does not end up financing terrorism?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 817—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the government's response to Order Paper question Q-704: (a) which official signed the statement of completeness for the response and on what date was the statement signed; (b) who determined that it was not possible to determine whether or not Global Affairs Canada (GAC) consults Public Safety Canada's terrorist entity list prior to providing any foreign aid funding within the three-month period between when the question was placed on the Notice Paper and the response was tabled; and (c) is the Minister of Public Safety concerned that GAC was unable to determine whether or not it consults the terrorist entity list prior to providing any foreign aid funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 818—
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the government's ArriveCAN application: (a) what specific data is collected through the application; (b) what departments, agencies, government organizations, or third parties have access to or receive the data, any subset of the data, including anonymized data and any data transferred at a later date; (c) broken down by each entity in (b), (i) what type of data is shared, (ii) is the data anonymized, (iii) what is the data used for, (iv) what is the number of travellers data available to the entity; (d) where is the ArriveCAN data stored; and (e) where does each entity that has access to or receives the data store their data?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 819—
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the government's COVIDAlert and ArriveCAN applications: (a) were the applications written using open source code, and, if not, why not; and (b) what is the code or the URL of the code for each application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 820—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the size of the public service, and broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: what was the total number of employees or full-time equivalents as of the start of the (i) 2015-16, (ii) 2022-23, fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 821—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to usage of the government's Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, since April 1, 2022: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 822—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircraft, since April 1, 2022: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 824—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada: what was the amount and percentage of all lapsed spending in the department, broken down by fiscal year from 2012 to present?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 825—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) prototype or pilot project announced by the government in January 2018: what are the details of all memoranda and briefing notes provided to the Minister of Transport or the minister’s office about the KTDI, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number, (viii) type of document?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 826—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the Natural Resources Canada’s consultations on “Just Transition” and involving “15 roundtables with experts, unions and industry”, as mentioned on the department’s website: (a) how many stakeholders attended roundtables on these consultations, as of the end of August 2022; (b) what are the details of those who attended each roundtable, including, for each event, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) full list of stakeholders attending, including their names and organizations represented, (iv) full list of government representatives, including their names, titles, and which department or agency they were representing, (v) list of others in attendance; (c) how many stakeholders at roundtables indicated support for phasing out energy sector jobs in Alberta; (d) how many stakeholders indicated a lack of support for phasing out energy sector jobs in Alberta; and (e) how many submissions from roundtables voiced concern with the government’s current policies related to jobs in Alberta?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 830—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the increases in the federal carbon tax or price on carbon on April 1, 2023: what are the government's projections on the impact the increases will have on (i) food prices, (ii) farm input costs, (iii) inflation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 831—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to government officials and correspondence units drafting letters or correspondence for members of Parliament or senators to use in their dealings with constituents, stakeholders or other Canadians, since 2016, and broken down by department or agency: what are the details of each instance where such a letter or piece of correspondence was drafted, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) topic, (iii) summary of contents, (iv) name of the parliamentarian the item was prepared for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 833—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to Canada’s subscription to shares of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: (a) how does Canada measure return on investment for the shares; (b) what is the value of dividends received by Canada further to its ownership of shares in the bank; (c) what is the resale value of Canada’s shares on September 27, 2022; (d) how many and which projects has the bank funded to date; (e) of the projects in (d), how many and which (i) underwent a gender-based analysis, (ii) underwent an equity, diversity, and inclusion analysis, (iii) adequately and meaningfully consulted with any indigenous communities which could be affected by the project, (iv) meet the criteria of the Impact Assessment Act, (v) involve slave labour; (f) how many Canadian firms have been contracted for work on each of the projects in (d), broken down by each project; (g) what is the dollar value of work contracted to Canadian firms in (f); and (h) how many and which full-time equivalent jobs have the projects in (d) created for Canadians, broken down by project?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-441-775 "Public Communications from ...8555-441-776 Procurement of military equ ...8555-441-778 Rental Construction Financi ...8555-441-779 Government submarines8555-441-780 Expenditures relating to vi ...8555-441-781 Health Canada and use of st ...8555-441-784 Special immigration measure ...8555-441-785 Global Affairs Canada and T ...8555-441-787 Human rights abuses in Xinjiang8555-441-788 Canada Emergency Response B ...8555-441-789 Canada mental health transfer ...Show all topics
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 768—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the statement from the Canada Border Services Agency that approximately 10,200 travellers received quarantine notifications in error due to a glitch with the ArriveCAN application: how will the government be compensating individuals who suffered damages, either financial or otherwise, as a result of being a victim of this ArriveCAN glitch and were, as a result of the error, forced to quarantine?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in July 2022, the CBSA became aware of a notification glitch with the ArriveCAN application. Some travellers, despite having submitted all the required information and proof of vaccination using the ArriveCAN app, received automated quarantine notifications in error.
A technical solution was identified and implemented by the CBSA on July 21, 2022. CBSA provided a list to the Public Health Agency of Canada, who notified all affected travellers.
Fully vaccinated travellers who completed ArriveCAN and received quarantine notifications in error were encouraged to answer any phone calls they received from the Government of Canada, and provide factual answers and/or follow the recommendations of any Government of Canada official with whom they spoke. Travellers who believed they might not have to complete the requirements and were receiving ArriveCAN notifications were asked to contact the Government of Canada directly via the “technical and registration issues for ArriveCAN” web form and follow the instructions provided. 
The CBSA has not received any formal request for compensation from travellers affected by the glitch. Such complaints will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Question No. 769—
Mr. Frank Caputo:
With regard to the light armoured vehicles (LAV) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) what is the total number of LAV3 Kodiak that the CAF has which are (i) operational or in service, (ii) decommissioned, (iii) other, broken down by status; (b) what is the breakdown of where the LAV3 Kodiak are located; and (c) for each of the LAV3 Kodiak that have been decommissioned, (i) when was it decommissioned, (ii) where is it located?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, National Defence conducted a search of its records and found that it does not currently have any LAV III, Kodiaks, that are operational, in service or decommissioned. The majority of the LAV III inventory was converted into LAV 6.0 by General Dynamics Land Systems–Canada, and there have been no resources applied against the remaining LAV III fleet for several years.
Of the 651 LAV III originally procured, the vast majority have been converted and/or consumed as part of armoured vehicle upgrade programs. Specifically, 550 were used for LAV upgrades, five for the air support coordination and control modernization project, and 66 for the LAV reconnaissance and surveillance systems.
The remaining 30 LAV III were to be declared surplus. These vehicles are awaiting sale or disposal and are currently housed at 25 Canadian Forces supply depot in Montreal. Their status is as follows: Three turreted LAV III are planned as artifacts and/or museum pieces. Twenty-seven LAV III have no armaments. As part of the LAV III upgrade project, turrets have been removed from these vehicles.

Question No. 770—
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to the $49.2 billion in total funds approved for loans and expansion under the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA): (a) what is the (i) number, (ii) dollar amount, of CEBA loans that the government projected would have to be written off for bad debt or other reasons, such as fraud; (b) what is the (i) number, (ii) dollar amount, of CEBA loans that the government budgeted would have to be written off for bad debt or other reasons, such as fraud; (c) in what published document, if any, and on what date, was the dollar amount in (b) made public; (d) what is the (i) number, (ii) dollar value, of CEBA loans that have been written off to date; and (e) what is the (i) number, (ii) dollar value, of CEBA loans that the government projects will be written off in the future, but have not yet been written off?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, a specific number of loans was not projected. However, the dollar amount is $2.4 billion. With respect to part (b), Export Development Canada is not responsible for the budgeting of this program. Regarding part (c), the dollar amount projected to be written off was not published.
Regarding part (d), the specific number of loans written off to date is not available. The dollar value of loans written off to date is $1.3 million. Financial Institutions administer the program and can only write off, that is, cease collection activities and report to us, if the loan is to a borrowing customer and the financial institution is writing off some or all of its own loan. With respect to part (e), a specific number of loans was not projected. However, the dollar amount was $2.4 billion.

Question No. 772—
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the backlog at Transport Canada in processing aviation medical certifications: (a) what is the current average processing time for each of the four categories of aviation medical certification; and (b) what is the government's timeline for when the backlog will be over and the processing time will return to normal (between 30 and 40 days), broken down by each of the four categories?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding part (a) of the question, all Canadian pilots, air traffic controllers and flight engineers require valid Transport Canada aviation medical certificates in order to exercise the privileges of their licenses, permits or ratings.
Different categories of aviation medical certificates are required for different types of aviation activities: category 1, commercial pilot; category 2, air traffic controller; category 3, private pilot; and category 4, student pilot, recreational pilot or glider pilot.
Transport Canada processes applications for category 1, category 2 and category 3 aviation medical certificates. These applications require applicants to undergo medical examinations by civil aviation medical examiners, who are physicians appointed to perform aviation medical examinations on behalf of the Minister of Transport.
Category 4 aviation medical certificates are generally submitted medical declarations directly to Transport Canada licensing for issuance of a category 4 medical certificate, without the need for a civil aviation medical examiner examination. The service delivery target for category 4 aviation medical certificates is 40 business days and there is no current backlog.
Transport Canada processes approximately 60,000 aviation medical certificate applications annually. Since March 2022, applications have increased from approximately 5,000 to 6,000 per month, due to increased aviation activity as the pandemic measures have eased.
Except for prioritizing some applications for the preservation of essential aviation services, including aviation training, the department manages category 1, 2 and 3 applications with the same service delivery target and in the same processing stream.
The service delivery target for new, uncomplicated aviation medical certificate applications is 40 business days after receipt by the department. The 40-business day service delivery target does not apply to incomplete or medically complex applications for which additional medical information is required. Applicants may be required to seek additional physician reports, tests or investigations within the provincial and territorial health care systems, where the provision of direct patient care may be prioritized over Transport Canada regulatory medicine requirements, thereby introducing delays.
With respect to part (b), throughout the pandemic, the department did not discontinue service delivery at any time and was a global aviation leader in putting measures into place to ensure the continued provision of aviation medical certificates.
However, despite the department’s uninterrupted operations, a backlog of applications did develop during the pandemic. Important factors that contributed to the backlog include pre-existing process inefficiencies in a paper-based system, delays in letter mail delivery and staff losses, including key physicians and administrative staff, that were challenging to replace in a labour environment in high demand for medical professionals. It is worth noting that the backlog is not distributed uniformly across Canada, with some regions experiencing very little or no backlog, and other regions experiencing greater backlog.
Although it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for when the backlog will be eliminated, Transport Canada is working to identify and process applications that were delayed and has hired additional physicians and administrative staff to increase file processing capacity.
Furthermore, since the start of the pandemic, the department has undertaken major modernization efforts, including successful initiatives to streamline and digitize its processes. For instance, before the pandemic, fewer than 5% of applications were received digitally and, currently, more than 90% of applications are received digitally. This eliminates delays in the postal system and time-consuming paper handling by departmental staff.
With respect to the status of Transport Canada service delivery as of September 2022, for every 10 applicants, on average, seven out of 10, or 70%, receive immediate service delivery. These are medically uncomplicated renewal applicants whose existing medical certificates are renewed in-office by their civil aviation medical examiners. Two out of 10, or 20%, receive service delivery within 40 business days. These are complete and uncomplicated applications for new medical certificates, or uncomplicated renewal applications for medical certificates not eligible for civil aviation medical examiner renewal in-office. Finally, one out of 10, or 10%, receive service delivery beyond 40 business days. These include incomplete or medically complex applications for which additional medical information is required in order to complete the assessments. In some cases, these applicants may have disqualifying medical conditions, and their assessments may be delayed long term awaiting the resolution or stabilization of a medical condition, or renewal applications for medical certificates not eligible for civil aviation medical examiner renewal in-office.
Transport Canada continues to strive to provide timely aviation medical certification, with the majority of aviation medical certificate applicants currently receiving service within the 40-business day timeline.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 766—
Mr. Gérard Deltell:
With regard to government measures related to the removal of unexploded explosive ordnance (UXO) in the Lac Saint-Pierre region: (a) which vendors have been awarded contracts related to the removal of UXO in the region since 2019; (b) what are the details of each contract in (a), including, for each, (i) the vendor, (ii) the value, (iii) the start and end dates, (iv) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process, (v) the description of goods or services provided through contract; (c) for each contract in (b), how many UXOs in the region have actually been removed, broken down by year; (d) what are the projections related to the number of UXOs which will be removed by each vendor in (b), broken down by year between now and the end of the contract; (e) for each contract in (b), which was awarded through a competitive bidding process, how many vendors submitted bids; (f) does the government plan to award further contracts related to the UXO removal in the region, and, if so, what are the details of the plan; and (g) for each contract, what is the work schedule, broken down by month, including both work that has been completed to date and work that will be completed in the future?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 767—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to fines issued related to violations of the government's restrictions and measures put in place in response to COVID-19 (ArriveCAN, quarantine requirements, etc.): (a) what is the total (i) number, (ii) value, of fines issued each month since January 1, 2022; (b) what is the breakdown of the fines in (a) by (i) province or territory, (ii) type of offence or violation, (iii) entity which issued the fine, (iv) amount of fine, (v) point of entry (if applicable); and (c) of the fines in (a), what is the (i) number, (ii) value, of amounts which have actually been paid or collected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 771—
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to fines issued by Transport Canada to Canadian Coast Guard ships and other vessels owned by the government, since 2016: what are the details of each instance, including (i) the date, (ii) the type of vessel, (iii) the summary of the incident or infraction, (iv) the location of the incident or infraction, (v) the amount of fine, (vi) who paid the fine and whether the fine was paid out of personal or public funds?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 773—
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the government's Net-Zero Challenge program: (a) what is the annual amount budgeted towards administering the program; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by line item or type of expense; (c) what is the number of employees or full-time equivalents assigned to work on the program; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by employee classification level (AS-07, EX-01, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 774—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to spending by Canadian Heritage on Canada Day festivities on Parliament Hill and in the National Capital Region since 2010: what was the total amount (i) allocated, (ii) spent, on the festivities, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 761—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the conviction of Brock Graham for the murder of Patricia Ducharme, BC Court of Appeal, decision R. v. Graham, docket number CA023190, and RCMP File #North Vancouver 1993-22222 Oct. 12, 2005: (a) why was Patricia Ducharme not warned that she was living with an extremely dangerous suspect in a murder case; (b) does the negligence of this case fall on the RCMP or the federal government; and (c) since this issue was raised in the House of Commons on March 27, 1996, to then minister Herb Gray, what has been changed in RCMP organizational policy or the federal Privacy Act that will better ensure Canadians’ safety in similar instances?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding part (a) of the question, further to a review of the Ducharme murder investigation file, it was noted through statements that Ms. Ducharme was aware that Mr. Graham was a suspect in a murder investigation.
In regard to part (b), in British Columbia, the ministries of public safety and solicitor general, attorney general, and the children and family development collaborated on the provincial violence against women in relationships, or VAWIR, policy. The VAWIR policy was developed in 1993 and has been revised over the years. The VAWIR was updated in 1996, 2000, 2004 and finally in 2010. The B.C. RCMP abide by the VAWIR, such as through the mandatory completion of the B.C. domestic violence risk summary and supervisors conducting priority reviews of all domestic violence investigations to ensure proper investigational steps are taken and safety plans are developed.
All civil actions are assessed on a case-by-case basis, specific to the set of circumstances and the various parties involved, for example, the provincial government, the federal government and the RCMP.
Regarding part (c) of the question, the RCMP takes the issue of intimate partner violence very seriously. In 2021, following extensive consultation, the Government of Canada amended the RCMP regulations, 2014, to allow the RCMP to participate in Clare’s Law regimes in provinces and territories that have enacted this legislation and where the RCMP is the police of jurisdiction. Clare’s Law legislation allows police to disclose a person’s prior intimate partner violence information to a current or former intimate partner, or a third party such as a parent or other relative through a provincially established process. Currently, Saskatchewan and Alberta are the only provinces who have adopted this legislation. Ontario, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador have introduced similar pieces of legislation, but they have yet to be officially enacted.
The RCMP’s participation in Clare’s Law is in line with its obligations under the Privacy Act, which governs the collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information by federal government institutions. The act recognizes that privacy is not absolute and is subject to exceptions provided for in the law. The act contains a number of provisions that allow government institutions to disclose personal information without the consent of the individual, such as paragraph 8(2)(b), which permits disclosure if it is in accordance with an act of Parliament or its related regulations. In accordance with Treasury Board policy, the RCMP is currently finalizing a privacy impact assessment on Clare’s Law to ensure that the privacy risks of the program are mitigated to an acceptable level.
The Privacy Act also contains a provision that allows for the disclosure of personal information without consent if the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure. This provision, which is to be applied on a case-by-case basis, can be used in certain instances to alert the public about the risk of serious harm an individual may pose to others. In line with its mandate and commitment to keeping families and communities safe, the RCMP uses this provision to proceed with public interest disclosures in certain circumstances.
The RCMP has recently updated the violence in relationships policy, soon to be changed to the intimate partner violence policy, in order to reflect the latest legislative changes and current case law.

Question No. 763—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to Canada’s participation in Interpol’s notice system since November 4, 2015: how many green notices were issued by Canada, broken down by (i) year, (ii) type of criminal activity referred to, (iii) the country to which the notice was issued?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Interpol Ottawa currently has eight active green notices for the period of November 4, 2015, to September 20, 2022. We are unable to account for any other green notices that may have been issued between this time frame, as they could have been removed from the Interpol system, as per article 51(3) of Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data, which specifies that the recorded data must be deleted by the data owner once the purpose has been achieved.
Regarding parts (i) and (ii) of the question, for the calendar year 2015, as of November 4, 2015, there are no Canadian green notices active. For the calendar year 2016, three green notices remain active for criminal activity related to crimes against children, sexual offences, and assault and/or maltreatment. For the calendar year 2017, three green notices remain active for criminal activity related to crimes against children and sexual offences. For the calendar year 2018, two green notices remain active for criminal activity related to crimes against children, sexual offences, sexual exploitation and/or prostitution, and production and/or distribution of pornography. For the calendar years 2019 through September 20, 2022, there are no Canadian green notices active.
Regarding part (iii) of the question, please note that notices are broadcast globally, as opposed to individual countries.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 568—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) instruction to tax preparation software providers to include changes proposed in Bill C-8 in 2021 tax returns while the bill was still under debate: (a) how many returns included invalid claims as a result; (b) what is the average processing time for cases of CRA employees assisting taxpayers to correct invalid claims; and (c) what was the total value of refunds owed to taxpayers delayed by invalid claims on returns?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has always had the backs of Canadians in their time of need, and Bill C-8 is another example of how we’re making life more affordable for Canadians. The CRA was unable to administer the tax credits in question without Bill C-8 achieving royal assent. Royal assent for Bill C-8 was delayed because of procedural delays during the bill’s various stages of study.
With regard to (a), regarding impacts of the aforementioned procedural delays, approximately 140,000 returns have been received with claims for the eligible educator school supply tax credit and the return of fuel charge proceeds to farmers tax credit pending royal assent.
With regard to (b), as of May 11, 2022, all tax returns are being held in abeyance within CRA systems. Once royal assent is received, it is expected that all of the 140,000 returns would be processed within a few days, with the exception of a very small percentage that might require further upfront validation.
With regard to part (c), as of May 11, 2022, as the returns have not been assessed, the CRA is unable to provide an answer in the manner requested. Once Bill C-8 for the eligible educator school supply tax credit and the return of fuel charge proceeds to farmers tax credit receives royal assent, the returns will be processed.
The CRA has a long-standing practice to encourage taxpayers and registrant taxpayers to comply with the introduction of proposed tax measures on the assumption that the legislation for these tax measures will be enacted. This practice is consistent with parliamentary convention, helps provide consistency and fairness in the tax treatment of taxpayers, and eases both the compliance burden on taxpayers and the administrative burden on the CRA.
When proposed legislation results in an increase to refundable credits or benefits such as the Canada child benefit, or CCB, the Canada workers benefit, or if a GST/HST rebate to the taxpayer or a significant rebate or refund is at stake, the CRA's practice is to wait until the legislation for that specific measure has been enacted before making any of these types of payments.
This cautious approach recognizes that although parliamentary convention dictates that taxation proposals are effective as soon as a Notice of Ways and Means Motion is tabled, there is no clear authority for the CRA to make these increased payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The term “invalid claim”, which appears in the question, is not a term used by the CRA in this context. Therefore, for the purposes of this question, the CRA has responded in respect of “returns received”.

Question No. 570—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government’s divestiture of the Summerland Research and Development Centre: (a) what is the purpose for the divestiture; (b) what are the lot numbers; (c) what is the estimated date for divestiture; (d) is there a map outlining the boundaries of those lots, and, if so, what is the map and outline description; and (e) has an entity been indemnified to divest the lots to, and, if so, what entity?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, is not currently divesting the Summerland Research and Development Centre property in whole or in part. Furthermore, this property has not been declared surplus by AAFC.
AAFC is bound by the Treasury Board directive on the management of real property to demonstrate sound stewardship by reviewing our real property holdings on a cyclical basis to identify real property that is underutilized, inefficient or no longer needed to support departmental programs, and by disposing of surplus real property in a manner that minimizes liability and ensures best value to the Crown. Should lands become surplus and formally declared as such, divestiture would follow the prescribed process.

Question No. 571—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency, since July 15, 2019: (a) how many notices of violation, within the meaning of Part VI of the Canada Transportation Act, have been issued for sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, broken down by (i) section, (ii) year; and (b) of the violations in (a), how many administrative monetary penalties have been issued to air carriers, broken down by (i) year, (ii) amount, (iii) violation?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, information regarding the two Canadian Transportation Agency enforcement actions pertaining to the air passenger protection regulations linked to sections mentioned in the question, are available on the following webpages: https://otc- cta.gc.ca/eng /enforcement-action/ westjet-2 and https://otc-cta. gc.ca/eng/ enforcement-action/ air-transat-at.

Question No. 576—
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to completed access to information requests, broken down by each entity subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act: (a) how many release packages contained redactions, broken down by year, since 2019; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of exemption and section of the act used to justify the redaction?
Response
Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, each fiscal year, Treasury Board Secretariat, TBS, collects data on the number of requests received, completed, closed and responded to according to legislative timelines, 30 days, extensions taken, and exemptions and exclusions invoked.
In response to (a), TBS collects data on the volume of requests closed during the reporting period, including information on the disposition of each request, including disclosed in part, all exempted and all excluded.
In response to (b), TBS also collects data on the number of requests to which particular exemptions were applied.
TBS publishes a summary of this information annually in the access to information and privacy statistical report, as well as datasets that contain all the statistical data reported by all institutions, broken down by institution, at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/statistics-atip.html. The information requested can be calculated based on the published datasets.
The “Access to Information and Privacy Statistical Report for the 2021 to 2022 Fiscal Year” will be published by December 31, 2022.
All data presented in the access to information and privacy statistical report, as well as the statistical data that is available in an open format, is based on fiscal years. As such, data since 2019 would include the 2018-19 fiscal year. 

Question No. 577—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to cod fishery policy and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what are DFO's estimates or projections on the number of cod that will be eaten by harp seals in Canadian waters in 2022; and (b) what is the total number of cod that can be legally caught by commercial fishermen in Canada in 2022?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to growing Canada’s fish and seafood sector, and we know that seals eat fish. We established the Atlantic seal science task team to bridge the gap between our existing science, and what harvesters were seeing out on the water. This fall, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be hosting a Seal Summit as per the task team’s recommendations, which will bring scientists, harvesters, indigenous peoples and communities together on this critical issue.
The total number of cod that can be legally caught by all commercial means, directed and bycatch, in 2022 is 2,370 tonnes. This does not include two cod stocks that await ministerial decision for 2022. However, in 2021 the total amount that can be caught legally by commercial fishermen was 13,640 tonnes for the two stocks.

Question No. 578—
Mrs. Rachael Thomas:
With regard to actions taken by the Clerk of the Privy Council in response to statements made in public by the Prime Minister or any other minister, broken down by year since January 1, 2016: (a) how many times did the clerk (i) consider, (ii) inform the Office of the Prime Minister, that a statement made by the Prime Minister or another minister in public was false or misleading; and (b) what are the details of each instance in (a), including (i) the date, (ii) the false or misleading statement, (iii) who made the statement, (iv) the summary of any action taken to correct the false or misleading information?
Response
Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council advises the Prime Minister and elected government officials from an objective, non-partisan, public policy perspective. In this capacity, she discusses a wide range of issues with the Prime Minister, his office, and other ministers on a regular basis. Further information on the clerk’s role and any announcements can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council.html.

Question No. 580—
Mrs. Rachael Thomas:
With regard to performance audits or similar types of assessments related to passport processing times which were ongoing, or have been conducted since January 1, 2022: what are the details of each audit or assessment, including for each the (i) start and end date of the time period audited or assessed, (ii) summary and scope of the audit or assessment, (iii) findings, (iv) recommended changes to improve processing times, if applicable, (v) changes actually implemented, (vi) entity responsible for conducting the audit or assessment?
Response
Ms. Ya’ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Internal Audit Services at ESDC has not completed a performance audit related to passport processing times since January 1, 2022.

Question No. 581—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to the government's reaction to plans made by the United Kingdom to mandate computed tomography (CT) scanning equipment in all of their airports by 2024: (a) what is the timeline for when CT or similar 3D scanners will be installed into each Canadian airport; and (b) what is the timeline for when the restrictions on liquids in carry-on items by passengers can be modified as a result of such equipment being installed?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), computed tomography, CT, X-ray technology is an enhanced means to mitigate threats to aviation security. Through the screening authority, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA, Canada has leveraged CT X-ray technology for screening checked baggage for over 15 years and it is currently deployed at all major airports in Canada. Transport Canada is working closely with CATSA to further expand the use of CT X-ray technology to enhance screening.
Transport Canada recently reached out to security partners such as the United Kingdom and the United States to gather information on CT X-ray technology and to align security requirements.
Planning and coordination are under way by CATSA to trial a next generation CT X-ray technology at a passenger pre-board screening checkpoint during the summer of 2022.
Transport Canada will assess CT X-ray technology during the upcoming trial to evaluate its performance on security effectiveness and operational efficiency.
Following the trial, Transport Canada will assess findings and determine possible deployment of CT X-ray technology at passenger pre-board screening checkpoints.
Canada’s timelines on the deployment of CT X-ray technology to enhance passenger screening shall be based on trial results and further consultation with security partners such as the United States and the United Kingdom.
With regard to part (b), any modifications to Canada’s volumetric restrictions on liquids, gels and aerosols shall be determined based on threat risks and strategic alignment of program requirements.

Question No. 582—
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the government's ArriveCan application: (a) since January 1, 2022, how many individuals have been exempted from the requirement to submit the information required by the application prior to arriving in Canada; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by circumstance or reason for exemption (professional sports team, humanitarian refugee, no access to electronic device, etc.)?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2022, there have been no exemptions to submitting the required information in ArriveCAN.

Question No. 583—
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to VIA Rail's morning commuter service: when will train 651 between Kingston and Toronto (including stops in Coburg and Port Hope), be reinstated and begin operating again?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail’s ridership decreased 95% at the peak of the pandemic and demand is coming back.
VIA Rail’s objective has always been the safe resumption of services when conditions allowed it, and the corporation is pleased to offer its passengers more options this summer with the return of most of its services across the country by the end of June 2022. This was announced on April 14, 2022, and is available at the following web address: https://media.viarail.ca/en/press-releases/2022/back-track-rail-increases-services-across-canada-time-summer.
Throughout the pandemic, VIA Rail’s decision to add frequencies has been based on various factors, including demand and continuing to employ a balanced approach in order to fulfill VIA Rail’s important public service mandate and manage financial impacts.
VIA Rail is therefore constantly evaluating its services, and after two years of the pandemic, VIA Rail is looking at the impact of the changes in travel habits on its operations, for example the new work-from-home reality.
While train 651 is not slated to return in June 2022, VIA Rail continues to evaluate this route and several others. The corporation expects to complete an analysis of the impact of telecommuting and other business recovery considerations in the coming months.

Question No. 584—
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to Royal Canadian Air Force flights, including training flights which flew over downtown Ottawa between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2022: what are the details of each such flight, including (i) the date, (ii) the type of aircraft, (iii) the origin, (iv) the destination, (v) the number of individuals on board, (vi) the purpose of the flight, including the type of training, if applicable, (vii) whether there was any equipment on board that could be used for any type of surveillance, and, if so, the type of equipment on board, (viii) whether any surveillance was conducted, or equipment that conducts surveillance was used, even if as part of a training exercise, and, if so, the details of what was used and how it was used?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, operates multiple fleets of aircraft across Canada. On a daily basis, these aircraft conduct routine operations, including search and rescue activities, transportation of cargo, pilot training, medical transportation, the secure transportation of VIPs and deployment of personnel for operations in Canada and abroad.
As part of routine operations and training, the RCAF may fly over downtown Ottawa depending on air traffic, the runway required to depart or arrive at the Ottawa or Gatineau airports and the routings issued by the air traffic controller. Additionally, RCAF aircraft may fly over downtown Ottawa as part of public relations events and ceremonial activities, including Remembrance Day.
Providing the requested details would require a manual search of data for over 115 RCAF flights that used the Ottawa or Gatineau airports between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2022, which could not be completed in the allotted time.
While not in the scope of this Order Paper question, National Defence previously shared information on this matter. The training was planned prior to, and was unrelated to, the domestic event that was taking place at the time. These flights are conducted in order to maintain essential qualifications and currency on airborne ISR-related equipment. The training was planned as part of annual training requirements, and the capabilities were booked in advance. Cancelling such training would have been costly and would have had a negative impact on maintaining required certifications and qualifications and thus on Canadian Armed Forces operational readiness.

Question No. 587—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the sum of $68,820,713 issued in remissions from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to broadcasters that was listed on page 13 of the President of the Treasury Board's Fees Report for the 2020-21 fiscal year: what is the breakdown of this sum for each broadcaster, media outlet, or company?
Response
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that it constitutes financial information that is confidential information supplied to the commission by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party.

Question No. 590—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the tariff on fertilizer originating from Russia: how much revenue money has been collected as a result of the tariff on purchase orders which were made (i) prior to March 2, 2022, (ii) on or since March 2, 2022, (iii) in total?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, customs duties and taxes are assessed based on the time of importation of goods, as opposed to the date of when they are purchased. This includes products subject to the general tariff of 35% that now applies to virtually all goods from Russia and Belarus pursuant to the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff Withdrawal Order (2022-1) P.C. 2022-0182, which came into force on March 2, 2022. This order also specifies that it does not apply to goods that were in transit to Canada on or before March 2, 2022.
From the time the order took effect until June 30, 2022, fertilizer importations with a value for duty of $75.5 million were subject to the in-transit exclusion, and no customs duties applied. Importations with a value for duty of $97.5 million were subject to the general tariff, with a total value of customs duties collected of $34.1 million.
On June 27, at the G7 leaders’ summit in Elmau, Germany, Canada and other G7 members committed to explore possible pathways to use these tariff revenues to assist Ukraine.
Effective June 20, 2022, the government also provided additional interest-free relief under the advance payment program. This change is forecast to save producers $61 million over two program years to offset the rising costs of inputs, including fertilizers.

Question No. 591—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to individuals requiring an urgent passport for travel commencing within two business days or less being turned away or told to return to passport offices another day, since March 1, 2022: (a) on how many days, broken down by month and by passport office location, were individuals turned away due to (i) lack of capacity, (ii) other reasons, broken down by reason; and (b) does the government have estimates on the number of individuals who were turned away in (a), and, if so, what are they?
Response
Ms. Ya’ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, passport applicants with proof of travel within two business days are not turned away from passport sites. In large urban centers, Service Canada has implemented triage measures to provide a more intensive, client-specific approach. Across the country, managers and executives are speaking directly with clients in order to triage lineups at specialized passport sites. This ensures that clients are prioritized by date of travel and, while wait times may be lengthy, are provided the service required.
Clients travelling within two business days are instructed to visit a specialized passport site that offers urgent pickup service, while those travelling within 45 business days are encouraged to make an appointment and apply in person at one of the 35 passport sites across the country. Clients travelling beyond 45 business days can make an appointment and apply in person at a Service Canada centre or by mail. We do not track the number of individuals who do not receive service at passport offices.
The service standard for processing the in-person passport applications done at one of the Service Canada specialized passport sites is 10 days. Service Canada has been continuously meeting the performance target for this service standard. For the week ending July 31, 96% of those who applied in person at a specialized passport office received their passports in under 10 business days, and 81% of Canadians currently receive their passports in under 40 business days.

Question No. 592—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency and the current backlog of 295,133 Nexus applications: (a) what is the government's projected timeframe for clearing the backlog; (b) what is the government's projection for what the backlog will be as of (i) October 1, 2022, (ii) January 1, 2023, (iii) April 1, 2023, (iv) July 1, 2023; (c) when will the Canadian enrollment centres open for applicant interviews, broken down by each location; and (d) what is the government's explanation for why the United States was able to open Nexus enrolment centres for applicant interviews in April 2022, yet the Canadian centres remain closed?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), CBSA jointly administers the Nexus trusted traveller program with United States Customs and Border Protection, or CBP. All initial applicants, along with approximately 30% of renewing members, require an interview for the purposes of identity or document verification and the collection of biometrics
It is difficult to project future application numbers, as a number of factors contribute to interview demand, including travel intentions and the U.S. exchange rate. The CBSA is working closely with CBP to increase the capacity of existing enrolment centres, to return CBP officers to Canadian enrolment centres and to expand opportunities for applicants, such as the use of virtual interviews using video conferencing technologies. Given variability in demand and capacity, the CBSA cannot commit to a timeline to clear the interview backlog.
With regard to part (b), the CBSA is working to address the interview capacity and is not able to provide a projection at this time.
With regard to part (c), a date has not yet been determined regarding the reopening of Canadian enrolment centres. Canada and the U.S. are currently discussing the timing of the resumption of interviews at Canadian enrolment centres. CBSA has always taken a national approach to reopening all enrolment centres at the same time, and the agency plans on adopting the same approach once a decision is made to reopen enrolment centres.
With regard to part (d), the Nexus program is jointly administered by Canada and the U.S. Canada and the U.S. are in discussions about the timing of the reopening of Canadian enrolment centres. Until that time, enrolment centres in Canada will continue to be closed.

Question No. 594—
Mr. Rob Morrison:
With regard to the government's decision to allow the possession of up to 2.5 grams of hard drugs, including fentanyl, to be decriminalized in British Columbia: (a) does Health Canada consider a 2.5 gram dose of fentanyl to be potentially lethal; (b) does Health Canada still consider the statement on its website in reference to fentanyl that "A few grains can be enough to kill you" to be accurate; (c) if the response to (b) is negative, when did the position change and why; and (d) what does Health Canada consider to be a safe amount of fentanyl that may be consumed without causing death?
Response
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a lethal dose can vary from person to person. The composition and purity of the illegal drug supply varies, including strong opioids such as fentanyl. In particular, the illegal drug supply remains contaminated by potent drugs like fentanyl and its analogues and has the potential to pose harm to people who use drugs. Health Canada recognizes that fentanyl is a dangerous drug due to its potency and risk of overdose, in particular if used in ways that increase risk of harm, such as using alone or mixed with other substances. For this reason, fentanyl and its analogues are controlled under Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Activities with fentanyl such as possession and production are illegal, unless authorized through the Act’s regulations or an exemption under the Act.
With regard to 100% pure fentanyl, not to the illegal drug supply, the lethal dose of fentanyl has never been determined in humans. From a precautionary approach, it is generally considered that fentanyl has the potential to be lethal at doses over 2 milligrams.
Substance use and its harms are shaped by several complex factors. A number of factors contribute to overdose fatalities, including mixing substances, as when taking opioids with alcohol or sedatives; method of use; level of tolerance, as someone with a higher tolerance may use more of a drug than someone else; unknown purity or potency as a result of contaminants in the illegal drug supply; or other health conditions, such as liver or kidney disease or breathing problems. Anyone who uses illegal drugs, including fentanyl, should continue to engage in harm reduction measures to reduce the risk of overdose and death.
In response to a request from the Province of British Columbia, from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2026, adults 18 and over in B.C. will not be subject to criminal charges for the possession of up to 2.5 grams of certain illegal drugs for personal use. More information on the exemption can be found at the Health Canada website.
In assessing this exemption request, the dual objectives of the CDSA—to protect public health and maintain public safety—were considered. The inclusion of fentanyl in this exemption and the associated threshold should not be misconstrued as a statement on its safety. Anyone who uses illegal drugs, including fentanyl, should continue to engage in harm reduction measures to reduce the risk of overdose and death.
With respect to B.C.’s exemption, it is important to note that the amount of the listed illegal drugs that a person may possess does not necessarily equate to the amount they will use at one time. Someone who uses drugs may be in possession of more than they plan to use at one time for a number of reasons, such as limited local availability of drugs for purchase; transportation/geographic considerations, such as living in rural or remote locations; or buying in bulk to reduce interaction with the illegal market.
This exemption only relates to possession for personal use. Trafficking, as well as unauthorized possession for the purposes of trafficking, remain illegal regardless of the amount of controlled substances involved. Further, it is also important to note that law enforcement can still arrest and seize drugs at any amount, even under the 2.5-gram threshold, for other offences, such as trafficking. Above the threshold, law enforcement will continue to use their discretion to determine intent, and prosecutors will need to consider the Public Prosecution Service of Canada’s guidance on possession charges.
Several sources of data were carefully considered with respect to the threshold in B.C.’s exemption, including purchasing and use patterns, public health data and law enforcement data such as drug seizures.
As this is the first exemption of its kind in Canada, its implementation will be rigorously monitored to measure progress toward established objectives and intended outcomes, and to identify unintended consequences and other potential risks. Ongoing evaluation will take place throughout the duration of the exemption, including independent, peer-reviewed, third party evaluation.
This exemption is one additional tool to support B.C.’s comprehensive response to this public health crisis. The Government of Canada’s approach to addressing the overdose crisis also aims to reduce stigma and harm associated with substance use and reduce the trafficking of illegal drugs. This includes increasing access to pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to the toxic drug supply to provide a safer supply, border enforcement of precursor chemical imports, investing in a robust system of care that includes mental health, and monitoring and evaluating efforts to inform an evidence base and identify best practices.

Question No. 596—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and its College of Reviewers: (a) what specific conflict of interest prohibitions, if any, are placed on the reviewers; (b) what specific prohibitions, if any, are placed on the reviewers' current or past activities related to conducting work, (including any previous employment), by a firm or organization that applied for funding through the CIHR; (c) since 2016, broken down by year, how many reviewers have been removed from their position due to conflict of interest prohibitions; and (d) what are the details or summary of each instance in (c)?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), all participants of the peer review process, including peer reviewers, are subject to the conflict of interest and confidentiality policy of the federal research funding organizations, which defines conditions under which an individual cannot be a peer reviewer, in particular sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Those conditions are further detailed in the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Peer Reviewers and Peer Review Observers, the signing of which is a condition of participation in peer review.
The agreement states that there may be a real, perceived or potential conflict of interest when the peer reviewer or observer would receive professional or personal benefit resulting from the funding opportunity or application being reviewed; has a professional or personal relationship with an applicant or the applicant’s institution; has a direct or indirect financial interest in a funding opportunity or application being reviewed; or is currently under investigation for an alleged breach of funding organization policies.
A conflict of interest may be deemed to exist or perceived as such when peer reviewers or observers are applicants within the competition and have ability to bias or influence the process to the benefit of their application; are a relative or close friend, or have a personal relationship with an applicant; are in a position to gain or lose financially/materially from the funding of an application; have had long-standing scientific or personal differences with an applicant; are currently affiliated with an applicant’s institution, organization or company, including research hospitals and research institutes; or are closely professionally affiliated with an applicant because of having in the last six years frequent and regular interactions with an applicant in the course of their duties at their department, institution, organization or company; been a supervisor or a trainee of an applicant; collaborated, published, or shared funding with an applicant, or have plans to do so in the immediate future; or been employed by the institution when an institution is the applicant; and/or feel for any reason unable to provide an impartial review of the application.
With regard to (b), as outlined above, there are numerous conditions defining a conflict of interest and which may prevent a fair review from proceeding, most notably when reviewers are closely professionally affiliated with an applicant, as a result of having in the last six years frequent and regular interactions with an applicant in the course of their duties at their department, institution, organization or company. Together with the list of other conditions, this is intended to mitigate against any conflict of interest situations.
With regard to (c) and (d), CIHR does not “remove” members from their position as a member of the peer review committee; rather, their self-declared conflicts are used by CIHR to manage and avoid conflicts of interest during the peer review meetings. Practically speaking, this means that during peer review meetings, a member will be asked to leave the discussions for an application on which they declared a conflict of interest. That member is also not given access to any material related to that same application. Members in a conflict-of-interest situation are returned to the discussion once deliberations on the application in conflict have ended. This approach avoids conflict of interest situations in the scientific peer review process at the core of the CIHR mandate.

Question No. 599—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the government's claim that its decision to keep various pandemic-related restrictions in place, such as mask mandates and mandatory vaccination requirements, is based on science: (a) is it based on medical science or political science; (b) for each restriction still in place as of June 3, 2022, is there any specific scientific evidence to support the restriction, and, if so, what is the evidence; (c) is the scientific evidence in Canada different than the evidence used by governments in the European Union, the United States, and other parts of the world that have eliminated such restrictions; and (d) if the scientific evidence in (c) is different, how is it different?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of June 3, 2022, the in-force Order in Council, or OIC, regarding COVID-19 is OIC 2022-0567, “Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada Order”. OIC 2022-0567 came into force on May 31, 2022. The OIC was repealed and replaced by “OIC 2022-0836 Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada Order” on June 27 and remains in effect until September 30, 2022.
With regard to (a), the Government of Canada’s decision with respect to COVID19 border measures continue to be based on epidemiological scientific evidence.
The government’s top priority is the health and safety of Canadians. To limit the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in Canada, the government has taken unprecedented action to implement a comprehensive strategy with layers of precautionary measures.
SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and was a new strain of virus that had never before been seen in humans. SARS-CoV-2 causes the disease COVID-19. Canada’s first case of the disease was confirmed on January 27, 2020. Originally seen to be a local outbreak, COVID-19 spread rapidly, and on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization, WHO, declared a COVI-19 pandemic. Five days later, Canada had 401 confirmed cases, and the chief public health officer, or CPHO, of Canada stated that COVID‑19 posed a serious health risk. COVID-19 has now affected the majority of countries around the world. As of June 13, 2022, over two years after the WHO declared a pandemic, the WHO COVID-19 dashboard was reporting more than 533 million global cases and more than 6.3 million global deaths.
Between February 3, 2020, and May 31, 2022, 79 emergency OICs were made under the Quarantine Act to minimize the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in Canada, to reduce the risk of importation from other countries, to repatriate Canadians and to strengthen measures at the border to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in Canada. Combined, these measures have been effective in significantly reducing the number of travel-related cases.
Any changes to international travel restrictions and advice are based on national and international evidence-based risk assessments. With the COVID-19 vaccines assisting in pandemic control measures, the government has used a phased approach to easing border measures for fully vaccinated travellers and maintaining requirements for unvaccinated travellers. These decisions are grounded in meeting specific public health criteria, and based on scientific evidence and the epidemiological situation in Canada and globally.
With regard to (b), epidemiological scientific evidence underpinned the government’s COVID-19 border measures, including those that remain in place as of June 3, 2022.
As of June 3, 2022 under “OIC 2022-0567 Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada Order”, foreign nationals intending to enter Canada must meet the specified vaccination requirements. In addition, travellers permitted entry into Canada are subject to requirements for tests, quarantine and other post-border measures, as applicable, in Canada.
With regard to (c), the Government of Canada engages its international partners, and leverages the WHO’s unique convening role to bring together expertise and resources from nearly 200 member states via initiatives such as the technical advisory group on SARS-CoV-2 virus evolution and the WHO hub for pandemic and epidemic intelligence to monitor and evaluate the evolution of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
The scientific evidence used to inform Canada’s international border measures was based on the epidemiological situation in Canada, the global body of epidemiological evidence on COVID-19, and the effectiveness of related public health measures and global trends. Canadian measures are implemented in the interest of the health and safety of the Canadian public.
Likewise, Canada’s high vaccination rates and epidemiological situation supported the lifting of pre-arrival testing for fully vaccinated travellers as of April 1, 2022. Pre-arrival testing requirements remain in place for unvaccinated travellers five years of age or older, except for children under the age of 12 if they are accompanying a fully vaccinated adult. To protect against the introduction and spread of COVID-19 and its variants in Canada and to reduce the potential burden on the health care system, the Government of Canada continues to take a precautionary approach by maintaining current quarantine and testing requirements for unvaccinated travellers and limiting entry to fully vaccinated foreign nationals and persons with right of entry into Canada, with limited exceptions.
With regard to (d), the scientific evidence used to inform Canada’s international border measures was based on the epidemiological situation in Canada, the global body of epidemiological evidence on COVID-19, and the effectiveness of related public health measures and global trends. Canadian measures are implemented in the interest of the health and safety of the Canadian public.

Question No. 601—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): (a) have the shows (i) Keep Your Head Up, Kid: The Don Cherry Story, (ii) Wrath of Grapes: The Don Cherry Story II, (iii) Trudeau, (iv) Trudeau II: Maverick in the Making, (v) Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story, been removed from CBC Gem and other online CBC platforms; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of the removal of each show, including, for each, (i) why it was removed, (ii) what steps the CBC has taken to preserve the content, (iii) the dates on which it was removed, (iv) who made the decision to remove the content, (v) the date on which the Minister of Canadian Heritage became aware of the shows' removal, (vi) the actions taken by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, if any, to ensure that these and other heritage shows were preserved?
Response
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the requested titles, all were created by independent producers. CBC purchases the rights to broadcast and stream each show for a set period of time from the independent producer, who maintains ownership of the program.
In response to (a), CBC did not take online viewing rights for Trudeau, Trudeau II: Maverick in the Making, and Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story, as these programs were produced before online streaming. Those shows were therefore never on CBC Gem or any other online CBC platforms.
In response to (b)(i), (b)(iii) and (b)(iv), CBC licensed online rights from the independent producer for Keep Your Head Up, Kid: The Don Cherry Story and Wrath of Grapes: The Don Cherry Story II. Those programs were available for online viewing by audiences until the expiry of those agreements in January 2016 and March 2019 respectively.
In response to (b)(ii), the titles enumerated in (b)(i) were funded by the former Canadian Television Fund, CTF, or the current Canada Media Fund, CMF. Pursuant to the independent producers’ agreement with the CTF/CMF, copies of these programs may have been provided to Library and Archives Canada.
In response to (b)(v) and (b)(vi), CBC/Radio-Canada is an arm’s-length Crown corporation established by the Broadcasting Act that has full freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence. We do not inform the Minister of Canadian Heritage about specific programming decisions.

Question No. 603—
Mr. Jeremy Patzer:
With regard to the government's decision to keep COVID-19 related travel and employment restrictions in place months longer than the United States, the European Union, and other countries around the world: (a) is the Prime Minister making this decision based on what scientists are telling him and, if so, what are the names and the titles of the scientists who the Prime Minister is actually listening to; and (b) what specific rationale did each scientist in (a) use to justify why Canada should maintain these restrictions despite the decision of other countries to drop them?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in regard to part (a) of the question, since the onset of the pandemic, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, has provided guidance and advice on public health measures at both the individual and community level to help reduce the spread of COVID-19 and protect the health and safety of people living in Canada. PHAC’s guidance is informed by scientific evidence, expert opinion and established public health practices. The implementation of vaccine mandates in the fall of 2021 was a decision of the Government of Canada informed by public health advice.
The vaccine mandate was introduced in recognition of the public health situation in Canada, specifically, to ensure the safety and security of the transportation system, passengers and transportation employees, and the public, delivering immediate protection from infection and severity of illness in workplaces and for travellers.
Canada’s vaccination mandate for the transport sector was informed by scientific evidence and information on the efficacy, availability and uptake of vaccines; the evolving domestic and international epidemiological situation; and the effectiveness of public health and other measures.
Since then, the epidemiological context has changed considerably, including regional trends, availability of health care system capacity, long-range modelling and evidence concerning vaccine effectiveness, specifically against infection and transmission of circulating variants. With regard to the easing of measures and suspending of mandates, the Minister of Health and the Government of Canada carefully considered the emerging evidence regarding the impact of omicron, as well as other relevant factors, including vaccination rates in Canada of those with two doses and boosted. The government administered necessary measures to keep Canadians safe from public health threats.
In response to part (b), as announced on June 14, 2022, the government suspended the federal vaccine mandates effective June 20, 2022, for the federal public service and the federally regulated transportation sector. The Government of Canada’s decision to suspend the mandatory vaccination requirements was informed by key indicators, including the evolution of the virus; the epidemiologic situation and modelling, that is stabilization of infection and hospitalizations across the country; vaccine science; and high levels of vaccination in Canada against COVID-19.
With higher levels of immunity, either through vaccination or infection, greater availability of anti-viral drugs and lower hospitalization rates, Canada is better equipped to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic and reduce pressure on the health care system. The government will continue to closely monitor domestic and international scientific evidence and evaluate the new public health measures, particularly as we approach the fall.
Similarly, the scientific evidence used to inform Canada’s international border measures was based on the epidemiological situation in Canada, the global body of epidemiological evidence on COVID-19 and the effectiveness of related public health measures and global trends. Canadian measures are implemented in the interest of the health and safety of the Canadian public.
Any changes to international travel restrictions and advice are based on national and international evidence-based risk assessments. Consequently, as the COVID-19 virus continues to evolve and circulate in Canada and around the world, and with the COVID-19 vaccines assisting in pandemic control measures, the government has used a phased approach to easing border measures for fully vaccinated travellers and maintaining requirements for unvaccinated travellers.
It is important to note that effectiveness varies depending on the COVID-19 vaccine product received, and that effectiveness decreases over time following vaccination. However, COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19. Further, Canada recognizes that, against omicron and its sublineages, a primary vaccine series is less effective at decreasing symptomatic or asymptomatic infection, but still offers reasonable protection against severe disease.
To protect against the introduction and spread of COVID-19 and its variants in Canada and to reduce the potential burden on the health care system, the Government of Canada continues to take a precautionary approach by maintaining current quarantine and testing requirements for unvaccinated travellers and limiting entry to fully vaccinated foreign nationals and persons with right of entry into Canada, with limited exceptions.

Question No. 606—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the Canada Digital Adoption Program: (a) what is the number of businesses which have applied, as of June 7, 2022, to the (i) "Grow Your Business Online" stream, (ii) "Boost Your Business Technology" stream; (b) what is the number of students hired, as of June 7, 2022, via the (i) "Grow Your Business Online" stream, (ii) "Boost Your Business Technology" stream, broken down by week since April 6, 2022; and (c) of the $ 47,122,734 value of the contracts allocated to Magnet to administer the "Boost Your Business Technology" stream for the 2022-23 fiscal year, what (i) is the dollar amount that has so far been provided to Magnet, broken down by week since April 1, 2022, (ii) are the thresholds or criteria which Magnet is required to meet under the contract to receive allocated funding?
Response
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i), 23070 businesses have registered their interest with Grow Your Business Online, GYBO, intermediaries as of May 31, 2022. In addition, 632 of these businesses submitted a completed application to the intermediaries. Data is reported on a monthly basis and cannot be broken down by a specific day or week; so the number of businesses that have applied is reported as of May 31.
With regard to (a)(ii), as of June 7, 2022, 2,579 businesses have applied to the Boost Your Business Technology stream.
With regard to (b)(i), as of June 7, 2022, 263 e-commerce advisers have been hired via the GYBO stream. Following April 6, 2022, 109 e-commerce advisors were hired in April and 154 in May. Intermediaries provide monthly reports, which do not include a breakdown of data by week.
With regard to (b)(ii) and (c), as of June 7, 2022, no students or recent graduates have yet been hired by eligible business for the CDAP – Boost Your Business Technology Stream-funded work placement. Eligible businesses must first obtain a digital adoption plan and receive their grant, or be approved through the fast-track process, before they are able to hire students to assist them with their digital transformation. It takes about three months for a digital adviser to develop a digital adoption plan for a business. Given that the program was launched in early March 2022, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, anticipates the first clients requesting the funded work placement wage subsidy in late June. The youth placement subsidy will be paid by Magnet at a cost of up to $7,300 as reimbursement upon production of proof of wage payment by the business. ISED will reimburse Magnet for the full costs of the wage subsidies to eligible small and medium enterprises. Under the contribution agreement, ISED also will dispense funding to Magnet based on administration costs incurred, up to a maximum of 12% of the total program funding budgeted for the funded youth work placements.

Question No. 608—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the findings in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's (PBO) report from March 24, 2022, that "Most households in provinces under the backstop will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing": (a) why has the Minister of Environment and Climate Change continued to promote the government's talking point that 8 out of 10 families are better off under the carbon tax, even after the PBO's report shows that such a claim is either misinformation or disinformation; and (b) does the government have any policies against the promotion of misinformation or disinformation, and, if so, why are such policies not being implemented in this matter?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there has been some confusion about the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, and the details are important.
The PBO report broadly consists of two main parts. The first part looks at direct costs like increased fuel prices, and the revenue that is returned to households. This first part is straightforward and underscores how carbon pricing works. By gradually increasing the cost of fossil fuels and returning proceeds to Canadians, carbon pricing delivers an incentive to choose greener options while keeping the policy affordable. Importantly, the PBO’s report confirms that, under the federal carbon pricing system, the average household receives more in climate action incentive, or CAI, payments than they face in direct costs due to carbon pricing. Most households come out ahead, and low-income households, in particular, do much better. This is because CAI payments are based on the average amount paid in the province, and high-income households tend to use more energy for larger and more vehicles and larger houses, but everyone gets the same amount of money back.
The second part of the PBO report is where the confusion arises. The report claims that, in addition to paying the carbon price, each household also “pays” in the form of slower gross domestic product, or GDP, growth. The problem with this conclusion is that the PBO report compares GDP growth in a scenario with carbon pricing to GDP growth in a scenario in which there is no action of any kind to address climate change. This approach highlights the costs of one policy without considering real alternatives. This is not a valid comparison. Inaction on climate change is not an option. It would lead to massive costs in the future.
An appropriate comparison would include a scenario with carbon pricing and a scenario in which climate change is addressed by measures other than carbon pricing. Compared to alternatives, such as more regulations or bigger spending, experts agree that carbon pricing is the least expensive of all the policies to address climate change. In that comparison, the carbon pricing scenario comes out ahead.
The PBO report also acknowledges that its assessment of the impacts of carbon pricing does not account for the benefits of carbon pricing. Further, the study does not quantify the avoided climate damages associated with the greenhouse gas emissions reduced by carbon pricing. Without accounting for these, and other complementary policies and investments, including the numerous expected economic benefits of pricing, the report’s GDP projections likely overestimate the impact of carbon pricing on GDP growth. Finally, by presenting the difference between scenarios as a cost, a scenario where we put a price on pollution and one where we do nothing, the analysis contributes to a misconception that carbon pricing causes GDP to decline, when in fact, according to the PBO’s analysis, GDP and incomes rise in both scenarios, only at different rates. Carbon pricing drives innovation and new technologies, and this creates jobs and economic growth. When you compare carbon pricing with other options, study after study confirms the benefits of carbon pricing.
Although the Government of Canada does not currently have any policies that specifically mention misinformation or disinformation, the policy on communications and federal identity requires all government communications to be “objective, factual, non-partisan, clear, and written in plain language.”

Question No. 612—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the statement, in June 2022, at the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) is currently operating with approximately 600 fewer screening agents compared to pre-pandemic staffing levels: (a) why is CATSA operating with fewer screeners; (b) when will CATSA meet or exceed its pre-pandemic staffing levels; (c) what action, if any, did the Minister of Transport take in early 2022 to ensure that CATSA had enough screening agents, and why did such action still result in CATSA having 600 fewer screening agents; (d) on what specific date did the Minister of Transport first become aware that there would be a shortage of CATSA screening agents; and (e) on the date in (d), what were the projections regarding the shortage, including the number of screeners CATSA would be short by and the resulting wait times at airports as a result of the shortage?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (c), Transport Canada has been collaborating closely with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including on the matter of helping to ensure sufficient screening agents to support air sector recovery.
A key component of CATSA’s ability to secure sufficient screening officers is making sure that CATSA is sufficiently funded. CATSA typically seeks an annual funding supplement to cover its full year operations, and in early 2022, Transport Canada was working to secure funding for fiscal year 2022-23 of $330 million, which was subsequently secured via the supplementary estimates (A), 2022-23. The majority of these additional funds is intended for CATSA’s screening contactors and is based on CATSA’s projections for air traffic volumes and related requirements for sufficient screening agents and screening hours.
Transport Canada also, working closely with CATSA, implemented a plan that facilitated the expedited hiring and training of new screening officers without compromising security. This measure proved effective at increasing the number of screening officers at passenger screening checkpoints.
With regard to part (d), Transport Canada has been collaborating with CATSA throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. CATSA began planning for postpandemic recovery in 2020. From the outset of the pandemic, CATSA retained 75% of its workforce as a means to be positioned to support the recovery of air traffic volumes. CATSA began the process of recalling its screening officers in 2021 in preparation for a recovery and kept Transport Canada apprised of the situation. A resurgence of the virus with the delta and omicron variants delayed the start of that recovery. As the air sector began to recover, CATSA worked closely with Transport Canada, airports and air carriers to forecast the demand for a busy summer period.
With regard to part (e), demand for air travel was originally anticipated to return to pre-COVID-19 air traffic levels in 2023-24. CATSA had forecast screening 59.6 million passengers in 2022-23 and 69.8 million passengers in 2023-24. The current recovery began with air traffic levels increasing materially in April and May 2022.
According to its initial projections, CATSA was planning to have 7,100 screening officers on strength to meet demand in July 2022. The actual demand in spring 2022 was above CATSA’s forecast at a time when CATSA was ramping up its operations and navigating through a difficult labor market characterized by laid-off screening officers not returning to work, attrition and absenteeism due to illness, and COVID-19 isolation protocols. In April 2022, CATSA already had 6,500 screening officers on strength. However, by July 26, 2022, it had hired over 1,600 new security screening officers, bringing its target for officers required to manage summer volumes from 93% to 102%.
Transport Canada acted quickly when it became clear that volumes were increasing to the point that they were challenging the capacity of the system. In addition to the expedited hiring and training measures noted in response (c), Transport Canada formed the airport recovery operations committee, which developed, jointly with industry representatives, concrete solutions to address the delays at the large airports during peak periods.
With regard to part (a), in May 2021, CATSA and the authority’s screening contractors began recalling screening officers in anticipation of an increase in passenger traffic for 2022-23. At the same time, CATSA’s screening contractors began recruiting new screening officer candidates. The aviation industry as a whole has been affected by a number of challenges, including labour markets and the speed at which passenger traffic increased in April and May.
With regard to part (b), CATSA continues to work with the authority’s screening contractors to increase the number of active screening officers at security screening checkpoints across the country, with a greater focus on the busiest airports.
There is no specific target to meet or exceed prepandemic staffing levels. CATSA aims to increase the number of screening officers by 1,000 in fiscal year 2022-23 to address updated passenger volumes. As of June 8, 2022, screening officer staffing levels already meet or exceed prepandemic levels at several airports, including Toronto Pearson International Airport.

Question No. 613—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act earlier this year: did any police force make a request for the Act to be invoked, and, if so, what are the specific details of any such requests, including which police forces submitted a request, and on what date each such request was received by the government?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Public Safety Canada, PS, the reasons for issuing the declaration of a public order emergency were set in the public document of explanation pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act, as well as a public document outlining the consultations that occurred around the invocation of the act. These documents highlight that between the end of January and February 14, 2022, the escalation of the threat across the country was regularly communicated by provinces and territories, PTs, and police of jurisdiction, POJs, to the federal government. They requested the federal government’s action in supporting PoJs to address the threat.
Testifying before the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency on May 10, 2022, the commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, explained that the RCMP did not request for the act to be invoked and that “[t]he measures enacted under the Emergencies Act provided all police officers across the country—not just the RCMP—with the ability to deal with blockades and unlawful public assemblies.” She testified that it was her belief “that the act provided [law enforcement agencies] with the tools to resolve the crisis swiftly and peacefully”.
During the events of January and February 2022, federal ministers and senior officials continuously engaged provinces and territories, municipalities, and law enforcement agencies to assess the situation and to offer the support and assistance of the Government of Canada. Testifying before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on Tuesday, May 17, the interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, OPS, Steve Bell, confirmed that the OPS was “involved in conversations with our partners and the political ministries.” Interim Chief Bell also informed Parliament in his testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on March 24, 2022, that, “[f]rom a policing perspective, the legislation provided the OPS with the ability to prevent people from participating in this unlawful protest.” He referred to the invocation of the act as “a critical piece of [their] efforts”.
With regard to the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not make a request for the act to be invoked.

Question No. 616—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to the daily Changing of the Guard Ceremony on Parliament Hill during the summer: (a) why did the government cancel the event for the summer of 2022; (b) which minister is responsible for the decision to cancel the event, and on what date did the minister either make or sign off on the decision; (c) what are the government's estimates on the amount of economic activity and benefits that the event brings to Ottawa each year; and (d) on what dates will the ceremony take place in 2023?
Response
Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) and (b), National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, have been taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and well-being of members, prevent the spread of COVID-19, and continue essential military operations, including in contributing to the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the CAF has been unable to train to the same scale and levels due to essential force health protection measures, which, as a result, have stretched CAF operational resources both domestically and abroad. The chief of the defence staff, as the responsible authority for the command, control, and administration of the CAF, made the decision to cancel the changing of the guard in both Ottawa and Quebec. The decision to cancel these large-scale ceremonial events was not taken lightly and was part of a deliberate effort to ensure capacity for essential activities to regenerate the force and prioritize the defence of Canada.
The ceremonial guard, who normally mount the changing of the guard, will support efforts to regenerate Canadian Army Reserve soldiers. They will focus their summer training on basic military qualification courses, which will enable them to train new recruits.
Although the changing of the guard will not take place this summer, the national sentry program has resumed for 2022. Barring changes in health postures by the City of Ottawa or the CAF, sentries will be posted at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier seven days a week from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. until November 10, 2022.
Further information about the sentry program can be found at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/programs/national-sentry-program.html.
In response to part (c), National Defence does not create estimates of this nature. The decision was based on CAF operational requirements.
In response to part (d), at this time, a decision has yet to be made for the 2023 season.

Question No. 617—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the June 7, 2022, testimony of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety to the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency during which he stated that the Minister of Public Safety was “misunderstood”: (a) in relation to the minister’s comments, in the House of Commons, on May 2, 2022, that “at the recommendation of police, we invoked the Emergencies Act to protect Canadians”, (i) is the minister’s claim accurate and true, (ii) what information was the minister relying upon in making that claim, and who provided it to him, (iii) was the minister “misunderstood”, and, if so, what is the nature of the “misunderstanding”, (iv) what are the details of the actions taken by the deputy minister or other officials in the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to correct the minister’s “misunderstanding”, (v) has the minister corrected the “misunderstanding” in the House, and, if so, what are the details of that correction, (vi) did the deputy minister notify the Clerk of the Privy Council of the minister’s “misunderstood” comments, and, if so, what are the details of that notification, (vii) was the Prime Minister notified of the minister’s “misunderstood” comments, and, if so, what are the details of that notification; (b) in relation to the minister’s comments, in the House of Commons, on April 28, 2022, that “the invocation of the Emergencies Act was only put forward after police officials told us they needed this special power”, (i) is the minister’s claim accurate and true, (ii) what information was the minister relying upon in making that claim, and who provided it to him, (iii) was the minister “misunderstood”, and, if so, what is the nature of the “misunderstanding”, (iv) what are the details of the actions taken by the deputy minister or other officials in the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to correct the minister’s “misunderstanding”, (v) has the minister corrected the “misunderstanding” in the House, and, if so, what are the details of that correction, (vi) did the deputy minister notify the Clerk of the Privy Council of the minister’s “misunderstood” comments, and, if so, what are the details of that notification, (vii) was the Prime Minister notified of the minister’s “misunderstood” comments, and, if so, what are the details of that notification; (c) are there any further comments made by the minister in the House of Commons or elsewhere, concerning the February 2022 public order emergency, which the deputy minister believes have been “misunderstood”, and, if so, what are the details of those comments and the nature of the “misunderstanding”; and (d) which of the minister’s “misunderstood” comments does the government believe constitute (i) misinformation, (ii) disinformation?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the reasons for issuing the declaration of a public order emergency were set out in the public document of explanation pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act, as well as a public document outlining the consultations that occurred around the invocation of the act. These documents highlight that between the end of January and February 14, 2022, the escalation of the threat across the country was regularly communicated by provinces and territories, PTs, and police of jurisdiction, POJs, to the federal government. They requested the federal government’s action in supporting PoJs to address the threat. During the events of January and February 2022, federal ministers and senior officials continuously engaged provinces and territories, municipalities, and law enforcement agencies to assess the situation and to offer the support and assistance of the Government of Canada.
Testifying before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on March 24, 2022, the interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, OPS, Steve Bell said, “From a policing perspective, the legislation provided the OPS with the ability to prevent people from participating in this unlawful protest”. He referred to the invocation of the act as “a critical piece of [their] efforts”.
The minister’s comments on May 2, 2022, and April 28, 2022, were reflective of the requests by law enforcement for additional tools, not for use of a specific legislative vehicle, that in turn necessitated the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was a decision of the government and clearly explained in the documents filed in the House.

Question No. 619—
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to the June 7, 2022, evidence of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety to the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency that the Government of the United States of America offered tow trucks to the Government of Canada to address vehicle-based protests in February 2022: (a) by whom was the offer made; (b) to whom was the offer made; (c) on what date was the offer made; (d) how many tow trucks were offered; (e) who owned the tow trucks offered; (f) on what dates were tow trucks offered to be available; (g) in what locations were the tow trucks offered to be available; (h) was the offer accepted by the Government of Canada; (i) concerning the decision referred to in (h), (i) who made it, (ii) when was it made, (iii) when and by whom was it communicated to the United States government, (iv) to whom in the United States government was it communicated; (j) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, how many tow trucks were provided by the United States government, broken down by (i) locations in which they were deployed, (ii) dates on which they were deployed, (iii) who owned the tow trucks deployed; and (k) if the answer to (h) is negative, (i) why was the offer not accepted, (ii) how does this reconcile with the Government of Canada’s claims that a lack of available tow trucks, among other claims, required the proclamation of a national emergency?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada works closely with a range of partners, including provinces, territories and municipalities, to ensure the safety and security of our ports of entry. We also engage with our U.S. counterparts on points of mutual interest regarding the safety and security of our shared border. These dialogues continued throughout the public order emergency in winter 2022, and touched upon the potential sharing of towing resources as a way of ending the blockades peacefully.

Question No. 620—
Mr. Michael D. Chong:
With regard to the Indo-Pacific Advisory Committee announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on June 9, 2022: (a) what is the committee's total budget; (b) what portion of the budget is allocated for travel; (c) what portion of the budget is allocated for hospitality; (d) what, if any, ethical screens have been established for each co-chair and member; (e) when was it determined that current staffing resources at Global Affairs Canada were inadequate to develop Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy; (f) when does the government anticipate it will release Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy; and (g) has the anticipated timeline for the release of Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy changed in any way since October 26, 2021, and, if so, how?
Response
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), (b) and (c), the Indo-Pacific Advisory Committee will pursue its mandate in a cost-effective manner. In light of ongoing COVID-related considerations and the geographic diversity of committee members, a majority of committee engagements are expected to be pursued on a virtual basis. Indo-Pacific Advisory Committee members are participating on the committee in a personal and voluntary capacity and will not be compensated for their work. Travel and hospitality costs incurred by the committee members will be undertaken in a manner consistent with Government of Canada expense guidelines, including the Treasury Board “Directive on Travel, Hospitality, Conference and Event Expenditures” and the provisions of the National Joint Council travel directive and the Special Travel Authorities policy. and the special travel authorities policy.
With regard to d), Global Affairs Canada and the members of the Indo-Pacific Advisory Committee are committed to upholding the highest standards of values and ethics. Global Affairs Canada consulted the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and advised committee members that they are expected to provide advice exclusively in a personal capacity, and are required to recuse themselves from committee discussions or activities if potential, perceived or real conflicts of interest arise.
With regard to (e), developments in the Indo-Pacific region will have profound impacts on the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Finalizing and releasing an Indo-Pacific strategy is a priority for the Government of Canada, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and commensurate resources have been dedicated to supporting its development. The Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from the private sector, civil society and government, and of indigenous peoples in Canada, will complement the work of the Government of Canada by ensuring that the Indo-Pacific strategy benefits from the diverse perspectives of Canadians.
With regard to (f) and (g), the Government of Canada will take into consideration the views of the advisory committee as a basis to support the timely development and release of a made-in-Canada Indo-Pacific strategy that positions Canada for long-term success in this critical region, while supporting a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific area.

Question No. 622—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to fire control plans for each of Canada’s national parks, and broken down by individual park: (a) what are the specific parks' current fire control plans, including any plans for controlled burns; (b) what are the details of any agreements signed related to the plans, such as those for water bombers, mutual aid, or firefighting services; and (c) what are the details of all signed contracts which are currently in place related to the plans, including, for each, (i) the amount, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the start date, (iv) the end date, (v) the description of the goods or services, (vi) the list of the parks acquiring the goods or services, (vii) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bid process, (viii) the file number?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a significant amount of time and effort, which is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.
The information requested in part (a) related to fire plans and controlled burns is specific to individual national parks and is therefore located in various business units across the agency. All national parks with fire-prone vegetation are required to have a fire management plan in place as per the Parks Canada agency wildland fire management directive. These plans provide strategic direction on fire management activities and provide planning and operational priorities for implementing the park/site fire management program. These plans include the following core fire program elements: prevention, risk reduction, preparedness, wildfire management and response, and prescribed fire implementation. Parks/sites that implement controlled burns, prescribed fires, are required to develop specific prescribed fire plans for each prescribed fire project. In any given year, there are several of those plans ready for implementation across the agency.
The information pertaining to agreements and contracts for fire plans requested in parts (b) and (c) is not publicly available nor easily accessible. Overall, this request for all the plans, agreements and contracts would yield thousands of pages. Parks Canada has many wildfire mutual aid resource-sharing agreements in place at local, provincial and territorial levels, such as bilateral border zone agreements with most provinces and territories; nationally, such as the Canadian Interagency Mutual Aid Resources Sharing Agreement; and internationally, with the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and South Africa. Parks Canada uses contracts, supply arrangements, and standing offers for additional wildfire resources such as contract fire crews; structure protection specialists; aircraft; wildfire equipment, such as pumps and hoses; camps; catering services; and aircraft fuel.

Question No. 626—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to sanctions imposed by Canada under the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, broken down by year, type of asset (e.g. property, finances) and assessed value, where available, notwithstanding that it may not reflect the entirety of sanctions enforced by other institutions: how many assets have Global Affairs Canada reported to the RCMP since 2014 concerning sanctions that are in relation to (i) Russia, (ii) Belarus, (iii) Ukraine (linked to Russia’s ongoing violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity)?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, as well as its regulations. Every person in Canada and all Canadians outside of Canada must disclose to the RCMP the existence of property in their possession or control that is believed to be owned or controlled by a designated person.
Global Affairs Canada has not reported any assets to the RCMP concerning sanctions in relation to Russia, Belarus or the Ukraine conflict. The RCMP’s role under SEMA consists of collecting information on assets owned or controlled by a designated person from financial institutions, entities and individuals.
From February 24, 2022, to June 7, 2022, the RCMP reports that a total approximate equivalent of $123,031,866.85 Canadian in assets in Canada have been effectively frozen and a total approximate equivalent of $289,090,090.74 Canadian in transactions have been blocked as a result of the prohibitions in the SEMA Russia regulations.
Given restrictions under the Privacy Act, no further information can be provided on these figures at this time.

Question No. 627—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the initial statement released by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) on June 10, 2022, to the Globe and Mail defending the presence of government officials at Russia Day festivities: (a) did the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs become aware of the statement that GAC gave to the Globe and Mail; (b) did the minister or her exempt staff approve the statement, or similar media lines, in any way, before GAC gave it to the Globe and Mail, and, if so, what are the details of what happened; (c) what was the highest level of official at GAC that approved the initial statement; and (d) did anyone in the Privy Council Office contact anyone at GAC regarding the statement between Friday, June 10, 2022, and the evening of Sunday, June 12, 2022, when the minister issued a statement with a different position, and, if so, what are the details of each contact, including the (i) direction communicated or the purpose of the communication, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) date and time, (v) method of communication (email, text, chat group, phone, etc.)?
Response
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) to (c), Canada is unwavering in its support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Canada has also led in the international efforts to support Ukraine and will continue to be there for them.
The decision to send a protocol officer to the Russia Day event hosted at the Russian embassy was made by Global Affairs Canada.
No Canadian representative should have attended the event hosted at the Russian embassy, and no Canadian representative will attend this kind of event in the future.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials have not been and will not be invited to diplomatic events hosted by Canada, including events organized by the department’s office of protocol.
Canada will continue to do everything in its power to hold Putin and his enablers accountable as we support Ukraine in the face of his illegal invasion.
In response to part (d), based on the records available, the Privy Council Office did not contact anyone at Global Affairs Canada regarding the statement between Friday, June 10, 2022, and the evening of Sunday, June 12, 2022.

Question No. 629—
Mrs. Anna Roberts:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada providing service dogs to certain veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder: (a) since January 2020, how many dogs have been provided to veterans; (b) is there currently a backlog of requests for dogs, and, if so, how many requests are backlogged; (c) what is the average time between when a request is received and when the veterans receive the dogs; and (d) does the government have any plans to implement national standards for service dogs, and, if so, what are the details, including the timeline, of when such standards will be implemented?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada recognizes that there is interest in using service dogs to assist veterans with mental health conditions. At this time, Veterans Affairs Canada does not directly provide any coverage for service dogs used for mental health conditions. However, Veterans Affairs Canada continues to review new studies and research to determine its future approach to mental health service dogs. Veterans Affairs Canada is always looking at ways to improve support for veterans based on evidence, while ensuring the health and safety of veterans.
In 2015, Veterans Affairs Canada contracted with the Canadian General Standards Board to establish a set of national standards for mental health service dogs. In 2018, the board notified the technical committee members that it had withdrawn its intent to produce a national standard of Canada for service dogs, as there was no consensus among the committee members that the standard could be achieved. As a result, the initiative to develop a national standard was discontinued. Starting in 2019-20 through funding from Veterans Affairs Canada’s veteran and family well-being fund, Wounded Warriors Canada is establishing and implementing national standards for all post-traumatic stress disorder service dog providers, and clinically informed prescriber guidelines applicable to all applicants for a post-traumatic stress disorder service dog.
The technical committee has 55 voting and non-voting members. The voting members include representatives from the Canadian Transportation Agency; Transport Canada, the Canadian Armed Forces directorate of mental health; Veterans Affairs Canada; the Government of Alberta; Brasseur, Paws Fur Thought; Dogs with Wings Assistance Dog Society; the National Service Dog Training Centre Inc.; MSAR Elite Service Dogs; Maritime Specialty Service Dogs Society; Citadel Canine Society; Courageous Companions Inc.; Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind; British Columbia Guide Dog Services; Lions Foundation of Canada, Dog Guides Canada; Assistance Dogs International; International Guide Dog Federation; Kristine Aanderson Counselling; Asista Foundation; the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association; the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies; the National Airline Council of Canada; the Canadian Foundation for Animal Assisted Support Services; Canadian Service Dog Foundation; Guide Dog Users of Canada; Canadian Heritage; the Council of Canadians with Disabilities; the Alberta Service Dog Community; Vision Impaired Resource Network Inc.; and Wounded Warriors.
The non-voting memberes include representatives from Employment and Social Development Canada; the Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services; Vancouver Island Compassion Dogs Society; Thames Centre Service Dogs; an independent trainer; Canadian Veteran Service Dog Unit; Indiana Canine Assistant Network; Audeamus; COPE Service Dogs; Dog Friendship Inc.; an independent trainer; Dominium Assistance Dogs; a psychologist; the Royal Canadian Legion, Dominion Command; Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen's office; York University, critical disability studies department; Nova Scotia Department of Justice; the Université Laval; Simcoe Trauma Recovery Clinic; and six independent individuals.

Question No. 631—
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the government's financial and other participation in the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council: (a) what is the total amount of funding given to the members of the council to date; (b) who are the current and past members of the council; (c) what, if any, trackable metrics have been met by the council; and (d) which, if any, of the council's proposals have led, or will lead, to government legislation?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), to date no funding has been provided to the members of the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council, CFPAC. The CFPAC terms of reference indicate that AAFC will reimburse proper and reasonably incurred travel, accommodation and meal expenses that are directly related to a member’s participation in a council meeting, in accordance with Treasury Board policies and directives. Since the council was launched in February 2021, all meetings have been held virtually, and travel, accommodation and meal expenses have not been incurred.
CFPAC members bring together diverse expertise, experience and perspectives from across the food system, including the agriculture and food sector, health professionals, academics, and non-profit organizations. Members also represent Canada’s geographic and demographic diversity. In the first year of the CFPAC’s mandate, it became apparent that some members lacked organizational support and were devoting significant personal time to advance the council’s work plan.
At the April 25, 2022, CFPAC meeting, in recognition of the important insights council members have raised on systemic barriers to participation and the significant personal time devoted by members to advance an ambitious work plan, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food offered a one-time honorarium to those who faced barriers in participating on the council, as a token of appreciation. In order to disburse funds, AAFC is in the process of communicating with council members who are interested in receiving the one-time $4,000 payment.
Information about the council, including records of proceedings for all council meetings, is available on the council’s webpage.
With regard to (b), the CFPAC launched with 23 members in February 2021, and over the past 16 months, the following three members have resigned: Rosie Mensah, Chris Hatch and Gisèle Yasmeen.
The 20 current members of the CFPAC are listed as follows in alphabetical order, and biographical information is available on the CFPAC web page: Jean-François Archambault; Sylvie Cloutier, co-chair; Heather Deck; Julie Dickson Olmstead; Evan Fraser, co-chair; Sonny Gray; Marcel Groleau; Lynda Kuhn; Elizabeth Kwan; Joseph LeBlanc; Catherine L. Mah; Larry McIntosh; Lori Nikkel; Denise Philippe; Melana Roberts; Mary Robinson; Brenda Schoepp; Wendy Smith; Avni Soma; and Connor Williamson.
With regard to (c), since its launch, the CFPAC has held six virtual meetings, those being in March 2021, April 2021, May 2021, November 2021, January 2022, and April 2022.  Records of proceedings of each meeting are posted on the CFPAC webpage.
The CFPAC has established four working groups and presented preliminary recommendations to the Minister on school nutrition, reducing food insecurity, reducing food loss and waste, and supporting sustainable agriculture. Each working group has met multiple times, conducted independent research and provided analysis as part of its recommendations.
With regard to (d), working group leads presented advice to the minister at the January and April 2022 council meetings. AAFC is in the process of putting the advice from the four working groups into a consistent package and obtaining all members’ endorsement of the recommendations prior to formally submitting the package to the minister. The minister and government will consider the council’s advice in the context of advancing the food policy for Canada vision and delivering on the minister’s mandate letter commitments.

Question No. 634—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) prototype or pilot project announced by the government in January 2018: (a) what were the start and end dates of the pilot project; (b) how many Canadian travellers opted into the pilot project, or have opted-in to date if the project is still ongoing; (c) were travellers able to withdraw their consent to participate in the pilot project, and, if so, how many withdrew their participation; (d) for travellers who participated in the project, what type of data was shared with (i) the government, (ii) third parties; (e) what third parties received the data in (d)(ii); (f) what specific technologies of the KTDI is the government testing and what are the parameters around that testing; (g) what (i) benefits, (ii) problems, of the KTDI have been identified to date by the project; (h) have any government officials warned the government of risks related to participating in the KTDI, and, if so, what are the details; (i) what are the total expenditures related to the KTDI since 2018, broken down by type of item and type of expenditure; (j) what metrics are being used to evaluate the project, and how has the project performed to date in relation to those metrics; and (k) what are the details of documents related to, or which refer to, the KTDI in any way, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number, (viii) type of document (memorandum, correspondence, etc.)?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the known traveller digital identity project, or KTDI, was officially announced in January 2018. However, the pilot project has not been launched. The pandemic has also meant a shutdown of non-essential travel and, as such, project planning and implementation delays.
With regard to part (a), there is currently no identified launch date.
With regard to part (b), this information is not available. However, the volume of participants would be decided by participating air carriers.
With regard to part (c), this information is not available. However, by design, the pilot would be completely voluntary for eligible travellers. The traveller remains in control of their data throughout the journey and can opt out at any time, and manual processes would remain in place for travellers choosing not to participate.
With regard to part (d), this information is not available. However, proposed information to be shared will include elements derived from the ePassport used for the pilot.  
With regard to part (e), as the pilot project was not launched, this information is not available.  
With regard to part (f), this information is not available. However, prior to the deferral of the pilot, the proposed technologies to be used included distributed ledger technology, biometric technology and cryptography.
With regard to part (g)(i), verifying travel documents and traveller identity is integral to aviation security and service delivery. The current practice of manually verifying various pieces of traveller identification, including passports and boarding passes, at multiple points throughout the air travel journey can be resource-intensive, unsanitary and subject to human error. The envisioned benefits to participating travellers depend on their ability to use touchless technologies in this project.
Part (g)(ii) is not applicable as the pilot was deferred due to the pandemic.
With regard to part (h), neither the department nor any project partners have been warned of any risks related to participating in the pilot.
With regard to part (i), this project is based on voluntary contributions from project partners. All project partners are responsible for their respective costs associated with participation. Project partners include the Government of Canada, the Government of the Netherlands, Air Canada, Royal Dutch Airlines, the Toronto, Montreal and Schiphol international airports, and the World Economic Forum.
Transport Canada has to date spent $428,671 on salaries and $220,830 on non-salaries. With respect to non-salaries, the breakdown of the amount is as follows: travel, $38,650; IT consultants for informatics, $177,351; and software licenses, $7,902.
Budget 2021 proposed $105.3 million over five years starting in 2021-22, with $28.7 million in remaining amortization and $10.2 million per year ongoing, to Transport Canada to collaborate with international partners to further advance the KTDI pilot project.
Part (j) is not applicable as the pilot was deferred due to the pandemic. However, the proposed implementation and performance framework included metrics related to technical performance, traveller experience and traveller processing time.  
With regard to part (k), Transport Canada undertook an extensive preliminary search to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. Transport Canada concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 638—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the conclusion pilot at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) how is this pilot structured; (b) who is responsible for making decisions; (c) what are the criteria used in making determinations of whether or not to remove veterans from direct case management; (d) is the current or assigned case manager asked to provide input on the veteran’s file before a decision is made whether or not to remove the veteran from direct case management; (e) is there a review process and how does it work; (f) how are veterans informed of any decision regarding their file; (g) if the veteran disagrees with the decision is there a process to appeal; (h) what process is followed if a veteran services agent wants to challenge the movement of the veteran’s file from case management to guided support as part of this pilot; and (i) is there an option for the veteran to move back to case management if guided support through the conclusion pilot is not working for them?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, case management is a part of the continuum of service at Veterans Affairs Canada.
Veterans Affairs Canada provides service based on the needs, risks and complexity of each individual veteran.
Case management is a service offered to support veterans with complex unmet needs who are also facing multiple challenges. There is no need to make an application to access case management services. A screening tool is used to determine veterans’ level of needs, risks and complexity to ensure the appropriate level of service. If a veteran’s needs are complex, they are assigned a case manager following the screening.
Case-managed veterans are assessed using a holistic assessment rooted in the seven domains of well-being, health, purpose, finances, social integration, life skills, housing and physical environment, and culture and social environment, at the beginning of their case management services to identify their current needs. They work collaboratively with their assigned case manager to set goals and achieve their highest level of independence, health and well-being. As part of the case management process, veterans’ needs are continually assessed in collaboration between veterans with their case manager.
Through ongoing monitoring and evaluation of progress, the veteran’s case-managed needs and goals are addressed. Case managers discuss the eventual conclusion of case management services with their veteran clients and the decision is mutually agreed upon by both the veteran and the case manager. The case manager discusses the continuum of service, which includes the voluntary guided support service delivered by veterans service agents, or VSA, following the conclusion of case management.
As veterans are receiving guided support services, VSAs review their progress and identify unmet needs that would require case management support and can refer them back to case management once the VSA and the veteran have determined that is the appropriate level of service.
Veterans can, at any time, return to case management services to address their unmet needs. There is no application or appeal process for which level of service veterans receive. It is based on their needs; level of risk, if there are indicators of risk that suggest the need for case management; and their complexity. When veterans no longer have complex needs and no longer require the support of case management services, veterans can transition to the next level of service, which is guided support or targeted assistance managed by VSAs.
The conclusion pilot was conducted from July 2, 2021, to September 30, 2021. The pilot allowed Veterans Affairs Canada to review the administrative process and barriers that needed to be streamlined to allow veterans to transition to the appropriate level of service when case management services are no longer the required or most appropriate service to meet their needs. This approach focused on streamlining the administrative process so case managers would have more time working with the most complex and vulnerable veterans to improve their well-being, while offering veterans who no longer required this level of service to transition to guided support or targeted assistance once the case manager and the veteran had agreed that case management services were no longer the required level of service.

Question No. 641—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge: (a) has DFO conducted any research activities showing that halibut fishing in the Eastern Canyons marine refuge is negatively impacting gorgonian coral, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings, of any such research; and (b) prior to announcing the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge area, did DFO examine the potential impact of climate change and storms on this particular ecosystem, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings, of any such analysis?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge, ECMR, is unique in that it hosts one of the largest known aggregations of large gorgonian cold-water corals in Atlantic Canada, as well as a series of adjacent submarine canyons that connect the shallow waters of the continental shelf to the deep waters of the abyssal plain. The ECMR also hosts the only known living Lophelia pertusa coral reef in Atlantic Canada, as the Lophelia Coral Conservation Area, LCCA, was subsumed into the ECMR boundary.
There is a body of science literature demonstrating impacts of bottom contact fisheries on sensitive benthic areas, including cold-water corals. The literature demonstrates that bottom longline gear has negative impacts on cold-water corals. Longline gear impacts on cold-water coral can be significant, especially during deployment and retrieval or as a result of lost gear. Through extensive consultation, DFO has been able to address the concerns of industry and a level of consensus was achieved, which includes a relatively small groundfish bottom longline-only fishing zone that requires 100% at-sea observer coverage and a commitment to further work to address gear drift for harvesters operating adjacent to closed areas. The upper slope area with small and large gorgonian coral in the ECMR overlapped with Atlantic halibut longline landings between 2008 and 2017. Bottom longline fishing is able to operate in rocky outcrops that are normally inaccessible to trawls. These outcrops represent important habitat of most of the cold-water corals present in the ECMR.
In 1999, DFO added cold-water coral to the list of bycatch species recorded by fishery at-sea observers working on vessels fishing in the offshore of Nova Scotia. From 2000 to 2021, coral bycatch was reported on bottom longline trips within areas of known coral presence on the Scotian Shelf, that is, the Eastern Canyons area, Northeast Channel area, and Gully canyon area. The occurrence of coral bycatch on bottom longline trips in the Eastern Canyons area is 1%, and when scaled to the ECMR working boundary of July 27, 2021, the occurrence of bycatch in the area increased to 1.3%.
The science literature, as well as direct observations of coral habitat on the Scotian Shelf, indicates that most damage to cold-water corals from bottom longline is not observed in bycatch, but rather remains on the seabed as coral “knock-over”, coral “break”, “hooks” in corals, and/or “lost” longlines, and DFO scientists have researched this topic. Thus, the bycatch from observer data is likely only a fraction of the total impact of longlining.
In conclusion, the body of peer-reviewed science literature, as well as DFO science studies and fishery observer data, demonstrates that bottom longline fishing gear does have negative impacts on cold-water corals. Recent results that there was very little new recruitment of Lophelia pertusa, up to 11 years after the implementation of the LCCA closure, potentially indicate that impacts have a long timescale that may affect reproduction.
In response to (b), climate change research in the ECMR area has been ongoing, with efforts by DFO in recent years to integrate climate change considerations within the regional conservation network planning process. Potential impacts of climate change to the ECMR and other Scotian Shelf bioregion network sites include rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, and reduced dissolved oxygen availability. ECMR protects a large, deep-water frontier area, thought to have areas exceeding 2,000 metres in depth, with the shallowest depths of the canyons on the scale of hundreds of metres in depth. Due to the depth of the site, impacts of storm activity on benthic organisms like corals are expected to be indirect and associated with sediment supply from the shelf. Though the impact of these episodic storm events is expected to be minimal, more direct studies are required.
Basin-scale habitat suitability modeling has shown that North Atlantic deep-sea corals could experience a significant reduction in suitable habitat by 2100 as a result of climate change. A regional reassessment of the predicted distribution of the gorgonian coral Paragorgia arborea has recently been conducted for the northwest Atlantic, including projections to 2046-65 that include future ocean climates, and areas were identified in the upper slope in the eastern portion, including areas in ECMR, that will remain within suitable ranges for Paragorgia arborea at least through to the mid-century. Studies identified the existence of suitable habitat in the shallower portions of ECMR under present-day conditions and presented differing future projections.

Question No. 642—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and fishing licenses, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by year: (a) what has been DFO's budget when it comes to enacting their "willing-buyer, willing-seller" policy; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by license type and species; and (c) how many licenses have been acquired, broken down by license type and species?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to expanding access to rights-based fisheries for the 35 treaty nations in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the Gaspé Peninsula for the purpose of pursuing a moderate livelihood. One of the key principles of the further implementation of the right to fish for a moderate livelihood is that fishing effort will not increase. This principle helps to ensure that conservation objectives will continue to be met for the benefit of all present and future harvesters. To fulfill this principle, the Government of Canada will provide additional first nations access by drawing on already available licences, meaning licences that were acquired by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, through previous voluntary licence relinquishment processes but not yet re-issued, as well as by the acquisition of additional licences supported by federal funding through a willing buyer, willing seller approach.
While voluntary licence relinquishment through willing buyer, willing seller arrangements supported by federal funding has been the government’s approach since the Marshall response initiative and subsequently the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries initiative, this approach is also an element of the current rights reconciliation agreement, or RRA, negotiation process and, most recently, the new pathway that was announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in March 2021, through which the department and a community arrive at an understanding whereby a moderate livelihood fishing plan is developed by the community and an authorization is issued by the department, subject to available access. The remainder of the response to this inquiry is focused on the latter initiative.
With the launch of the RRA process in 2017, funds were made available through signed agreements for communities to acquire access according to their needs. As RRA negotiations were not successful with some communities, added flexibilities were obtained in 2020 for RRA funds to be used by the department to acquire access directly in cases where the RRA mandate was rejected but the community chooses to pursue a moderate livelihood fishing plan instead. With respect to funding amounts, this is a matter of cabinet confidence and confidential negotiations with treaty nations.
Further to this new flexibility, DFO Maritimes and Gulf Regions have launched a number of expressions of interest processes for existing commercial lobster licence holders who are interested in either leaving or reducing their participation in the fishery in exchange for financial compensation. A key criterion for these ongoing processes is that licences are obtained based not only on a willing buyer, willing seller basis but also on fair market value. The willing buyer, willing seller approach to increasing fisheries access is well established and has been used to great effect by Atlantic integrated fisheries initiative participants and communities that have signed a RRA on an ongoing basis.

Question No. 644—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the RCMP and the government sharing information about individuals and entities involved in the demonstrations related to the government's use of the Emergencies Act, in February 2022, in order to flag their accounts to financial institutions: (a) how many (i) individuals, (ii) businesses, (iii) other entities, had their information shared; (b) with how many recipients was the information of the individuals or entities in (b) shared with; (c) who were the recipients in (b); (d) what identifying information was contained in the communication; and (e) what was the form of the communication, and what was done to ensure any personal information was kept confidential?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the RCMP made 57 separate disclosures on different entities, which included 62 individuals who were named in the disclosures, and 17 businesses that were named in the disclosures. No other entities were included in these disclosures.
In response to (b), the information was shared with up to 50 financial institutions.
In response to (c), as examples, the RCMP provided information to banks, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, the Canadian Securities Administrators, credit unions, and the Mutual Fund Dealers Association.
In response to (d), the information provided included, but was not limited to, name/last name, date of birth, residential address, registered/associated vehicles, and associated businesses and phone numbers.
In response to (e), the RCMP disclosed information by unencrypted email as the information was Protected A. The disclosures were shared with specific points of contacts within the corporate security and/or anti-money laundering teams within the recipient institutions. This ensured the safeguarding of personal information. In addition, the RCMP kept this information confidential within its national police reporting system, PROS, which is consistent with RCMP internal policies related to the collection, retention, and safeguarding of information.

Question No. 646—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to employees at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), as of June 14, 2022: (a) what is the total number of employees at the director general level or higher; (b) of the employees in (a), how many have an educational background in biology; and (c) what are the details of each employee at the director general level or higher that has such a background, including, for each, their (i) title, (ii) relevant degrees or certification?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there were a total of 65 employees at the director general level or higher as of June 14, 2022.
With regard to (b), of the employees in (a), 20 employees have a science degree and 12 of them have an educational background in biology.
Additionally, 2009 employees across DFO occupy a science-related position in biological sciences, chemistry, scientific research and physical sciences, and therefore require a science degree upon appointment.
With regard to (c), of the 12 employees, 11 hold a Bachelor of Science degree in biology, including two with a Bachelor of Science in marine biology, and one employee has a Ph.D in biology, all from various institutions. Employees’ titles are being withheld to protect their identity and adhere to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Question No. 647—
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to Canada's diplomatic missions abroad: (a) did any Canadian diplomatic staff or locally engaged staff attend a Russia Day event in 2022; (b) if the response to (a) is affirmative, in what city was each attended event, and of those events, which ones took place at the Russian diplomatic mission; (c) what is the name and title of the Canadian representative at each event referred to in (b); (d) if the person in (c) was not the head of mission, when was the head of mission informed of each representative's attendance; and (e) when was (i) Global Affairs Canada headquarters, (ii) the Minister of Foreign Affairs or her office, informed of each representative's attendance?
Response
Hon. 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.
In response to parts (a) to (e), Canada is unwavering in its support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Canada has also led in the international efforts to support Ukraine and will continue to do everything in its power to hold Putin and his enablers accountable as we support Ukraine in the face of his illegal invasion.
Global Affairs Canada has sent instructions to its personnel working in diplomatic missions around the world not to participate in Russian government-hosted meetings or events.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has strongly condemned President Putin’s unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine and announced the imposition of an unprecedented set of sanctions against those who have enabled Russia’s war of aggression. She has made clear that there is no more business as usual with Russia or its representatives.
No Canadian representative should have attended the event hosted at the Russian embassy, and no Canadian representative will attend this kind of event in the future.

Question No. 651—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the O'Brien House on Meech Lake: (a) what specific measures, if any, were taken by the NCC to maintain the property and prevent it from falling into disrepair between November 1, 2019, and June 16, 2022; (b) on what dates, between November 1, 2019, and June 16, 2022, was the building without a tenant or occupant; (c) what measures, if any, are planned by the NCC over the next year to make any repairs or upgrades needed after being unoccupied for a period between November 1, 2019, and June 16, 2022; (d) who was the tenant or operator responsible for the upkeep of the property between November 1, 2019, and June 16, 2022; (e) how much was spent by the NCC on the renovations done to the property in 2018; and (f) what is the itemized breakdown of (e)?
Response
Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the NCC contracts the services of a property management company to take care of the O’Brien House property. Measures taken to maintain the property include, but are not limited to, exterior maintenance such as landscaping and snow removal; cleaning; general repairs; and building security.
With regard to part (b), the building was vacant during this time frame.
With regard to part (c), the NCC is not planning any repairs or upgrades over the next year as the property is regularly being maintained by a contracted property management company.
With regard to part (d), the NCC was responsible for the upkeep of the property between these dates.
With regard to part (e), costs for the 2018 fiscal year, April 2017 to March 2018, amounted to $4,226,782.24. These costs are part of the complete renovation project which occurred between fiscal years 2016-17 and 2020-21, in which the NCC spent a total of $4,850,873.
With regard to part (f), the information requested is not readily available in the NCC’s tracking systems. An extensive manual search would be necessary in order to provide a comprehensive response. This operation cannot be completed within the allotted time frame.

Question No. 658—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Residential school missing children’s - Community Support Funding program and the search of unmarked burial sites: (a) how many requests for funding were received since the program began in June 2021; (b) of the requests in (a), how many projects were denied funding; and (c) of the requests in (a), how many requests are being considered for funding?
Response
Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, so far as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada programming is concerned, the response to part (a) is that since June 2021, the residential school missing children community support funding has received 106 applications totalling $214,180,918 in requested funding from indigenous communities and organizations.
In response to part (b), a total of four requests were denied funding under the residential school missing children community support funding. In addition, two requests were withdrawn and one was redirected to another federal program and received funding.
With respect to part (c), all applications that are submitted are considered for funding. To date the program has received 106 applications for financial support, of which 84 applications have been approved for a total of $89,994,897 in funding, and seven have been withdrawn, redirected or denied, as described in part (b). Currently, the department is assessing 15 applications for funding support.

Question No. 663—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the modelling of opioid-related deaths by the Public Health Agency of Canada: (a) since December 15, 2021, has the agency updated its model on a quarterly basis as it publicly committed to do on that date; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, when was the first quarterly update made publicly available; (c) if the model in (b) was not made available to the public, what was the reason for that decision; and (d) if the answer to (a) is negative, why did the agency not fulfill this commitment?
Response
Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, PHAC publishes updated observed national surveillance data, i.e., reports on opioid- and stimulant-related deaths, hospitalizations and emergency medical services responses, which are released every three months: March, June, September and December.
Modelling releases happen every six months jointly with the June and December national surveillance data releases. The latest projections from the June 23, 2022, release are available here: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/data-surveillance-research/modelling-opioid-overdose-deaths-covid-19.html.
The first release of modelling projections took place in October 2020. Thereafter, they were published every six months, starting in December 2020. PHAC publishes projection models every six months, because the use of two cycles of observed surveillance data, that is, six months of data, allows us to make more robust evidence-based updates to the model assumptions.

Question No. 668—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to immigration detention: (a) how many minors have been separated from at least one parent since 2021, broken down by quarter; (b) does the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) still intend on implementing its commitment to publish “statistics nationally on minors being separated from at least one parent”; (c) when does the CBSA intend to publish statistics on minors being separated from at least one parent; (d) was there any change in policy leading to the decision to publish statistics only when the minor was separated from both parents; (e) how does the CBSA measure compliance with the National Directive for the Detention or Housing of Minors (the directive); and (f) in how many cases involving minors has the CBSA been unable to preserve family unity as called for in part 8 of the directive since 2017, broken down by year?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the CBSA began manually tracking separated minor cases in January 2022. Prior to this date, the CBSA did not track data specific to separated minors and is unable to provide statistics retroactively. In the fourth quarter of the 2021-22 fiscal year, there were two minors temporarily separated from their accompanying parent. The first quarter of the 2022-23 fiscal year is still ongoing; however, there have been four minors temporarily separated from their parents thus far. In all cases, in both 2021-22 and 2022-23, the minors were reunited with family within the same day.
With regard to (b), in fall 2022 the CBSA will commence publishing statistics on the number of minors who are subject to a detention order and are separated from an accompanying parent and/or guardian and who are released into the care of an entity other than a parent and/or legal guardian.
With regard to (c), since January 2022, the CBSA has been sharing statistics on separated minors with external stakeholders and upon request. External stakeholders include, but are not limited to, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Canadian Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence and Action Réfugiés Montréal. Statistics on separated minors will begin to be published in fall 2022.
With regard to (d), on December 16, 2021, the revised operational bulletin “Reporting of all Situations Involving the Detention, Housing, or Separation of an Accompanying Minor to the Border Operation Centre” was finalized and circulated nationally. This bulletin outlines the reporting requirements if a minor is separated. The CBSA reviews each report and tracks this information. Statistics on separated minors will begin to be published in fall 2022.
With regard to (e), section 60 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, affirms the principle that the detention of a minor must be a measure of last resort, taking into account other applicable grounds and criteria, including the best interests of the child and potential alternatives to detention. In acknowledgement of this and in line with ministerial direction issued by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the CBSA developed the “National Directive for the Detention or Housing of Minors” and the “National Detention Standards on Unaccompanied and Accompanied Minors”. These documents are meant for operational use and take a balanced approach to achieving better and consistent outcomes for minors affected by Canada's national immigration detention system. The CBSA also notifies the Canadian Red Cross of any unaccompanied minors in detention. The Canadian Red Cross provides immigration detention monitoring services to support the CBSA in ensuring that individuals detained pursuant to IRPA are treated in accordance with applicable detention standards and international instruments to which Canada is signatory. The CBSA began capturing and publishing data in reference to detained and housed minors in 2017, following the publication of the ministerial directive. Data on separated minors has been tracked manually since January 2022.
With regard to (f), in the fourth quarter of the 2021-22 fiscal year, there was one instance in which the family unit was not maintained and minors were separated from their accompanying parent. The two minors in this case were reunited with their parent that same day.
The first quarter of the 2022-23 fiscal year is still ongoing; however, there have been two cases involving minors in which the CBSA was unable to preserve family unity. In one of these cases, the minors were separated from an accompanying adult until the identity of the adult could be established. The parents and guardian for both minors were identified and the minors were reunited with their family members later that same day. In the second case, the minors remained with the one parent while the other was detained. The second parent was reunited with the rest of the family later that same day.

Question No. 670—
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP): (a) how many Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) does the RCMP possess, (i) in total, (ii) by location, province or detachment; (b) since January 1, 2011, how many AEDs has the RCMP purchased, by year of purchase; (c) since January 1, 2011, what has been the total amount spent relating to the purchase, use, and maintenance of AEDs, broken down by year; (d) are any instruments (such as contracts, requests for proposals, requests for information, or tendering processes) active, in progress, in force, or under negotiation, for the purchase or maintenance of AEDs; (e) with respect to (d), for each instrument, what was the (i) instrument in question, (ii) date it took effect or was made publicly available, (iii) purpose; (f) since January 1, 2011, have any briefing or informational materials pertaining to AEDs been provided to the Minister of Public Safety, the office of the Minister of Public Safety, the office of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, or the office of the Commissioner of the RCMP; (g) for each instance in (f), what was the (i) date the material was provided, (ii) recipient or office to which the material was provided, (iii) topic of the material provided?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) to (e) of the question, the RCMP’s departmental financial management system does not capture the requested information at the level of detail requested. As a result, the information requested cannot be obtained without an extensive manual review of financial files. This manual review could not be completed within the established timeline.
In response to part (f) of the question, on November 13, 2014, the minister’s office informally requested information on the use and availability of automated external defibrillators by the RCMP.
In response to part (g), a document on the use and availability of automated external defibrillators by the RCMP was transmitted to the Office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness via the executive services and ministerial liaison unit on November 24, 2014.
Our searches yielded no further results.

Question No. 684—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to relocation applications from Afghan nationals who assisted the Canadian government, as of June 20, 2022: (a) how many applications has the government (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) rejected; (b) what is the reason for any rejections in (a)(iii); (c) of the applicants in (a), how many (i) remain in Afghanistan, (ii) are waiting in a third-country, (iii) are in Canada; and (d) how many relocation applicants is the government aware of who were (i) killed, or presumed killed, (ii) incarcerated, or otherwise punished by the Taliban?
Response
Ms. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of June 20, 2022, the Canadian government has received 14,951 applications in person for the special immigration measures program. 10,734 of those applications have been approved, including those that have arrived in Canada. Eight applications have been refused for eligibility and/or admissibility reasons.
Of the above, 4,422 applicants are in various stages of processing or are approved and remain in Afghanistan. 3,268 are in third countries outside of Afghanistan and Canada, and 7,165 applicants have arrived in Canada.
IRCC is not able to provide a response to part (d) of the question, as the department does not track information of this type.

Question No. 685—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2021: what are the details of all communication between Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and the Taliban since October 2021, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) titles of GAC officials involved, (iii) titles of Taliban officials, (iv) method of communication (email, in-person meeting, etc.), (v) summary of contents, including the topics?
Response
Hon. 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.
Canada has no intention of recognizing the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan. Similar to likeminded partners, Canada engages the Taliban informally through its senior official for Afghanistan, based in Doha. Canada engages the Taliban informally to convey key messages including our expectations regarding safe passage and to ensure that the Taliban respect their international human rights obligations.
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that the disclosure of certain information could be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs.

Question No. 686—
Mr. Eric Duncan:
With regard to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the new labelling requirements for beef and pork products: (a) is the minister taking any action to prevent the government from implementing the new requirements, and, if so, what are the details; (b) has Agriculture and Agri-Food conducted any analysis on the negative impacts of the new requirements on the (i) beef, (ii) pork, industry, and, if so, what were the findings of the analysis; (c) what industry or producer concerns about the new requirements is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food aware of; and (d) for each concern in (c), what is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's response?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Health Canada is the department responsible for the development of the new front-of-package nutrition labelling requirements as part of its broad healthy eating strategy. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, supports the objective of the strategy, which is to help consumers make informed food choices. As part of the policy development process, AAFC provided Health Canada with relevant information to inform the policy.
Health Canada developed the front-of-package nutrition labelling requirements based on available evidence and consulted widely on the policy. Where supported by evidence, Health Canada made adjustments, including some technical, practical and health-related exemptions.
As announced on June 30, 2022, under the final regulations published in the Canada Gazette, part II, on July 20, 2022, Health Canada has provided a technical exemption for raw, single-ingredient ground meats to avoid giving the impression that they are nutritionally inferior to whole cuts, which do not carry the front-of-package nutrition symbol. In certain cases, these exemptions will be lost, such as if a claim is made or if anything is added to the meat, such as salt, saturated fat or even spices. As well, to help industry adapt, there will be a transition period until January 2026 to come into compliance with the regulations.
With regard to (b), AAFC provided Health Canada with relevant information to inform the policy development process. Information provided consisted primarily of sectoral and market information and intelligence as well as external research on the subject.
With regard to (c), AAFC is aware of concerns expressed by the agriculture and agri-food industry about the proposed requirement that ground meats be subject to front-of-package nutrition labelling regulations. The primary concern revolved around the fact that a symbol on ground meat could give consumers the impression that it is nutritionally inferior to whole cuts. Stakeholders have pointed out that ground beef, pork, and veal are single-ingredient, nutrient-dense proteins. Some indicated that recent analyses showed that ground meats had a limited impact on Canadians’ saturated fat intake. Some mentioned the potential negative impacts of the label on the economy, environment, trade, food security and health of Canadians. Some also expressed concern with the signal that this labelling would send to Canada’s trading partners.
With regard to (d), AAFC recognizes the important role that the beef and pork industries play in creating jobs, strengthening our economy and providing a variety of safe, high-quality foods to Canadians and the world. We also recognize that front-of-package nutrition labelling will require adjustments and investments from the food industry.
AAFC supports policy that is based on evidence. Where supported by evidence, Health Canada made adjustments to the front-of-package labelling requirements, including some technical, practical, and health-related exemptions.
As announced by Health Canada on June 30, 2022, under the final regulations to be published in the Canada Gazette, part II, on July 20, 2022, Health Canada has provided a technical exemption for raw, single-ingredient ground meats to avoid giving the impression that they are nutritionally inferior to whole cuts, which do not carry the front-of-package nutrition symbol. In certain cases, these exemptions will be lost, such as if a health claim or nutrient content claim, such as “high in iron”, is made or if anything is added to the meat, such as salt, saturated fat or even spices. As well, to help the industry adapt, there will be a transition period until January 2026 to come into compliance with the regulations. This is a domestic policy that impacts labels of foods sold within Canada.

Question No. 687—
Mr. Mike Lake:
With regard to the current Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance and the government's new labelling requirements for beef and pork products: (a) what specific steps, if any, has the minister taken, or will the minister take, to prevent the labelling requirements from having a detrimental impact on Alberta beef and pork producers; (b) has the minister or his office sent any communication or correspondence to either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada raising concerns about the labelling requirements, and, if so, what are the details of any such communication; and (c) does the government have any projections on the economic consequences the requirements may have on the Alberta beef and pork industry, and, if so, what are the projections?
Response
Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in cabinet and cabinet committees, as well as in meetings, phone calls and other conversations with cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance works to ensure that the voices of Alberta businesses, stakeholders, industries, communities and residents are heard.
On July 20, 2022, Health Canada published new nutrition labelling regulations for packaged foods to help Canadians make informed food choices. These regulations will require a new symbol to be displayed on the front of packaged foods that are high in saturated fat, sugars and/or sodium.
Health Canada exempted certain foods from the requirement to display a front-of-packaging nutrition symbol. This exemption included raw, single-ingredient ground meats such as beef and pork. As such, the government has not brought forward new labelling requirements for ground beef and pork products.

Question No. 690—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Canada’s guidelines on supporting human rights defenders and the human rights violations happening inside the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan areas in China such as Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan, and Gansu: (a) has Canada encouraged China to ratify the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (b) has Canada encouraged China to sign the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; (c) since 2017, has Canada called upon the Chinese government to accept country missions which would visit the TAR and Tibetan areas in China by international human rights organizations; (d) since 2017, has Canada called upon the Chinese government to accept country missions which would visit the TAR and Tibetan areas of China by the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Enforced Disappearance, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and other relevant UN entities; (e) since 2018, how many requests has the Canadian government made for permission for Canadian officials and diplomats to visit the TAR, and (i) how many were approved and denied, (ii) were there any limits and restrictions placed on their travel, activities, and interaction with people; (f) since 2017, has Global Affairs Canada (GAC) requested that Chinese officials provide evidence of the whereabouts and well-being of Gendhun Choekyi Nyima the 11th Panchen Lama, and, if so, (i) when and where was this done, (ii) who was this addressed to; and (g) has GAC called upon the Chinese government to release information about the whereabouts and wellbeing of the leader of the search committee for the 11th Panchen Lama, Chadrel Rinpoche, and the rest of his team?
Response
Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. The promotion and protection of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, is a core priority of Canada’s foreign policy. Canada continues to call on the government of China, both privately and publicly, to respect the rights of Tibetans and to take steps to improve the human rights situation in all Tibetan areas across China.
Canada remains gravely concerned about the deterioration of the human rights situation in the Tibet Autonomous Region, the TAR, and in particular with the increasing restrictions on the freedom of language, culture and religion; freedom of expression; freedom of movement; with the destruction of historic buildings, temples and mosques; and with the forced patriotic education of ethnic Tibetans.
The Government of Canada urges China to ensure full respect for the rule of law, to comply with obligations under national and international law with regard to the protection of human rights and to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR. In addition, the Government of Canada urges the Chinese government to provide meaningful and unfettered access for independent observers to the TAR, including UN special procedures. In 2018, during China’s third universal periodic review, or UPR, Canada recommended that China ratify the ICCPR. Canada also recommended that China end persecutions on the basis of religion or belief, including for Tibetan Buddhists.
With regard to (b), Canada made recommendations to China on enforced disappearances in 2013 during its second UPR.
Canada remains concerned about Tibetan prisoners of conscience and called for humane treatment and the release of prisoners. Canada has called on China to respect, protect and promote freedom of expression, assembly and association, as well as freedom of religion or belief for all. The Government of Canada has done so on numerous occasions, publicly and privately, in multilateral forums as well as in bilateral dialogues.
With regard to (c), Canada consistently raises its concerns about violations of Tibetans' fundamental rights and freedoms with Chinese authorities, including through high-level meetings and speeches, official demarches, and bilateral and multilateral statements. Canada continues to advocate unhindered future access to the TAR for UN agencies, international human rights organizations, academics, researchers and foreign correspondents. Canada will continue to advocate in support of unfettered access to China in order to enable the independent analysis of the human rights situation.
With regard to (d), on multiple occasions in bilateral and multilateral settings, Canada continues to call for independent and unfettered access to China related to human rights concerns.
In 2015, Canada established the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, the ICG-FoRB, convened biannually by Canada and the United States. It is an important platform that brings together nearly 30 countries committed to protecting and promoting freedom of religion or belief. It has helped advance coordinated initiatives concerning issues of religious minorities, including Tibetan Buddhists.
With regard to (e), while Canadian diplomats have on occasion been permitted to travel to Tibet, access to Tibet remains tightly controlled. Former ambassador Dominic Barton participated in a Chinese government-hosted visit to Lhasa, Tibet, on October 22 to 26, 2020. The ambassador met with the Deputy Party Secretary and Vice Chairman of Government of the Tibet Autonomous Region, TAR, to discuss an array of issues, including human rights, climate change and the environment. The meetings also included officials from United Front Work Department and the departments of education, human resources and social security; ecology and environment; and health. This was the last visit of a Canadian diplomat to the TAR. Between 2015 and 2020, Canada officially requested access to TAR on a regular basis.
With regard to (f), Canada is deeply concerned by ongoing reports of continued restrictions on the rights and freedoms of Tibetans. Canada has consistently advocated substantive and meaningful dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama or his representatives to work toward a resolution of issues, in a manner acceptable to both sides. Requests have been addressed to senior Government of China officials, both political and diplomatic.
With regard to (g), the human rights situation in China, including in Tibet, remains a source of continuing concern for Canada. To that end, the Government of Canada will continue to raise concerns with Chinese officials on such matters, and the Government of Canada will continue to call on China to live up to its own laws and international obligations at every opportunity. Canada is committed to constructive exchanges with China on human rights, including through high-level visits, public statements, advocacy and diplomatic dialogue.

Question No. 695—
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the purchase of single-use plastics by government departments, agencies and Crown corporations since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount spent, broken down by year; and (b) what are the details of all such purchases, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount spent, (iii) description of goods, including the volume, (iv) vendor?
Response
Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, while the Government of Canada does not track single-use plastic purchases, it is reducing plastic waste by reducing the unnecessary use of single-use plastics, including straws, utensils, bags, and bottles in government operations. They are, however, sometimes necessary for accessibility, health, safety or security reasons.
The government is also committed to the reuse and recycling of plastic in its operations, buying more products made from recycled plastics, and reducing packaging waste by prioritizing reusable or recyclable packaging. The government will track and report its waste diversion starting in fiscal year 2022-23, including progress towards diverting at least 75% by weight of plastic waste from landfills by 2030.

Question No. 701—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to Health Canada’s plan to label ground beef and pork as “high in saturated fat”: (a) has Health Canada conducted an economic impact assessment, and, if so, where can the Canadian public access it; (b) will the addition of this warning label increase the consumer price of beef or pork, and, if so, by how much; and (c) what are the anticipated economic impacts of adding this label on producers?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in bringing the front-of-package, FOP, regulations forward, the government has given careful consideration and analyzed in detail the potential costs and benefits of its plan to inform Canadians of nutrients of concern in their food.
All regulatory packages go through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, which is summarized in the regulatory impact analysis statement, RIAS, published with the regulations. In addition, a more detailed cost-benefit analysis report will be available upon request after the regulations are published.
The regulations and the RIAS were published in the Canada Gazette, part II, on July 20, 2022.
Finally, to ensure that FOP regulations are efficient, technical exemptions were given in specific conditions. Raw, single-ingredient ground meat was given such exemption.
In response to (b), the FOP nutrition symbol is not a warning and does not categorize a food as healthy or unhealthy. Rather, it provides a clear visual cue that a food is high in saturated fat, sugars or sodium.
The FOP nutrition labelling regulations are not expected to raise food prices. The Canadian market is competitive, and evidence suggests that prices, in general, are not going to change because of these regulations.
Canadians may see some small adjustments in price between products with and without symbols at first as their demand initially changes, but over time, prices are expected to equalize for products in the same category, for example as is the case currently for soups “lower in” versus “higher in” sodium. In most product categories, Canadians have many options for substitution.
In response to (c), single-ingredient ground meats are conditionally exempt from the FOP nutrition symbol requirement.
To become compliant with the new FOP nutrition symbol and vitamin D amounts, the food industry will incur a one-time cost to update labels, estimated at $1.09 billion or $887.02 million present value. The direct benefit of the additional information FOP nutrition labels will provide to Canadians is valued at an estimated $2.33 billion over 15 years.

Question No. 704—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to government spending on foreign aid: (a) does Global Affairs Canada consult Public Safety Canada’s terrorist entity list prior to providing any funding related to its grant agreements with international and non-governmental organizations, including, but not limited to, the United Nations and local non-governmental organizations implementing partners; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, since 2016, has any funding been denied or stopped after consulting the list, and what are the details, including, for each instance, the (i) date the funding was cancelled, (ii) entity which was slated to receive funding, (iii) amount to be received; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, is the government taking any other measures to ensure that foreign aid money does not end up financing terrorism, and, if so, what are the details of each measure?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) to (c), Global Affairs Canada manages an extensive network of 178 missions in 110 countries. The department undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The level of detail of the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The department concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 708—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to the government’s position related to allegations of genocide as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide being committed: is it the position of the government that (i) Canada or actors in Canada are currently committing genocide against any group, (ii) the Government of Sri Lanka has committed genocide against Tamils, (iii) the Government of China is currently committing genocide against Uyghurs, (iv) the government of any other member state of the United Nations is currently committing genocide, and, if so, which ones, (v) any non-state actors is currently committing genocide, and, if so, which ones?
Response
Hon. 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.
In response to parts (i) to (v) of the question, the legal determination of whether a situation constitutes genocide must be done by a competent international or national court or tribunal, bearing in mind that the legal definition of genocide is precise and complex, as outlined in international treaties such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In Canada, different levels of political recognition of genocide can occur through actions or motions by legislatures, including motions in the House of Commons or statements by governments. Statements from the Government of Canada are made publicly and are available on Government of Canada websites.
Canada takes all allegations of genocide very seriously and works with the international community to ensure that such allegations are investigated by an independent international body of legal experts.

Question No. 709—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to Canada’s international development assistance since 2016: (a) has the government funded the provision of any healthcare services in a country or place where those services are illegal, and, if so, what are the details, including what services were funded, broken down by country; (b) has the government funded any organizations that provide healthcare services in violation of local laws; and (c) with respect to (a) and (b), which organization, which programs, which countries, and on what dates were the programs funded?
Response
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to part (a), in accordance with the principles of good corporate citizenship, good global citizenship, and the rule of law, Canada is necessarily expected to abide by all applicable laws, both in Canada and abroad, and as such does not use development assistance to support activities that are illegal. For example, any support that Canada provides to strengthen national and local health care systems is in line with the legal frameworks and health priorities of recipient countries.
Parts (b) and (c) are not applicable.

Question No. 710—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to COVID-19 transmission within Canada: (a) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while on a domestic flight (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; (b) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while in an airport (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; (c) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while on a VIA Rail train (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021; and (d) how many Canadians are known to have contracted COVID-19 while in a VIA Rail train station (i) between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, (ii) between July 1, 2021, and October 29, 2021, (iii) between October 30, 2021, and November 29, 2021, (iv) since November 30, 2021?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, collective efforts by governments at all levels in gathering, sharing and analyzing data have allowed Canada to monitor and report on numbers and trends and make evidence-based public health decisions to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
There is no circumstance in which a public health authority can confirm with certainty the location in which an individual contracts COVID-19. The Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, cannot confirm cases of transmission of COVID-19 while on board a flight, in an airport, on a train or in a train station.

Question No. 713—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to studies and reports completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: what completed studies have been done regarding (i) the creation of a public, online database that includes the beneficial holder of all fishing quota and licences in British Columbia, (ii) ending the sale of fishing quota and licences to non-Canadian beneficial owners, (iii) incentivizing independent ownership of licences and quota over corporate, overseas, or absentee ownership?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has undertaken work to understand the extent of foreign ownership in Canada’s commercial fishing industry though the completion of the beneficial ownership survey and has released a comparative analysis of east and west coast fishery policies.
A study, the licence and quota registry proposal, has been conducted to examine the technical feasibility of developing a licence and quota registry to improve the transparency of where licences and quotas are held in Pacific region fisheries.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials are working to finalize an engagement strategy in 2022 that will help us better understand the opportunities to improve our policies and programs and ensure that they are tailored to fisheries on the west coast.

Question No. 715—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the Stellantis-LG Energy Solution large scale lithium-ion battery production plant to be located in Windsor, Ontario: (a) what is the government’s financial contribution to the facility; (b) did the government evaluate and analyze the potential supply chain investments and companies that would follow the battery plant into the region; (c) what are those follow on plants and facilities; (d) does the government plan to provide additional financial support to secure those additional investments and companies for the region; (e) did the government evaluate the energy requirements needed for the battery production plant and follow on supply chain facilities; (f) did the government investigate supporting the province to ensure the power infrastructure and production was sufficient to secure all potential future investments in the supply chain for the battery plant; and (g) what would the government’s financial commitment be to support the determined power infrastructure and supply upgrades?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), details of this agreement are subject to commercial confidentiality and cannot be disclosed at this time.
With regard to part (b), potential supply chain investments following this project were assessed. This investment will not only position Canada as a global leader in the production of electric vehicle, or EV, batteries, but also support the development of a sustainable domestic battery manufacturing sector in Canada. The project will create 2,000 direct jobs once the facility is in full operation. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, estimates that the project will contribute close to 3,100 jobs annually and $6.4 billion of cumulative GDP to the Canadian economy over a 15-year production period, directly and indirectly.
Canada is well positioned to continue to be a leader in the shift to vehicle electrification, building on strong automotive, manufacturing and mining sectors. Investing in Canada’s battery supply chain builds on and feeds into Canada’s strong industrial economy, known around the world for its craftsmanship and sustainable practices. As Canada looks to attract battery companies, upstream and downstream opportunities exist to attract more investments in numerous areas including mining, automotive and digital technologies.
These investments are also expected to produce high returns well beyond the battery sector. For example, an analysis of Canada’s existing automotive footprint reveals that one additional job created in vehicle assembly results in five additional jobs throughout the broader economy
With regard to part (c), the Government of Canada is dedicated to attracting other companies in the battery value chain, such as companies involved in battery critical mineral extraction and refining and battery cell component manufacturing, and encouraging them to set up shop in Canada in order to create jobs, generate economic benefits and contribute to a net-zero emissions future. Such companies could range from those interested in buying the output from Canadian mines to those interested in further refining those minerals into products used for battery cell manufacturing. Further details cannot be disclosed at this time due to commercial confidentiality.
With regard to part (d), the Government of Canada is committed to positioning Canada with a cleaner, stronger and better-prepared economy, one that is competitive in a low-carbon world. As a result, the government is looking to bring key international investments to Canada that will secure a strong battery supply chain for EVs. If additional investments that would secure key benefits such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions were to be proposed, and which meet the requirements of the strategic innovation fund, the government would consider providing additional financial support.
With regard to part (e), energy requirements for large-scale manufacturing in Canada are usually provided by provincial and local governments that participated in discussions with the project proponents. An analysis of energy requirements has been completed by provincial and municipal governments.
With regard to part (f), the Government of Canada and its provincial and municipal counterparts understand the importance of positioning the country with a cleaner, stronger and better-prepared economy, one that is competitive in a low-carbon world. As such, all levels of government have undertaken a collaborative approach to securing investments that support this transition. Energy and power infrastructure requirements for large-scale manufacturing in Canada are usually provided by provincial and local governments.
With regard to part (g), the Government of Canada continues to undertake work to build a strong battery innovation and industrial ecosystem. This includes scaling up domestic battery supply chain companies and necessary related infrastructure using a variety of existing programs, as appropriate.
As previously indicated, energy and power infrastructure requirements for large-scale manufacturing in Canada are usually provided by provincial and local governments.

Question No. 717—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles (iZEV) Program, since its inception, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year: (a) which vehicles were eligible under the iZEV program; and (b) for each vehicle in (a), what was the (i) number of rebates claimed, (ii) total amount of rebate provided?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all of the requested iZEV program data is publicly available information.
With regard to part (a), please refer to the following web page to see the current list of eligible vehicles for the iZEV program: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/innovative-technologies/zero-emission-vehicles/list-eligible-vehicles-under-izev-program
The Tesla Model 3 Standard Range and Standard Range Plus trims stopped being eligible for the iZEV program as of November 23, 2021. Any Teslas listed in the iZEV statistics, see part (b) below, after that date were ordered by customers on or before November 23, 2021. This is noted within the following web page: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/innovative-technologies/zero-emission-vehicles/questions-answers-consumers
With regard to part (b), please refer to the following web page containing the link to download the iZEV statistics into a spreadsheet: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/42986a95-be23-436e-af15-7c6bf292a2e1
The posted data on Open Government is current as of May 31, 2022. The statistics are updated on a monthly basis.

Question No. 720—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Greening Government Strategy’s on-road fleet targets: (a) what is the total number of new light-duty fleet vehicles purchased that are (i) zero-emission vehicles, (ii) hybrid electric vehicles; and (b) what is the total number of vehicles within Canada’s light-duty fleet vehicles that are either zero-emission or hybrid-electric, reflected both as a number and a total percentage?
Response
Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, through the Greening Government Strategy, the Government of Canada has committed to make its conventional light-duty fleet greener and to transition to 100% zero emission vehicles, ZEVs, by 2030. ZEVs are vehicles that can operate on renewable energy without producing tailpipe emissions, such as battery-electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. On this pathway, the government has committed that at least 75% of its new purchases will be hybrid electric vehicles, known as HEVs, or ZEVs where suitable options are available and after considering operational feasibility.
The government of Canada has made progress on these commitments. In 2021-22, departments ordered more than 1,000 additional green vehicles, including approximately 280 ZEVs and 730 HEVs, in fleet segments and where suitable options were available, such as sedans and small sport utility vehicles.
As of March 31, 2021, the conventional light-duty fleet was composed of approximately 17,800 vehicles, including 450 ZEVs, making up 2.5%, and 1,100 HEVs, making up 6.1%.
The rate of ZEV adoption has been constrained by market availability of a supply of suitable vehicles that meet operational requirements. Limited ZEV options currently exist for the larger vehicle types, such as the vans and pickup trucks that make up the majority of the light-duty fleet, and supplies are limited due to ongoing global supply chain issues. ZEV purchases will increase rapidly as more suitable options become available in the market over the next one to three years.

Question No. 726—
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the government's Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP): (a) how many injuries related to COVID-19 vaccines is the government aware of; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of (i) vaccine received (Pfizer, Moderna, etc.), (ii) injury; (c) how many and what percentage of the injuries qualified for compensation from the VISP; (d) how many applications for compensation under the VISP (i) have been received, (ii) have been approved, (iii) have been denied, (iv) are still awaiting a decision, as of June 21, 2022; (e) what is the total amount paid out to date under the VISP; and (f) how many recipients does the money in (e) represent?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the vaccine injury support program, VISP, provides financial support to people in Canada in the rare event that they experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada-authorized vaccine administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020. The program also provides death benefits and support for funeral expenses in the rare case of a death as a result of receiving a Health Canada-authorized vaccine.
The VISP was launched on June 1, 2021, and is being administered independently by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Consulting Inc., RCGT, with funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC. PHAC is not involved in individual cases, including in the determination of decisions regarding causality or compensation.
As the independent third party administrator, RCGT oversees all aspects of claims intake and assessment and is responsible for providing periodic public reporting on program statistics. Public reporting from the launch of the program on June 1, 2021, to June 1, 2022, can be found at https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/program-statistics.
The Province of Quebec continues to administer its long-standing vaccine injury compensation program with federal funding. Information on Quebec’s vaccine injury compensation program, including program statistics, can be found at https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advice-and-prevention/vaccination/vaccine-injury-compensation-program.
In response to (a), (b) and (c), PHAC does not have access to real-time data on the number of claims submitted to the VISP or the nature of the claims submitted. Furthermore, as per the terms and conditions of the funding agreement with RCGT, PHAC will never receive disaggregated data on vaccine type, or details on the nature of injuries from RCGT.
Health Canada, HC, PHAC, the provinces and territories, and manufacturers continue to closely monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, using the Canadian adverse events after immunization surveillance system, CAEFISS, and the Canada vigilance program.
An adverse event is any untoward medical occurrence that follows immunization. It is not necessarily causally related to the usage of the vaccine. Data on adverse events following COVID-19 vaccinations in Canada, overall and by type of vaccine and type of adverse event, is posted online on PHAC’s vaccine safety report website: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety. All reports of adverse events following immunization received by HC and PHAC are included in this report, regardless of whether they have been linked to the vaccines. PHAC looks at all the data available in order to detect any early signals of an issue.
For example, as of May 13, 2022, a total of 84,559,822 vaccine doses have been administered in Canada, and adverse events, side effects, have been reported by 46,149 people. That is about five people out of every 10,000 people vaccinated who have reported one or more adverse events. Of the 46,149 individual reports, 36,634 were considered non-serious, 0.043% of all doses administered, and 9,515 were considered serious, 0.011% of all doses administered.
It is important to note that although adverse events may occur after vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine, they are not necessarily related to the vaccine. In addition, it is important to note that the number of reported adverse events received by HC and PHAC following immunization is not reflective of the number of applications received by the VISP. The VISP is an application-based program for serious and permanent vaccine injuries.
In response to (d), as of RCGT’s last public report on June 1, 2022, RCGT had received 774 claims: 26 claims had been assessed by a medical review board and eight had been deemed eligible for compensation; 71 claims were deemed inadmissible as they did not meet the eligibility criteria or were missing information; 654 claims have been deemed to meet the basic eligibility criteria and are proceeding to a preliminary medical review. Further information with regard to program statistics can be found at the following link: https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/program-statistics.
In response to (e) and (f), as of their last report on June 1, 2022, eight claims had been deemed eligible for compensation. Due to privacy reasons, the specific figures, including the total compensation, cannot be disclosed. This approach ensures anonymity of the claimants.
The amount of compensation an eligible individual will receive is determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the injury. Eligible individuals may receive income replacement indemnities, injury indemnities, death benefits, coverage for funeral expenses, and reimbursement of eligible costs such as otherwise uncovered medical expenses. Given the different types of supports available, the average dollar value of successful claims would not represent the amount an eligible claimant may receive through the VISP.

Question No. 728—
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the government's decision to suspend the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for the federal public service as of June 20, 2022, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many public servants impacted by the requirement were eligible to return to work on June 20, 2022; (b) how many of the public servants in (a)(i) actually returned to work on June 20, 2022, (ii) are scheduled or expected to return to work within 30 days of June 20, 2022, (iii) are expected to return to work, but not within 30 days of the requirement being suspended, (iv) are not expected to ever return to work in the public service?
Response
Hon. Mona Fortier (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the policy on COVID-19 vaccination for the core public administration including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was implemented in the fall of 2021, with vaccination providing a high degree of protection against infection and transmission of COVID-19 viruses. This approach, which required public servants to be vaccinated as a condition of employment, served as an effective public health measure to protect public servants and the communities in which they worked.
On June 14, 2022, following a review of the current public health situation, notably the evolution of the virus and vaccination rates in Canada, the Government of Canada announced that it would suspend the policy. Effective June 20, 2022, employees of the core public administration, CPA, were no longer required to be vaccinated as a condition of employment. Consequently, on that date, employees of the CPA who had been placed on administrative leave without pay, LWOP, because they had declined to disclose their vaccination status or were unwilling to be vaccinated with two doses, could resume regular work duties with pay.
At the time of the policy’s suspension, approximately 1,500 employees were on administrative LWOP. Of these employees, 895 returned to work on June 20; 435 have returned to work after June 20, or are no longer in the CPA, including those who have taken retirement; and approximately 165 remain on LWOP for other reasons, which could include personal leave, maternity leave, a leave of absence, etc.
The Government of Canada will continue to keep Canadians safe, taking action based on the latest public health advice and science. This could include resuming vaccination requirements for federal government employees.

Question No. 733—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government's website for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, as of June 21, 2022: (a) why does the “Status of House Business” link direct visitors to a page from the last prorogation of Parliament, as of August 18, 2020; (b) who was responsible for keeping the website accurate and with current information; (c) are there any quality control measures in place to ensure that the information contained on this page is accurate and up to date; and (d) why was the link not updated?
Response
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the website of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is maintained by the Privy Council Office and the “Status of House Business” link has since been updated.

Question No. 734—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to the monthly stock-take meetings by an oversight group referenced in the March 22, 2022, news release from the Prime Minister about an agreement between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party: what are the details of each stock-take meeting which has occurred to date, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) list of attendees, (iv) agenda items?
Response
Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the agreement serves to ensure Parliament continues to function in the interest of Canadians. As part of the supply and confidence agreement announced on March 22, 2022, both parties have agreed to take part in monthly stock-take meetings by an oversight group. The oversight group consists of a small group of staff and politicians. This group discusses overall progress on key commitments and upcoming issues.
The commitments under the agreement are publicly available at https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2022/03/22/delivering-canadians-now.

Question No. 739—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, since the fiscal year of 2015-16, broken down by fiscal year and community: (a) how many days has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not been able to deploy a sufficient number of officers to meet agreed upon staffing levels; (b) what reasons were given for not being able to meet those staffing needs; (c) how many officers were assigned to provide community policing services in First Nations and Inuit communities; (d) when staffing levels were not met, what other resources and funding were provided in the absence of staff; and (e) how many officers are expected to provide community policing services in First Nations and Inuit Communities for the fiscal years of 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Public Safety Canada and part (e), indigenous communities, like all communities in Canada, should be places where people and families feel safe and secure. Culturally sensitive, respectful and properly funded police services are essential for community safety and well-being.
The first nations and Inuit policing program, FNIPP, is a contribution program that provides funding to support the provision of dedicated, culturally responsive policing services to first nations and Inuit communities across Canada. The services provided under the FNIPP are in addition to, and not in replacement of, the baseline policing services provided by the police service of local jurisdiction, including, in many instances, the RCMP.
While Canada has a role as a funder, provinces and territories retain jurisdiction over the administration of justice, including policing. As well, operational decisions regarding the deployment of officers and police resources are made at the discretion of the commanding officer of the local police service or detachment.
FNIPP policing agreements are cost-shared between the federal government, 52%, and the provincial/territorial, PT, government, 48%. The FNIPP currently serves 427, approximately 60%, first nations and Inuit communities in Canada. Funding under the FNIPP is provided to support two main policing models.
The first is self-administered police service agreements, SAs, where a first nations or Inuit police service is authorized or established by the PT government and provides primary, day-to-day, policing services to a first nations or Inuit community. SAs account for 789 police officer positions through 36 agreements, covering 155 communities.
The second is community tripartite agreements, CTAs, where a contingent of police officers from the RCMP provides dedicated policing to a first nations or Inuit community that is intended to supplement the level of PT police services provided to that community. CTAs are made pursuant to bilateral framework agreements between Canada and the participating PT. CTAs account for police officer positions through 144 agreements in 248 communities. For the 2022-23 fiscal year, 458.5 police officer positions are funded under CTAs. For the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years, it is estimated that, at minimum, 458.5 officer positions per year will be funded under CTAs, given that the CTAs will need to be renegotiated past 2023.
In addition to these two main policing models, the FNIPP provides support to 23 other policing agreements, with an additional 83.5 police officer positions.
In January 2018, the Government of Canada announced a federal investment of up to $291.2 million over five years, beginning in 2018-19, for policing in first nations and Inuit communities. This additional funding was intended to address matters such as officer safety, police equipment purchases and salaries, as well as support 110 additional police officer positions in first nations and Inuit communities currently served under the FNIPP.
Building on these investments, budget 2021 proposes to provide $861 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, and $145 million ongoing, to support culturally responsive policing and community safety services in indigenous communities. This includes $43.7 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, to co-develop a legislative framework for first nations policing that recognizes first nations policing as an essential service; $540.3 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, and $126.8 million ongoing, to support indigenous communities currently served under the first nations policing program and expand the program to new indigenous communities; $108.6 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, to repair, renovate and replace policing facilities in first nations and Inuit communities; $64.6 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, and $18.1 million ongoing, to enhance indigenous-led crime prevention strategies and community safety services; and $103.8 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, for a new pathways to safe indigenous communities initiative, led by Indigenous Services Canada, to support indigenous communities to develop more holistic community-based safety and wellness models.
With regard to parts (a) to (d), the RCMP management system does not capture the requested information at the level of detail requested. As a result, the information requested cannot be obtained without an extensive manual review of our files. This manual review could not be completed within the established timeline.

Question No. 740—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the $20 million allocated in budget 2021 for the development of a responsible plan to transition open net-pen salmon farming in coastal British Columbia by 2025: what are the details of each consultation, including the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) attendees, (iv) topic discussed, (v) cost of each meeting?
Response
Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is using this funding primarily to support indigenous engagement on the development of a net pen transition plan. This funding is for the current fiscal year, 2022-23. A call for applications for capacity funding was sent to all first nations in British Columbia on May 16, 2022. This application process was launched in advance of the upcoming engagement process on a draft framework for the development of a net pen transition plan, as announced by Minister Murray on June 22, 2022.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is currently reviewing initial applications received from first nations and expects further applications to be submitted once details on the engagement process and the draft framework are released.
Opportunities for further consultation and engagement with Government of British Columbia, first nations, industry, local governments, stakeholders and British Columbians will be announced in midsummer to late summer 2022.

Question No. 742—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to communications between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner and the Office of the Prime Minister, between April 18, 2020, and May 1, 2020: what are the details of all communications, including all verbal, electronic, written, or other communication, including, for each the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) sender or initiator, (iv) recipient, (v) form (email, text, etc.), (vi) topics discussed, (vii) summary of what was written or said?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP searched its records management system for memos from the commissioner to the Prime Minister or his office as well as a search of the commissioner’s emails to and from the Prime Minister or his office and no documents were found.
While the RCMP does not have a record of any calls with the Prime Minister or his office, the commissioner recalls at least one instance in the days immediately following the mass casualty in Nova Scotia in April 2020, when the Prime Minister called to offer his condolences.
Note however that this time period was early in the COVID-19 pandemic with most staff working remotely. Therefore, the commissioner’s regular administrative support for duties such as scheduling meetings/conference calls did not exist, and as such regular records of meetings and calendar entries are limited.

Question No. 745—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency's criminal investigation of KPMG's offshore tax scheme: (a) what is the job title of the person who decided (i) to initiate the investigation, (ii) when to initiate the investigation, (iii) the mandate of the investigation, (iv) the date of completion of the investigation, (v) the drafting of the full investigation report, (vi) determination of the findings of the investigation; (b) for items in (a), was the minister or her exempt staff involved in these decisions, and, if so, to what extent; (c) when did the investigation begin; (d) what are the titles and numbers of the documents used in the investigation; (e) how many hours were spent on the investigation; (f) how many full-time equivalent employees were involved in the implementation of the investigation; (g) when did the investigation end; (h) what are the detailed findings of the investigation; (i) was the minister involved in the investigation, and, if so, to what extent; (j) were the exempt staff of the minister's office involved in the investigation, and, if so, to what extent; (k) when was the minister informed of the findings of the investigation; (l) was the minister or her exempt staff involved in (i) the drafting of the full investigation report, (ii) the review of the full investigation report; (m) are there different versions of the full investigation report, and, if so, why, and what are the titles and numbers of those versions; and (n) was the full investigation report sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, if not, why not, and, if so, did the Public Prosecution Service of Canada make a decision to prosecute, if not, why not?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CRA is unable to respond to the question in the manner requested. In order to ensure the integrity of the work of the CRA and to respect the confidentiality provisions of the acts the CRA administers, as section 241 of the Income Tax Act as set by Parliament prohibits officials from disclosing information that is taxpayer information, the CRA cannot comment on investigations that it may or may not be undertaking.
Furthermore, please be advised that the various acts administered by the CRA contain provisions vesting powers in the Minister of National Revenue. Most of the acts allow for the delegation of the minister's powers to designated officials. These officials are authorized to exercise powers or perform duties and functions of the minister through administrative delegation instruments signed either by the minister or by the commissioner. The Income Tax Act, ITA, is an example of this process, whereby the responsibilities of the minister as referenced in the ITA are delegated to officials within the CRA, all of whom are public servants.
Please note that neither the Minister of National Revenue, nor her staff, are in any way involved in any investigations the CRA may or may not conduct, in order to fully respect the agency's arm’s-length status.

Question No. 751—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to First Nations policing legislation, since 2014-15: (a) what funding has the government dedicated towards the co-development of a legislative framework that recognizes policing as an essential service; and (b) what consultations have taken place to support policing services that are well-funded, culturally sensitive and respectful of the communities they serve?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), budget 2021 proposed to provide $43.7 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, to co-develop a legislative framework for first nations policing that recognizes first nations policing as an essential service. This includes funding to support virtual engagement sessions and capacity funding for first nations organizations and first nations police services organizations
With regard to part (b), the Government of Canada concluded 13 virtual engagement sessions with first nations, provinces and territories, first nations organizations, first nations police services, first nations police boards/commissions, first nations women's organizations, first nations youth organizations, first nations 2SLGBTQQIA+ people and organizations, subject matter experts and others to support the co-development of federal first nations police services legislation.
Bilateral engagement continues with meetings, upon request, from first nations, police services and other organizations, as well as written comments and submissions to a public safety indigenous policing email address.
Moving forward, the Government of Canada will continue to collaborate with provinces and territories, the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, the First Nations Police Governance Council, and with first nations modern treaty and self-governing agreement signatories to identify practical considerations to inform the federal legislation.

Question No. 753—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to communications between Dan Brien, the Director of Media Relations, Issues Management and Social Media for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Office of the Minister of Public Safety, including the minister, between April 18, 2020, and May 1, 2020: what are the details of all communications, including all verbal, electronic, written, or other communication, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) sender or initiator, (iv) recipient, (v) form (email, text, etc.), (vi) topics discussed, (vii) summary of what was written or said?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, can confirm that Dan Brien, Director of Media Relations, Issues Management and Social Media for the RCMP did not have any communications with the Office of the Minister of Public Safety, including the minister between April 18, 2020, and May 1, 2020.

Question No. 754—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to communications between Dan Brien, the Director of Media Relations, Issues Management and Social Media for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Office of the Prime Minister, between April 18, 2020, and May 1, 2020: what are the details of all communications, including all verbal, electronic, written, or other communication, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) sender or initiator, (iv) recipient, (v) form (email, text, etc.), (vi) topics discussed, (vii) summary of what was written or said?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, can confirm that Dan Brien, director of media relations, issues management and social media for the RCMP did not have any communications with the office of the Minister of Public Safety, including the minister between April 18, 2020, and May 1, 2020.

Question No. 755—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS): (a) what is the process of registering a complaint against the PPS; (b) who is responsible for addressing the complaints; (c) is the complaint process made public; (d) broken down by year since 2012, (i) how many complaints have been received about the PPS, (ii) how many of the complaints received about the PPS were resolved, (iii) how many of the complaints against the PPS were submitted by Indigenous peoples or Indigenous organizations; and (d) how many complaints with PPS remain unresolved?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Protective Service, PPS, is a separate and distinct organization from the RCMP and the Government of Canada. As such, this question should be directed to the PPS directly, or the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, who are responsible for the service.

Question No. 759—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to legal fees incurred by the government in relation to LC, EB, KG, VD, MT and CL v Canada Employment Insurance Commission: (a) what is the total amount paid to date; and (b) who will be required to be paid for outside counsel services, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) other government entity that incurred the expense?
Response
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to LC, EB, KG, VD, MT and CL v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, to the extent that the requested information is or may be protected by any legal privileges, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, the federal Crown has waived solicitor-client privilege only as it relates to the total legal costs incurred by the government in relation to this matter, as defined below.
The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with the LC, EB, KG, VD, MT and CL v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission matter amount to approximately $264,309.74. This amount covers the costs associated with the numerous procedures filed and hearings held in various files related to this matter since 2018. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. However, a “notional amount” has been provided to account for those legal services. The “notional amount” is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable legal services hourly rates. The actual costs component is determined from recorded legal disbursements in the responsive files for the relevant period. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of June 21, 2022.
There have been no outside counsel services related to this matter.
Access to information requestsAfghanistanAir safetyAirline passengersAirportsAlbas, DanAlbertaAlghabra, OmarAnandasangaree, GaryAngus, CharlieApplication process ...Show all topics
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)

Question No. 564—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to government expenditures on Cisco and Cisco Systems products or services since January 1, 2020, including those obtained or purchased through a third party vendor: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount or value, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services, including the volume, (v) file number, (vi) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced, competitive bid, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 567—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the government’s use of facial recognition technology between 2012 and 2022: (a) which departments or agencies contracted for facial recognition technology; (b) for each department or agency in (a), what are the start and end dates for its contracts for facial recognition technology; (c) for each department or agency in (a), for what purpose did it contract the use of facial recognition technology; (d) for each department or agency in (a) which terminated or declined to renew a contract for facial recognition technology, why did it choose to discontinue its use of the technology; and (e) are any departments or agencies currently considering contracting the use of facial recognition technology, and, if so, for what purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 569—
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, broken down by year since its inception: (a) how many private sector investment dollars has it secured; (b) of the private investments in (a), how many unique investors do they represent; (c) how many projects funded in whole or in part by the bank were (i) completed, (ii) abandoned; (d) how many private investment dollars were refunded due to projects in (c)(ii) being abandoned; and (e) what percentage of funding for a project must be private for the bank to consider it successful?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 572—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to funding of talent and research, in particular the Canadian Graduate Scholarship - Master’s, the Canadian Graduate Scholarships (Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplements, Master’s), the Canadian Graduate Scholarships – Doctoral, the Canadian Graduate Scholarships to Honour Nelson Mandela, the SSHRC Doctoral Fellowships, the Canadian Graduate Scholarships (Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplements, Doctoral), the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships, the SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellowships and the Banting Post-Doctoral Fellowships, for each program and broken down by fiscal year since 2002: (a) what was the total value of all awards; (b) what were the highest and lowest possible awarded amounts as well as the average value; (c) what was the total number of recipients; (d) what was the total number of applicants; and (e) what was the success rate of applicants?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 573—
Mr. Jean-Denis Garon:
With regard to the tax audits conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by industry, administrative region, electoral district and year from 2015 to 2021: how many audits were conducted (i) for small and medium-sized enterprises, (ii) for charities, (iii) by audit programs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 574—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to Canada’s smallpox vaccine supply: (a) how many doses of smallpox vaccine does Canada have in its federal stockpile as of May 25, 2022; (b) what is Canada’s capacity to domestically manufacture smallpox vaccines, and over what time period; and (c) how many doses of smallpox vaccine, within other sources, is the government aware of being available in Canada, broken down by source (e.g. provincial stores)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 575—
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to the to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), and the statement from the spokesperson to the Minister of Finance in January 2021 that "We recognize that some state-owned enterprises have accessed the program to support jobs in Canada. We continue to actively assess adjustments to the Wage Subsidy.": (a) what state-owned enterprises accessed the CEWS program; (b) for each enterprise in (a), how much funding did it receive under CEWS; (c) did the government request that any funding provided in (b) be repaid, and, if so, how much was repaid; and (d) what adjustments were (i) assessed, (ii) made, to the CEWS program following the statement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 579—
Mrs. Rachael Thomas:
With regard to government travel, broken down by minister's office since January 1, 2019: (a) which ministers or exempt staff have rented vehicles, including, but not limited to, car and driver services, limousine services or car services, within Canada or elsewhere; (b) for each use identified in (a), what was the (i) date of the rental, (ii) pick-up location of the rental, (iii) drop-off location of the rental, (iv) nature of the official business, including events attended, (v) cost of the rental, (vi) vehicle description, including type and model, if available, (vii) names of passengers, if known, (viii) name of the vendor, (ix) duration of the rental; and (c) for each rental listed in (a), was a driver provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 585—
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the various user fees collected by the government, including those collected by any department or agency: what are the details of all fees which have increased in the past 12 months, or are scheduled to be increased in the next year, including, for each, the (i) title and description of fee, (ii) fee amount or structure prior to the increase, (iii) dates of increase, (iv) increased fee amounts or structures, (v) percentage of fee increase, (vi) additional revenue projected as a result of the fee increase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 586—
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the electric vehicle charging stations installed on government property: (a) what are the locations of each station; (b) on what date did each station become operational; and (c) for each location in (a), what was the total cost to acquire and install the station?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 588—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to loan payback extensions for business owners who received loans through government business relief programs: (a) how many recipients of loans through the Tourism and Hospitality Relief Fund have (i) requested, (ii) received, extensions to their payback schedule; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by length of extension; (c) how many recipients of loans through the Canada Emergency Business Account have (i) requested, (ii) received, extensions to their payback schedule; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by length of extension; (e) how many recipients of loans through the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund have (i) requested, (ii) received, extensions to their payback schedule; (f) what is the breakdown of (e) by length of extension; (g) what impact will receiving a payback extension have on the partial forgiveness component of the loan, broken down by fund or program; and (h) of the businesses who received payback extensions, what percentage are projected to still receive a partial forgiveness to their loan, broken down by program, and percent of forgiveness?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 589—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) and the CCB young child supplement (CCBYCS) payments made between April 2020 and January 2022: (a) how many individuals received (i) CCB, (ii) CCBYCS; (b) of the individuals who received (i) CCB, (ii) CCBYEC, how many also received payments under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) during the same period; (c) of the individuals who received (i) CCB, (ii) CCBYEC, how many received Employment Insurance (El) payments during the same period; (d) of the individuals who received (i) CCB, (ii) CCBYEC, how many received payments under other income support programs, broken down by program; and (e) of the individuals who received payments under both CCBYEC and CERB, El or other income support programs, and broken down by each program, how many received payments at each of the payment levels ($150 and $300) based on their incomes for 2019 or 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 593—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to bonuses paid out to government officials in the 2021-22 fiscal year, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total amount paid out in bonuses; and (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at, or above the executive (EX) level (or equivalent), (ii) below the EX level (or equivalent), received bonuses?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 595—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the current deployment of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers in the province of Quebec, as of June 1, 2022: (a) how many RCMP officers are presently working in Quebec; (b) of the officers in (a), how many are working in the vicinity of the Roxham Road border crossing; (c) of the officers in (a), how many are not working directly in the vicinity of Roxham Road, but have been assigned to matters either directly or indirectly related to the Roxham Road border crossing; and (d) what is the breakdown of the number of RCMP officers deployed to each region or area of Quebec?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 597—
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the ArriveCAN application: (a) how much money did the government spend developing the application; (b) what is the itemized breakdown of all expenditures related to (a); (c) how much has been spent to date maintaining, updating, or promoting the application; (d) how much money did Shared Services Canada spend to initially develop this application; (e) what is the itemized breakdown of all expenditures related to (d); (f) what are the details of all contracts signed by the government related to the application in any way, including, for each (i) the vendor, (ii) the date, (iii) the value, (iv) the start and end dates, if applicable, (v) the description of goods or services provided, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process; and (g) what is the total cumulative cost (i) incurred to date, (ii) budgeted related to the application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 598—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Recovery Benefit: (a) how much does the government estimate is owed in repayments; (b) how many individuals owe repayments; (c) how many individuals in (b) reported an income below the low income cut-off on their 2019 tax return; (d) what is the lowest amount owed; (e) what is the highest amount owed; (f) what is the average amount owed; (g) of the individuals owing money, how many does the government estimate were victims of fraud; (h) of the total estimated amount owed, how much does the government expect to (i) successfully recover, (ii) recover from those whose income is below the low income cut-off; and (i) how much does the government intend to spend on staff time and resources to recover these debts, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) other government entity?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 600—
Mrs. Anna Roberts:
With regard to government statistics on court-imposed sentences for those convicted of crimes which carry a maximum possible sentence of 10 years or more, broken down by crime or criminal code violation, and by year in which the sentence was given, since January 1, 2016: (a) what percentage of those convicted were given the maximum sentence; and (b) how many people were (i) convicted, (ii) given the maximum sentence?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 602—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the story published in La Presse on June 6, 2022, about the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) participating in secret trials in Quebec: (a) what is the total number of secret trials the PPSC has participated in since 2016; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory and by type and level of court?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 604—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the government's COVID-19 vaccination attestation requirement, as of June 6, 2022: (a) how many CAF members were either (i) placed on leave, (ii) released or terminated due to either not being vaccinated or not fulfilling the attestation requirement; (b) of the individuals in (a) how many were (i) active duty, (ii) Reserve Force, (iii) other; (c) what is the breakdown of active duty individuals in (b)(i) by (i) branch of the CAF, (ii) location they were serving from prior to the punitive action being taken; and (d) what is the breakdown of Reserve Force individuals in (b)(ii) by each of the four force sub-components?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 605—
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to unconditional repayable contributions made be the government since January 1, 2016, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total (i) number (ii) value of contributions made, broken down by year; (b) of the contributions in (a) what is the (i) number (ii) value of contributions which have been written off to date; (c) what is the total amount of contributions written off, broken down by year; and (d) what are the details of all contributions in (b), including for each the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) project description or purpose of contribution, (v) reason it was written off?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 607—
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Air Force and its CC-295 Kingfisher search and rescue aircraft: (a) in what year will the aircraft (i) enter into service, (ii) reach the initial operational capability (IOC); (b) what specific modifications, upgrades or repairs must be completed before the aircraft (i) enters into service, (ii) reaches the IOC; (c) what is the projected or estimated cost for each item in (b); (d) what is the itemized breakdown, including costs and completion date, of all the work that has been conducted on the aircraft since 2016; and (e) what is the schedule of all ongoing or future work to be completed on the aircraft, including the projected costs and completion date of each item?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 609—
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the ad hoc committee of parliamentarians announced by the government on April 27, 2022, concerning certain documents related to the National Microbiology Laboratory: (a) what are the terms of reference for the committee; (b) what specific legal authorities, if any, does the committee exercise or operate under; (c) what roles, responsibilities, operations, tenure and obligations were provided to the committee; (d) what is the scope, objective and mandate of the committee; (e) by what instrument (e.g., order in council, contract, memorandum of understanding, exchange of letters) is the committee constituted; (f) when will the instrument, referred to in (e), be laid upon the table of the House; (g) who are the signatories to any agreement related to the establishment, constitution or appointment of the committee, broken down by agreement; (h) who are the members, and, if any, alternate members of the committee; (i) by whom and on what date or dates were the members (and alternate members, if any) of the committee nominated, and, if a separate process, appointed; (j) who is the Chair, and, if any, vice-chair of the committee; (k) by whom and on what date was the Chair (and vice-chair, if applicable) of the committee nominated, and, if a separate process, appointed; (l) what security clearances are the members (and alternate members, if any) of the committee required to possess and (i) did each member already possess it, (ii) what was the process required to establish it, (iii) on what date did each member acquire it; (m) does the Chair or vice-chair require a different or higher security clearance than the other members of the committee, and, if so, what are the details, referred to in (l), concerning it; (n) what are the dates and locations for committee meetings (i) which have occurred, (ii) are scheduled in the future; (o) under what rules does the committee operate; (p) are official records of the committee's meetings kept, and, if so, (i) who is responsible for keeping them, (ii) where are they kept or deposited; (q) how are the committee's decisions, advice and recommendations being captured or recorded; (r) are the committee's meetings recorded via (i) video, (ii) audio, (iii) written transcripts; (s) where are the recordings, referred to in (r), kept or deposited; (t) what are the record-keeping procedures for written submissions to the committee and committee correspondence, including where they are kept or deposited; (u) did the government request the use of any House of Commons resources, including clerks and support staff, to support the committee's work, and, if so, what are the terms of any such agreement, including the cost paid for these services; (v) did the government request the use of any Translation Bureau resources, including translators and interpreters, to support the committee's work, and, if so, what are the terms of any such agreement, including the cost paid for these services; (w) did the government request the use of any Library of Parliament resources, including analysts, to support the committee's work, and, if so, what are the terms of any such agreement, including the cost paid for these services; (x) has the government or the committee retained outside legal counsel to support the committee's work, and, if so, what are the terms of any such retainer, including who was retained and the cost paid for their services; (y) when is the committee's work anticipated to conclude; (z) how will the committee report its findings, including whether the government will table a report and the subject documents in the House; (aa) who are the jurists who will act as the arbiters for the committee, and how were they selected, including by whom they were nominated, and, if a separate process, appointed; (bb) how much are the arbiters being paid for their work with the committee; (cc) by what instrument (e.g., orders in council, contracts) are the arbiters appointed; (dd) when will the instruments, referred to in (cc), be laid upon the table of the House; (ee) does the committee have the mandate to consider documents other than the documents referred to in the orders of the House of Commons, adopted on June 2 and 17, 2021, and, if so, what are the details concerning those documents and mandate; (ff) does the committee have the power to order the production of documents, and, if so, under what legal authority does it have such power; (gg) does the committee have the power to summon witnesses, and, if so, under what legal authority does it have such power; and (hh) what renumeration is paid to the Chair, vice-chairs, if any, and other members of the committee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 610—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to complaints related to searches of electronic devices received by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), broken down by year since 2016: (a) how many searches involving the viewing of contents on individuals' electronic devices has the CBSA conducted (i) in total, (ii) broken down by point of entry; (b) how many complaints were received related to the searches (i) in total, (ii) broken down by point of entry; and (c) what are the statistics related to how the complaints were received, including how many complaints were deemed to be legitimate and what action was taken to address the complaints?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 611—
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to government statistics on individuals charged with firearm related offences, broken down by each offence and by year since 2016: (a) what percentage of those charged had a previous criminal record; and (b) what was the total number of people (i) charged, (ii) charged, who had a previous criminal record, (iii) charged, who did not have a previous criminal record?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 614—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to international arrivals being forced to wait on the tarmac at Pearson International Airport (Pearson) for extended periods of time due to government restrictions or capacity problems with government agencies involved in the processing of arriving passengers: (a) what is the government's estimate of the number of (i) planes, (ii) passengers, which have been forced to spend extra time on the tarmac at Pearson, broken down by month since January 1, 2022; (b) what was the worst day in terms of the volume of passengers being forced to remain on the tarmac for extra time; (c) on the date in (b), what was the number of (i) flights, (ii) passengers, that were forced to remain on the tarmac; (d) does the government have any estimates on the number of connecting flights missed by passengers as a result of the delay, and, if so, what are the estimates; (e) has the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance taken any action to ensure that the delays at Pearson are fixed before the summer tourism season; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what specific action has been taken; (g) if the answer to (e) is negative, why has no action been taken by that particular minister; and (h) what are the government's estimates on the percentage of foreign tourists who arrive through Canada each year through Pearson versus other Canadian airports?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 615—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to federal funding for Métis, First Nations and Inuit organizations during the 2020-21 fiscal year: how much funding was allocated to (i) the Métis National Council and its affiliates (Metis Nation of Ontario, Metis Nation of Saskatchewan, Metis Nation of Alberta Association), (ii) non-affiliated Métis groups, specifically the Métis Settlements General Council and the Manitoba Metis Federation, (iii) Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, (iv) non-affiliated Inuit groups, specifically Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Kitikmeot Inuit Association and Kivalliq Inuit Association, (v) the Assembly of First Nations, (vi) non-affiliated First Nations, specifically Treaty 8?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 618—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the public order emergency declared in February 2022: (a) did any minister, including the Prime Minister, minister’s exempt staff, including Prime Minister’s Office's employees, or departmental official, brief, prior to 4:30 p.m. on February 14, 2022, any New Democratic Party member of Parliament, or any of their staff, about plans to declare the emergency; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what are the details of that briefing or briefings, (ii) was any representation made at a briefing that in declaring an emergency, the government would be acting on the advice of law enforcement, and, if so, what are the details of that representation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 621—
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to government funding for flood mitigation measures in the Fraser Valley: what are the details of all federally funded projects which are either ongoing or planned, including, for each, the (i) title or description, (ii) summary of the work being completed, (iii) location, (iv) amount of federal contribution, (v) total project cost, (vi) breakdown of how much each level of government or other entity is contributing to the project, (vii) start date, (viii) expected completion date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 623—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to buildings owned or leased by the government, excluding Service Canada centres, which are located in flood plains or flood zones: (a) how many government buildings are located in a flood plain or flood zone; (b) what are the details of each building in (a), including (i) the address and location, (ii) whether the building is owned or leased by the government, (iii) the number of government employees who work in the building, if applicable; and (c) are there contingency plans or temporary locations designated to be used in the event of a flood, and, if so, what are they, broken down by each building?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 624—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), and its application to the House of Commons workplace: (a) what analysis or rationale has been conducted by or provided to the government with respect to the exclusion of member to member harassment (i.e. harassment and violence as opposed to solely sexual harassment) from the House of Commons harassment policy; (b) is the government aware of incidences of harassment (i.e. harassment and violence as opposed to solely sexual harassment) deemed to be between members, that have been reported and subsequently deemed not covered by the policy, and, if so, how many; (c) what analysis, if any, has been provided to or conducted by the government with respect to if or how the House of Commons harassment policy could be fully extended to include all member to member harassment (i.e. harassment and violence as opposed to solely sexual harassment); (d) what analysis, if any, has been provided to or conducted by the government to review if processes used during the application of any provision of the Reform Act, 2014, particularly the provision regarding expulsion of caucus members, could contradict the act, the House of Commons harassment policy, or any other piece of federal or provincial legislation regarding workplace harassment; (e) what analysis, if any, has been provided to or conducted by the government to define the responsibility of party caucus chairs (i.e. as defined in the Reform Act, 2014) to prevent harassment within party caucus meetings; and (f) what analysis, if any, has been provided to or conducted by the government to analyze if member to member harassment could constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 625—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to all orders in council that have been adopted by the government but have not been published in the orders in council online database: (a) since 2004, broken down by date, the statute from which they were issued and section of the statute, how many orders in council have been adopted but not published; (b) how many orders in council adopted but not published were in response to Russian aggression towards Ukraine (i) since 2014, (ii) in 2022; and (c) what is the breakdown of the orders in councils identified in (b) by statute and section of the statute?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 628—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to the government's social media accounts, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to the accounts, and what are their titles; (b) how many accounts or profiles does the government manage, broken down by social media platform; (c) what are the details of each account or profile, including, for each, the (i) name of the platform, (ii) handle or profile name; (d) what specific procedures are in place to ensure that any information put out through the government's accounts (i) does not contain disinformation, misinformation, or misleading information, (ii) is not politically biased towards the government or the Liberal Party of Canada; and (e) for any procedures related to (d), who has final approval before an item is posted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 630—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Table of Disabilities (Table) used by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) what is the process to make changes to the Table; (b) what changes have been made to the Table since 2015, and when were the changes made; (c) is there a project underway to make changes to the Table to better reflect the needs of women veterans, and, if so, (i) how many staff members are involved in this project, (ii) what are the titles of those staff members, (iii) what are the timelines of the project; and (d) has the Minister of Veterans Affairs taken any meetings with department officials and stakeholders to discuss edits to the Table, and, if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) with whom?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 632—
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the reception "An Evening at Canada's House" attended by the Prime Minister at the Official Residence of the Consul General of Canada in Los Angeles held on or around the evening of June 10, 2022: (a) how many individuals were invited to the reception; (b) who was invited; (c) how was the invite list determined; (d) what costs were incurred by the government related to the event, broken down by item and type of expense; (e) what are the details of all contracts worth more than $1,000 related to the event, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided; and (f) why was the event not listed on the Prime Minister's official itinerary for that day?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 633—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to government statistics on crimes committed with handguns since January 1, 2016, and broken down by province or territory where the crime occurred: (a) how many gun crimes were committed by individuals (i) in legal possession of the handguns, (ii) using an illegally obtained handgun; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a)(i) and (a)(ii) by type of crime?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 635—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the government’s participation in the development of the World Health Organization's (WHO) proposed international treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response: (a) what is the government’s formal position with regard to a proposed legally binding international treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response; (b) what are the details of all documents the government has provided to the WHO or the World Health Assembly (WHA) related to the treaty, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; (c) what are the details of Canada’s submission or contribution to the 75th WHA meeting with regard to strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies; (d) what formal participation, if any, has Canada had, or plans to have with the intergovernmental negotiating body formed in February 2022; (e) what are the details of all documents or recommendations the government provided to the WHO to inform discussions at the December 2021 Special Sessions, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) file number; (f) what specific measures, if any, are being taken to protect Canada’s independent decision-making authority with regard to future public health responses in a pandemic; (g) what specific measures, if any, are being taken to increase accountability and transparency in the WHO's and WHA's decision-making process; (h) which elected and unelected officials led Canada’s delegation at the WHA meetings, including the number of people in the delegations and their titles and positions, for each meeting since 2016; (i) what meetings are scheduled for public consultation overall and with Canadians; (j) what meetings are scheduled to discuss the drafting of the treaty; and (k) does the government have any plans to undertake a formal and public review of Canada’s whole-of-government pandemic response to inform future national pandemic planning, and, if so, what are the details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 636—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to publicly available information on unpublished or secret orders in council (OIC) signed by the government since January 1, 2016: (a) on what date was each OIC signed; (b) who signed each OIC; (c) what was the general subject matter or purpose of each OIC; (d) who made the decision to keep the specific contents of each OIC secret; (e) what justification was claimed in keeping the contents of each OIC secret (national security, commercial competitiveness, detrimental to the Prime Minister’s image, etc.); and (f) what is the justification for the increased use of secret OICs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 637—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to case managers at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), broken down by year since 2018: (a) how many new employees have been hired as (i) temporary or term staff, (ii) permanent staff; (b) how many have left VAC; (c) how many vacant positions exist by office; (d) how many empty positions exist by office; (e) how many are currently on extended sick leave; (f) how many have been on sick leave for longer than two months; (g) how many are currently on short- or long-term disability; and (h) how many have been on short- or long-term disability?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 639—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to studies conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what specific studies, if any, has DFO conducted since January 1, 2016, on the impact of pinnipeds on fish stocks; (b) for each study in (a), (i) when was it conducted, (ii) what were the findings; (c) what is the current DFO science budget for seal stock assessments; and (d) what is the projected DFO science budget for seal stock assessments for each of the next five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 640—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to employment within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what is the net increase or decrease of positions or full-time equivalents at DFO in total, between 2019 and 2022, broken down by section of DFO and type of position; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of jobs abolished, between 2019 and 2022, by type of jobs abolished and reason for abolishment; and (c) what was the total number of jobs abolished between 2019 and 2022 in the (i) ecosystem and fisheries management sector, (ii) ecosystems and oceans science sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 643—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to page 11 of the Canada's National Shipbuilding Strategy 2020 Annual Report, where it indicates that $3,618,548,097 in contracts have been awarded in Ontario since 2012: (a) what is the total number of contracts that have been awarded since 2012; (b) which vendors received these contracts; (c) what is the total value of contracts awarded, broken down by vendor; (d) of the total amount listed in the report, how much was spent on (i) large vessel contracts, (ii) small vessel contracts, (iii) repair, refit or maintenance contracts, (iv) lease contracts, (v) other contracts, broken down by type; and (e) what is the breakdown of each part of the question by year since 2012?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 645—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada passport offices, since January 1, 2018: (a) how many public service employees or full-time equivalents were working physically in person at each passport office, broken down by office location and by month; and (b) how many passports were issued each month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 648—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canada’s commitment in the feminist international assistance policy to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for women and girls, and its 10-year commitment at Women Deliver 2019 to dedicate $700 million annually to the neglected areas of SRHR: (a) how much international assistance funding dedicated to SRHR has been disbursed annually by Canada in the fiscal year (i) 2019-20, (ii) 2020-21, (iii) 2021-22; (b) how much of that has gone to the neglected areas of SRHR (abortion, advocacy, adolescent SRHR, including comprehensive sex ed and contraception); and (c) what steps is the government taking to ensure support for this work is scaled up to reach the 2023 funding commitment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 649—
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to COVID-19 vaccine doses procured by the government, and broken down by manufacturer (Pfizer, Moderna, etc.): (a) how many doses obtained by the government have been delivered to Canada but have yet to be administered as of June 15, 2022; (b) how many doses are set to be delivered between June 15, 2022, and the end of September 2022; (c) of the doses currently on hand in (a), how many are set to expire each month until the entire batch is expired; and (d) of the doses scheduled to be delivered in (b), when are those doses scheduled to expire?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 650—
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the attendance of Yasemin Heinbecker, Global Affairs Canada's (GAC) deputy chief of protocol, at an event to celebrate Russia Day at the Russian embassy in Canada: (a) who approved Ms. Heinbecker's attendance at this event; (b) what was the stated rationale for attending this event; (c) when was the Minister of Foreign Affairs' office made aware of Ms. Heinbecker's planned attendance at this event; (d) who in the Minister of Foreign Affairs' office approved the statement from departmental spokesperson Christelle Chartrand declaring that "this is not a business-as-usual situation, but we still maintain a diplomatic relation with Russia on matters of Canadian interests and GAC sent a protocol officer to the reception"; (e) was the quote in (d) the entire statement that was sent to the Globe and Mail from Christelle Chartrand, which was reported on June 12, 2022, and, if not, what was the entire statement; (f) what, if any, direction from the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been given to employees of GAC with respect to Canada's relations with Russia since February 24, 2022; and (g) what, if any, direction from the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been given to employees of GAC with respect to attending events at the Russian embassy since February 24, 2022?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 652—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the data held by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) related to COVID-19 measures: (a) what is the latest available data, as of June 15, 2022, on (i) the current rates related to the level of COVID-19 in wastewater, (ii) the random testing positivity rates, (iii) the available hospital capacity, (iv) other COVID-19 related metrics monitored by the PHAC; and (b) for each sub-part of (a), what is the breakdown by (i) province or territory, (ii) municipality?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 653—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the Nutrition North Canada (NNC) program, since the 2014-15 fiscal year: (a) how many complaints of spoiled or expired products has NNC received, broken down by supplier and eligible community; (b) what quality assurance mechanisms are in place to ensure that perishable goods, from all sources, reach their final retail destination prior to their best before date; (c) what is the frequency that each of these mechanisms are applied for each recipient; (d) how many instances of non-compliance have been found, broken down by supplier and affected community; and (e) what actions has the government taken to address non-compliance by funding recipients?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 654—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to investments in on-reserve kindergarten to grade 12 education, broken down by fiscal year since 2014-15 and by province or territory: what was the annual investment in (i) language and culture, (ii) literacy and numeracy, (iii) special needs education, (iv) learning materials and supplies, (v) accommodation and transportation, (vi) information technology, (vii) teacher salaries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 655—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to improvements to education infrastructure on-reserve, broken down by province or territory and year since 2015: (a) what new school construction projects have been supported; (b) what renovation projects, upgrading projects, supporting projects or feasibility studies have been completed; and (c) of the funding made available in budget 2016, how much of that funding has been (i) delivered, (ii) committed, (iii) lapsed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 656—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to Canada’s pledge at the UN Women Generation Equality Forum in 2021 to commit $100 million in new funding for standalone programming addressing unpaid and paid care work in low-and middle-income countries: (a) how much international assistance funding dedicated to care programming has been dispersed by Canada since July 2021, broken down by month; (b) how much of that funding has been (i) channeled to multilateral institutions and processes, (ii) earmarked for standalone projects; and (c) what steps is the government taking to ensure that this funding supports and can be accessed by women’s rights organizations and feminist in-country partners in the Global South?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 657—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the Afghans who were validated by the Department of National Defence (DND) or Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and referred to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), in response to the 2021 crisis in Afghanistan, broken down by the department that referred the file: (a) how many of these referrals have been received by IRCC; (b) how many referrals resulted in the creation of an IRCC application; (c) how many of these applications (i) have been accepted, (ii) have been rejected, (iii) are still being processed, (iv) have been put on hold; (d) how many of the applicants have landed in Canada; (e) how many individual applicants are there in the applications; (f) how many, if any, Afghans referred to IRCC by DND and GAC were identified as duplicates resulting in the creation of only one application; (f) what is the average processing time for the applications that have been (i) accepted, (ii) refused, broken down by stream; and (g) what is the average length of time that unapproved or declined files have been in the system, broken down by stream?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 659—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's (CMHC) Rental Construction Financing Initiative: (a) what is the current dollar value of monthly rent used by CMHC to qualify a project for the 30% median total income affordability requirement for at least 20% of units, broken down by region; and (b) what would be the dollar value of monthly rent for those regions if the affordability requirement were to change to 80% average market rent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 660—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy: (a) how many applications have been received under the (i) National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (ii) Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iii) Rapid Housing Initiative, broken down by program, stream (e.g. new construction, housing repair and renewal), stage of the application, year of submission, province, number of units and dollar amount for each finalized application since 2017; (b) how much funding from the programs referred to in (a) have been allocated to (i) finalized agreements, (ii) conditional commitments, broken down by province, program and stream; (c) what is the current average processing time to reach a finalized agreement for applications under the (i) National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (ii) Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iii) Rapid Housing Initiative; (d) what is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s reasoning for redacting most provinces from projects in the government’s responses to question Q-40, submitted on September 23, 2020, and question Q-161, submitted on December 6, 2021; (e) why were redactions to provinces not made in the government’s response to question Q-282, submitted on February 4, 2020; and (f) what, if any, policies were implemented that resulted in the change in approach to redactions and when were they implemented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 661—
Mr. Yves Perron:
With regard to the AgriInvest program: (a) what is the most recent information on the aggregate balance of AgriInvest accounts paid by the (i) producer, (ii) government; and (b) what is the breakdown of the data in (a) by (i) province, (ii) administrative region of Quebec, (iii) production type?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 662—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to polling data obtained by the Privy Council Office since January 1, 2016, concerning the decriminalization of possession of controlled substances: what are the details of all such polling, including, for each poll, (i) who conducted the poll, (ii) the start and end dates of when the poll was conducted, (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the complete results of the poll, including the questions asked and the responses received, (v) the value of the contract related to the poll, (vi) the dates the polling data was shared with Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 664—
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the Mackenzie King Estate in Gatineau Park: (a) what is the detailed current state of the property; (b) what are the details, including the date, the project description and the cost, of every project the NCC has done since 2018 to improve, upgrade or maintain the property; and (c) what are the details of every project the NCC plans to do between now and 2025 to improve, upgrade, or maintain the property?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 665—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to the ArriveCAN application: (a) has Destination Canada done any analysis on the impact on Canada's tourism sector of the government's decision to continue requiring tourists entering Canada to submit their personal information through the application, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings, of the analysis; (b) as of June 16, 2022, how many organizations and entities is the government aware of which have called on the government to end the ArriveCAN application; (c) what are the names of the organizations and entities in (b); (d) does the government have any data which shows that maintaining the ArriveCAN application requirement has an overall net benefit; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what is the specific data; and (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, or if there is no data provided in the response to (e), why has the government not ended the ArriveCAN application?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 666—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to representatives from Global Affairs Canada (GAC) attending Russia Day celebrations at the Russian embassy in Ottawa: (a) how many individuals at GAC received an invitation to the event; (b) what are the titles of the individuals who received an invitation; (c) how was it determined that Yasemin Heinbecker would attend the event on behalf of the government; (d) of the individuals who received an invitation, how many responded to the event; and (e) of the responses in (d), what were each of the responses, broken down by individual?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 667—
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman:
With regard to the comments made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on June 14, 2022, that "I didn't want an explanation. I would have never approved it. So there's no explanation" in reference to Canadian diplomats attending Russia Day celebrations: (a) why did the minister not want an explanation; (b) how was the minister able to determine whether any disciplinary action was needed without hearing an explanation; (c) were any officials or exempt staff disciplined as a result of the incident, and, if so, what are the details; (d) did the minister or her office initially approve the attendance at this event; and (e) did the Office of the Prime Minister tell the minister to take the position that officials should not have attended the event, and, if so, when?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 669—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) audit programs for business and particulars since November 2015, broken down by year and program: (a) what is the value of total reassessments resulting from the audits; (b) what is the total net revenue collected; (c) how many audits were performed; (d) how many audits resulted in reassessments with an amount owed to CRA; and (e) how many auditors were performing audits for each program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 671—
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the Universal Broadband Fund and other funds relating to the government's various commitments since October 2015 to provide broadband and high-speed Internet services to rural and underserved communities: (a) how many applications for funding have been received for projects located in whole or in part in Lanark County or Frontenac County, Ontario; (b) of those applications in (a), how many have been approved, and when was each approved; (c) what is the total dollar amount distributed to projects located in whole or in part in Lanark County or Frontenac County, Ontario; (d) what are the details of each approved project referred to in (b), including the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) project description or summary.
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 672—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regards to data held by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the interception of Pacific salmon stocks by Alaskan fisheries since 2000: (a) what is the estimated commercial harvest in Southeast Alaskan fisheries of Pacific salmon bound for Canadian rivers, as landed weight, number of fish and estimated value, broken down by (i) year, (ii) species of salmon, including steelhead, (iii) river system, (iv) conservation unit, (v) Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistical area; (b) of the amounts in (a), what is the estimated commercial harvest specific to Alaskan fisheries management area District 104, broken down by (i) year, (ii) species of salmon, including steelhead, (iii) river system; (c) of the amounts in (a), what was the estimated commercial harvest in 2020 and 2021 broken down by week for July, August and September; (d) of the amounts in (a), what was the amount, broken down by (i) seine fisheries, (ii) troll fisheries, (iii) gillnet fisheries, (iv) terminal-hatchery fisheries; (e) what was the total estimated bycatch of Pacific salmon bound for Canadian rivers in Southeast Alaskan fisheries broken down by (i) year, (ii) species of salmon, including steelhead, (iii) river system, (iv) conservation unit, (v) Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistical area; (f) of the amounts in (a), which species does Alaska provide direct information to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans concerning interception, based on genetic sampling or coded wire tagging; (g) for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021, of the Conservation Units or Stock Management Units the Department of Fisheries and Oceans collect Alaskan catch information, what is the proportion of total Canadian and US recreational and commercial catch harvested by Alaska by Conservation Unit, Stock Management Unit, or Indicator Stock; (h) of the conversation units for which the Alaska Department of Fish and Game or the Pacific Salmon Commission does not provide catch information, which are deemed likely to be intercepted based on (i) past tagging studies, (ii) genetic stock information, (iii) coded wire tags, (iv) research conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or the Pacific Salmon Commission, (v) other information, because they have similar migration routes and timing as Conservation Units, Stock Management Units, or indicator stocks catch for which information is provided for?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 673—
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) penitentiary farms and related CORCAN operations, related to the Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions: (a) what are the total amounts spent to build, repair, maintain, and operate all related infrastructure since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (b) what are the total amounts spent to operate all related programming since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (c) what are the total amounts spent to build, repair, maintain, and operate any infrastructure relating to goat dairy farming since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (d) what are the total amounts spent to build, repair, maintain, and operate any infrastructure relating to cow dairy farming since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (e) what are the total amounts spent to build, repair, maintain, and operate any infrastructure relating to animal slaughter since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (f) what are the total amounts spent to operate all programming related to goat dairy farming since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (g) what are the total amounts spent to operate all programming related to cow dairy farming since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (h) what are the total amounts spent to operate all programming related to animal slaughter since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (i) what are the projected total amounts to be spent on infrastructure and programming relating to goat dairy farming from fiscal year 2021-2022 through fiscal year 2025-26, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (j) what are the projected total amounts to be spent on infrastructure and programming relating to cow dairy farming from fiscal year 2021-22 through fiscal year 2025-26, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (k) what are the projected total amounts to be spent on infrastructure and programming relating to animal slaughter from fiscal year 2021-22 through fiscal year 2025-26, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (l) what are the total revenues that have been generated by the programming and operations referred to in parts (b), (f), (g), and (h), since January 1, 2016, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (m) what are the total revenues projected to be generated by the programming and operations referred to in parts (b), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k), from fiscal year 2021-22 through fiscal year 2025-26, broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) purpose, (iv) source of funding; (n) how many animals are presently at each institution, how many are allocated for what purpose, and how many are projected to be purchased or added through fiscal year 2025-26, broken down by (i) type of animal, (ii) purpose; (o) what measures are in place, and what measures are planned, at each location, to protect the well-being of the animals present, and to reduce the likelihood or possibility of animal abuse, neglect, or inhumane treatment; (p) what measures are in place, and what measures are planned to (i) monitor, (ii) interdict, (iii) reduce, (iv) eliminate the smuggling of contraband into or out of the institutions, as those measures relate to the penitentiary farms, the abattoir, and related CORCAN operations, by location; (q) do any agreements, contracts, memorandums of understanding or analogous arrangements exist between CSC or CORCAN and (i) Feihe International Inc., (ii) Canada Royal Milk, (iii) Mariposa Dairy, (iv) Gay Lea Foods Co-operative Limited, (v) any subsidiary thereof, (vi) any other external entity, respecting the sale, purchase, transfer, or use of goat milk or cow milk and, if so, what is the nature and summary of the terms of each arrangement; (r) for each penitentiary farm operation, whether referred to in parts (f), (g), and (h) or of some other agricultural nature, how much of the product is (i) kept and used inside CSC institutions, (ii) sold to external entities, (iii) transferred on a non-commercial basis to external entities, (iv) disposed of without use; (s) what is the present monthly capacity of each operation referred to in parts (f), (g), and (h), is the present monthly capacity for each operation substantially similar to the maximum planned capacity and, if not, when is the maximum planned capacity projected to be reached for each operation; (t) what is the number of inmates who are now or were previously employed in each operation referred to in parts (f), (g), and (h), broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) job or function; (u) what is the number of inmates who are projected to be employed in each operation referred to in parts (i), (j), and (k), broken down by (i) year, (ii) location, (iii) job or function; (v) how many correctional personnel are presently required, for a normal 24 hour period, to supervise each operation referred to in parts (f), (g), and (h), by location; (w) how many individuals, who are neither inmates nor correctional personnel, are presently employed, for a normal 24 hour period, in each operation referred to in parts (f), (g), and (h), by (i) location, (ii) job or function; (x) what specific measures are in place, or planned, to monitor and assess the effect of employment in CORCAN operations related to the penitentiary farms on inmates’ post-release employment and recidivism rates; (y) what specific biosecurity measures are in place, or planned, to reduce the risk of disease outbreaks or negative health effects related to the penitentiary farms on inmates, correctional personnel, animals, and nearby residents; (z) what measures are in place to monitor and ensure that CORCAN operations related to the penitentiary farms are persistently in compliance with international and statutory obligations relating to inmate labour and inmate-produced goods and products; (aa) has CSC produced projections of the costs, excluding lost revenue, relating to ceasing each operation referred to in parts (f), (g), and (h), respectively and, if so, what are the details of those projections?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 674—
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval:
With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program and the status of the Verchères quay since 2015: (a) what are the amounts allocated to this program annually; (b) what is the list of approved projects, including the (i) amount allocated, (ii) year the project was approved, (iii) type of harbour; (c) what are the criteria for the allocation of funds; (d) what is the file status of the Verchères quay under this program; and (e) what priority is given to the file for the Verchères quay?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 675—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Plan, broken down by province and territory since their respective agreements were announced: (a) how many new childcare spaces have been created; (b) how many early childhood educators jobs have been created; (c) how much of the federal investment has been delivered; and (d) to date, what is the average savings per child (i) with 50% average fee reduction, (ii) at $10 per day?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 676—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the government’s research and analysis on policies and programs that could positively impact Canada’s economy and society, since fiscal year 2014-15: (a) what reports, studies or analyses have been done on implementing a guaranteed liveable income; (b) what were the conclusions of each report listed in (a); and (c) which jurisdictions were included in the government’s review of existing basic income projects?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 677—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to supporting safe communities during resource extraction projects: (a) what funding has been dedicated towards establishing equitable benefits and community-led initiatives to ensure the safety and security of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people at all stages of major resource projects; (b) what activities have been co-developed to mitigate impacts of temporary work camps and worker influxes; (c) what plans have been implemented to improve the collection and analysis of gender-disaggregated data in order to develop targeted measures in support of safe resource worksites and communities; and (d) how much funding has been delivered and allocated through the Aboriginal Community Safety Planning Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 678—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to Family Information Liaison Units (FILUs), since the fiscal year 2014-15, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year: (a) how much funding has the government provided to support FILUs as part of the Federal Victims Strategy; and (b) how many families have accessed services provided by FILUs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 679—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to income support benefits and the population groups designated by the government as “hard-to-reach populations” or “vulnerable populations,” since November 2015, broken down by year and by type of income support benefit, including the Canada Child Benefit, the Canada Workers Benefit, the Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the GST credit: (a) what are the designated groups; (b) what was the benefit take-up rate for each group in (a); (c) among the rates in (b), which rates exclude people who did not file a tax return; (d) what is the estimated gap between the rates in (b) and those observed in the general population; (e) among the groups in (a), what is the estimated number of people who are eligible for a benefit yet did not receive it; and (f) what is the estimated rate of people required to file a tax return who did not yet file one?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 680—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to claims for regular employment insurance benefits, between January and June 2022, broken down by month: (a) what was the processing time for claims, broken down by (i) average length of time, (ii) median length of time; (b) how many claimants received their benefit after 28 days; (c) of the claimants in (b), how long did it take for them to receive their benefit, broken down by (i) average length of time, (ii) median length of time; (d) of the total claims submitted, how many claims are still pending; and (e) how many officers are processing claims?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 681—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to programs addressing food insecurity, since November 2015, broken down by year and by program: (a) what is the total funding received; (b) of the funding in (a), what is the total funding disbursed; (c) what is the total number of applications; (d) of the applications in (c), how many applications were (i) approved, (ii) denied; (e) what is the timeline for assessing, reviewing and approving or rejecting an application, broken down by (i) average time, (ii) median time; (f) of the applications in (e), what percentage met the service standard; (g) has the government finalized the development of a national emergency preparedness and response plan for Canada’s food system and, if not, why not; and (h) what is the current rate of food insecurity as measured by Statistics Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 682—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the investment of more than $800 million in community-led harm reduction, treatment, and prevention initiatives the government has indicated it has committed since 2015 to address the overdose crisis: (a) how much funding has been allocated to date; (b) where has the funding been allocated to date, including, for each project, the (i) organization, (ii) project title (iii) description, (iv), primary focus, (v) location, (vi) contribution agreement amount from the federal government, (vii) project duration?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 683—
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Shared Health Priorities bilateral agreements, since fiscal year 2016-17, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year: (a) which federal investments have been directed towards (i) increasing the availability of mental health and addiction services in the community, excluding hospital and family physician funding, (ii) improving access to school-based programs for early prevention, detection and treatment, (iii) mental health promotion and mental illness prevention, (iv) expanding access to crisis intervention services and integrated multidisciplinary professional services, including peer support workers and mental health professionals on crisis response teams; (b) what measures or indicators are being tracked to monitor the effectiveness of the investments in (a); and (c) what reports, studies, or analyses has the government made publicly available concerning the effectiveness of these investments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 688—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the effects of climate change in Tibet, the Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), and the United Nations’ (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports: (a) has the government ever raised (i) concerns regarding the detrimental effects of climate change and Chinese development policies on Tibet’s fragile ecosystem, and, if so, when, where, and with whom have these concerns been raised, (ii) environmental concerns relating to Tibet during UN climate change conferences, or other global climate change conferences; (b) has the government called for an external investigation of alleged violations of the human rights of environmental activists inside Tibet, and, specifically, has the government raised concerns about the imprisonment of the Tibetan nomad environmental activist A-Nya Sengdra who was imprisoned for his activism in 2019; (c) has the government called for an external investigation of human rights violations in Tibet concerning the mass removal of nomadic pastoralists; and (d) has the government raised with China the issue of expansive damn-building in Tibet, its impacts on Tibet’s fragile ecosystem, and whether there has been consultation with local Tibetan communities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 689—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Canada’s trade relationship with China and human rights violations in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan areas of China, such as Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan, and Gansu: (a) has Canada raised concerns over human rights violations during its possible Canada-China Free Trade agreement (FTA) exploratory discussions; (b) has Canada consulted with Tibetan human rights advocacy groups during its public consultations on a possible Canada-China FTA, and, if so, (i) how many were consulted and what were their names, (ii) what was the full report of their concerns and recommendations; (c) does Canada and China’s joint feasibility study examining the potential economic benefits of a FTA for both countries include considerations of human rights violations; (d) how does Canada ensure that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights are upheld within its Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China; (e) has the Canadian government prohibited the importation of goods from Chinese companies violating the Customs Tariff section 132(1)(m)(i.1) which prohibits the importation of goods that are produced wholly or in part by forced labour, and, if so, (i) how many companies were banned, (ii) when was this done, (iii) what are their names; and (f) has Global Affairs Canada conducted any investigation into recent reports stating that an estimated 500,000 Tibetans have been placed into labour camps similar to the ones in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 691—
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval:
With regard to the 2018 Canada–Quebec Integrated Bilateral Agreement for the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: what are the details of all the relevant documents supporting the government’s decision to unilaterally amend the content of the bilateral agreement, including (i) communications such as letters, emails and messages from the ministers’ offices and departments concerned, (ii) the terms and conditions of programs and funding, (iii) final reports from the management and oversight committees and subcommittees, (iv) signed amendments, (v) notes and memos?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 692—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy program, since the date the program was created, broken down by the size of the business applying (small, medium, large): (a) how many audits have been conducted; (b) how many notices of determination have been sent to applicants; (c) for the notices in (b), what is the dollar value; (d) what is the dollar value of the total amounts previously paid that have been reimbursed; and (e) of the amounts reimbursed in (d), what is the dollar value of the total (i) applicable interest, (ii) penalties?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 693—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the whistleblower allegations concerning the Canada Revenue Agency advance pricing arrangement (APA) program, as reported by La Presse on May 24, 2022, since November 2015, and broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many APA agreements have been concluded; (b) what was the processing time for each of the agreements concluded in (a); (c) of the agreements concluded in (a), how many were retroactive agreements; (d) for each of the agreements in (a), what is the dollar value of the foregone tax revenue; (e) for each of the requests in (c), what is the dollar value of the foregone tax revenue; (f) for the agreements in (c), what was their processing time; (g) of the agreements in (a), which ones were not recommended by public servants; and (h) does the minister or their exempt staff participate in the decision-making process for accepting requests and concluding agreements, and, if so, to what extent and for which agreements?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 694—
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the whistleblower allegations about the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) Advance Pricing Arrangement program and the Minister of National Revenue’s statement in the House that “the investigation carried out by an independent tax expert showed that the terms of the agreement were favourable to the agency and did not provide any type of preferential treatment to the taxpayers involved”: (a) when was the minister informed of the allegations that the CRA had entered into certain arrangements without due diligence; (b) what is the job title of the individual who (i) made the decision to launch an investigation, (ii) made the decision to engage an independent tax expert, (iii) was responsible for setting the tax expert’s terms of reference, (iv) was responsible for hiring the tax expert; (c) with respect to the points in (b), was the minister or her exempt staff involved in these decisions, and, if so, to what extent; (d) what are the details of the process that led to the hiring of the tax expert; (e) what is the name of the tax expert; (f) what was the value of the contract awarded to the tax expert; (g) what were the details of the tax expert’s terms of reference; (h) on what date did the investigation start; (i) did the investigation start before the tax expert was hired; (j) what are the job titles of the individuals in charge of the investigation; (k) what are the job titles of the individuals who answered the investigator’s questions; (l) what are the titles and numbers of the documents analyzed as part of the investigation; (m) what laws and regulations were consulted as part of the investigation; (n) when did the investigation end; (o) what is the job title of the individual who made the decision to end the investigation; (p) what are the detailed findings of the investigation; (q) was the minister involved in the investigation, and, if so, to what extent; (r) were the exempt staff in the minister’s office involved in the investigation, and, if so, to what extent; (s) when was the minister informed of the investigation findings; (t) was the minister or her exempt staff involved in (i) drafting the investigation report, (ii) reviewing the investigation report; (u) are there different versions of the investigation report, and, if so, why and what are the version titles and numbers; and (v) was the investigation conducted an independent one?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 696—
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the government's plans and statistics related to the disposal of medical waste produced during the COVID-19 pandemic, including used rapid test kits: (a) what is the government's waste management plan for medical waste; (b) what are government's estimates on the amount of medical which has ended up in (i) landfills, (ii) the Great Lakes, (iii) the ocean, since the pandemic began, broken down by type of waste; (c) what measures, if any, did the government put into place to prevent used rapid test kits from ending up with other garbage; and (d) what (i) amount, (ii) percentage, of medical waste generated, since March 2020, has been exported to a foreign country?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 697—
Mr. Earl Dreeshen:
With regard to the government's plans and statistics related to disposable personal protective equipment (PPE) used during the COVID-19 pandemic, including masks and disposable gloves: (a) what is the government's waste management plan for disposable PPE; (b) what are government's estimates on the amount of PPE which has ended up in (i) landfills, (ii) the Great Lakes, (iii) the ocean, since the pandemic began; (c) does Transport Canada have any estimates on the amount of waste generated by the government's mask mandate in airports and on airplanes, and, if so, what are the estimates; (d) has Environment and Climate Change Canada done any research on the negative environmental impact related to PPE, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings, of such research; (e) what percentage of PPE is currently being recycled; and (f) what (i) amount, (ii) percentage, of PPE waste generated, since March 2020, has been exported to a foreign country?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 698—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) what is the number of applications (i) received in total, (ii) accepted, (iii) rejected, for visitor visas to Canada, broken down by year since 2016, and by reason for visiting; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by country of applicant?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 699—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to motion M-133 passed on February 7, 2018, during the 42nd Parliament: (a) how much money, broken down by year from 2018 to 2022, has the government spent to promote September 28 as British Home Child Day; (b) what activities has the government undertaken to promote September 28 as British Home Child Day, broken down by year, from 2018 to 2022; and (c) what are the government’s plans to promote September 28, 2022, as British Home Child Day in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 700—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to persons with disabilities (PWD) in Canada and the demographics of PWD, broken down by gender, age group, province or territory, ethnic background, income range and fiscal year: (a) what are the demographics of PWD who are eligible for the disability tax credit (DTC); (b) since 2010, how many Canadians have been denied the DTC; (c) since 2010, how many applications per year have been received for DTC; and (d) since 2010, what reasons for rejection of the DTC have been provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 702—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to persons with disabilities (PWD) in Canada and their interactions with government agencies, including, but not limited to, Service Canada, Canada Revenue Agency, Employment and Skills Development Canada: (a) what are the known barriers for PWD communicating with the government; (b) what are the accessibility standards; (c) since 2015, how many complaints have been received from PWD; and (d) since 2015, how many positive comments have been received from PWD?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 703—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to passport applications received by Passport Canada between January 1, 2022 and June 15, 2022: (a) how many applications were received, broken down by (i) month, (ii) week; (b) how many applications were processed, broken down by (i) month, (ii) week; (c) how many Passport Canada employees have a Flexible Work Agreement in place, broken down by month; (d) how many personnel did Passport Canada employ on January 1, 2020; (e) how many personnel did Passport Canada employ on May 31, 2022; (f) as of May 31, 2022, how many employees have been hired in the last (i) 30, (ii) 60, (iii) 90, days; and (g) what actions is Passport Canada taking to improve service delivery of the Passport Canada program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 705—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the government's inventory of armoured vehicles and donation to Ukraine: (a) how many armoured vehicles, broken down by model, does the Department of National Defence (DND) currently hold of the (i) LAV II Coyote, (ii) M-113 or T-LAV, (iii) LAV II Bison; (b) how many armoured vehicles, broken down by model, does the DND currently hold that are surplus to Canadian Armed Forces immediate operational needs and in a serviceable condition of the (i) LAV II Coyote, (ii) M-113 or T-LAV, (iii) LAV II Bison; (c) how many armoured vehicles, broken down by model, does the DND currently hold that are surplus to Canadian Armed Forces immediate operational needs and are in a repairable condition of the (i) LAV II Coyote, (ii) M-113 or T-LAV, (iii) LAV II Bison; (d) how many (i) LAV II Coyote, (ii) M-113 or T-LAV, (iii) LAV II Bison, armoured vehicles has the DND considered donating to Ukraine; (e) when does the DND plan to donate the pledged 40 armoured vehicles to the Government of Ukraine; and (f) when can the Government of Ukraine expect to receive the donated armoured vehicles?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 706—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to notices of determination and notices of debt sent to applicants for COVID-19 financial support programs for individuals, since the date of inception of each program and broken down by each financial support program for individuals: (a) how many audits have been conducted; (b) how many notices have been issued to applicants, broken down by (i) notices of determination, (ii) notices of debt; (c) for the notices in (b), what is their dollar value; and (d) what is the dollar value of the total amounts previously received refunded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 707—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the proposed Ojibway National Urban Park: (a) what is the official process that Parks Canada has initiated for consultation, including (i) who have they met with, (ii) who have they invited to participate, (iii) when did the process start, (iv) what is its anticipated end date; (b) has Parks Canada engaged with the City of Windsor to negotiate the transfer of the municipalities’ lands to Parks Canada for the proposed Ojibway National Urban Park; (c) has Parks Canada engaged with the government of the Province of Ontario to negotiate the transfer of the province’s land to Parks Canada for the proposed Ojibway National Urban Park; (d) what funding allocations or estimates has Parks Canada made (i) for the process of consultation for the proposed Ojibway National Urban Park, (ii) for the transfer of lands from the City of Windsor and the Province of Ontario, (iii) the establishment of Ojibway National Urban Park, (iv) for the ongoing parks management; and (e) has Parks Canada engaged with Caldwell First Nation to create a co-management agreement for Ojibway National Urban Park?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 711—
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
With regard to engagement with the Russia embassy in Ottawa, since February 23, 2022: (a) how many meetings, phone calls, or email exchanges have occurred between ministers, ministerial staff, parliamentary secretaries, or public servants, and representatives of the Russian embassy; (b) what were the (i) dates, (ii) times, (iii) details, (iv) objectives, (v) outcomes, of the meetings or exchanges in (a); (c) how many social events hosted by the government were held where the Russian embassy or an employee of the Russian embassy received an invitation; (d) what were the (i) dates, (ii) times, (iii) locations, (iv) details, of the social events in (c); (e) how many social events hosted by the Russian embassy did a Canadian minister, ministerial staffer, parliamentary secretary, or public servant attend; and (f) what were the (i) dates, (ii) times, (iii) locations, (iv) details, of the social events in (e)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 712—
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the estimated 3,700 evacuees that Canada transported or facilitated the transport of from Afghanistan in August 2021: (a) how many evacuees were Afghan nationals who have been validated by the Department of National Defence as having an enduring relationship with the Canadian Armed Forces; (b) how many Afghan nationals who have been validated by the Department of National Defence as having an enduring relationship with the Canadian Armed Forces and were designated for those flights but did not make it on those flights; (c) how many Afghan evacuees were not on the lists provided by the Government of Canada prior to boarding the flight; (d) how many evacuees were Afghan women and girls; (e) how many evacuees were put on the list by other countries, broken down by nationality (Afghan or another nationality); (f) how many evacuees on those flights were related to referrals by (i) Global Affairs Canada, (ii) Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada; and (g) how many evacuees were Canadian citizens?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 714—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology from the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, entitled "Fraudulent Calls in Canada: A Federal Government’s First Start": what steps has the government taken to combat fraud and spam calls in Canada, including (i) legislative considerations, (ii) work with international partners to ensure that transnational offenders are held accountable, (iii) monitoring the progress of solutions combatting fraud and advance more transparent progress reporting, (iv) working closely with public and private stakeholders to promote fraud awareness for Canadians, (v) working with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and telecommunications service providers to implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework, (vi) promoting the class action suits in the United States that provide refunds to Canadian victims of phone fraud or cybercrime schemes, (vii) developing the new national cybercrime and fraud reporting system to improve the processes used to report fraud and cybercrime incidents to law enforcement, which was anticipated to be operational in 2022, to help improve the quality of data on fraud in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 716—
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to efforts that focus on education, training and economic opportunities for Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, broken down by fiscal year since 2014-15: (a) how much funding has been dedicated through the (i) First Nations and Inuit Youth Employment Strategy, (ii) Indigenous Skills and Employment Training program, (iii) Women’s Employment Readiness Pilot, (iv) Women’s Entrepreneurship Strategy; and (b) how much of the funding in (a) has been committed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 718—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Canada Greener Homes Grant Initiative, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since the program's inception: (a) how many applications were received by Natural Resources Canada; (b) how many applications were approved for (i) home insulation, (ii) air-sealing, (iii) windows and doors, (iv) thermostats, (v) space and water heating, (vi) renewable energy, (vii) resiliency measures; and (c) what is the total amount of grant funding provided for each application type in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 719—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Sectoral Workforce Solutions Program, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since the program's inception: (a) what is the total number of applications received from (i) not-for-profit organizations, (ii) for-profit organizations, (iii) municipal governments, (iv) Indigenous organizations, (v) provincial or territorial government bodies; (b) how many applications were approved for (i) building talent for the clean economy, (ii) supporting demand-driven solutions for sectors hardest hit by the pandemic and those key to recovery, (iii) investing in the health care sector; and (c) how much funding has been delivered to organizations in each policy area in (b)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 721—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the government's Future Fighter Capability Project: (a) what are the top 10; risks related to the planned procurement; (b) what are the specific actions to be taken to mitigate each risk; (c) what is the expected delivery date of (i) the first 20 jets, broken down by jets one through to 20, (ii) the remaining jets; (d) what is the total cost of acquisition for the jets; (e) what is the anticipated cost of maintaining the 88 jets, over their lifetime; (f) will the first batch of jets be part of the Block 4 build by Lockheed Martin, and, if not, what specific block of jets will; (g) what are the anticipated economic benefits for the 88 jets broken down by (i) province, (ii) year, (iii) type of industrial benefit, (iv) new jobs associated with each, (v) value of each benefit in dollars before taxes, (vi) tax benefits per province; (h) what are the core reasons why the F35s was selected over the Saab Grippen, including what the key mandatory requirements were, and how they were met; (i) which of the proponents delivered a fixed-price contract; and (j) what are the total costs of the industrial and technological benefits for the program, and for each of the two down-selected proponents?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 722—
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the government measures related to space debris and space situational awareness: (a) what are the core policies and programs the government has in place to address these issues; (b) what policies and priorities are guiding the government's public declarations on these issues; (c) how much has the government budgeted in (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, (iv) 2023, (v) 2024, (vi) 2025, to support its policies and programs related to space debris and space domain awareness; (d) what is the purpose of the Sapphire satellite, and how is it used by (i) Canada, (ii) Canadian allies; (e) what are the top 10 risks related to the Sapphire satellite; (f) what are the government's plans related to a replacement of the Sapphire satellite; (g) what specific measures will the government take to ensure that Canada can contribute to space domain awareness and other measures related to space debris; (h) how is Canada planning to work with (i) NORAD, (ii) the UN, (iii) NATO, on space domain awareness and space debris, broken down by year from 2022 to 2025 inclusively; (i) is the government planning to leverage space situational awareness and space debris management as part of NORAD modernization; and (j) does the government have any future plans to manage space debris and space situational awareness, and, if so, what are the details of the plans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 723—
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the federal minimum wage and all income support benefits indexed to Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation, since April 2021, broken down by month and by each monthly CPI measure: (a) what is the approximate percentage point difference between the monthly CPI increase and the federal minimum wage; and (b) what is the approximate percentage point difference between the monthly CPI increase and the monthly increase to the maximum payment of (i) Old Age Security, (ii) the Guaranteed Income Supplement, (iii) the Canada Child Benefit, (iv) the GST credit, (v) the Canada Workers Benefit?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 724—
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to notices of redetermination and notices of debt related to the COVID-19 individual benefits, broken down by notices of redetermination and notices of debt, since November 2021: (a) how many recipients have gotten these notices; (b) what is the estimated dollar value of the amounts that the government (i) intends to recover, (ii) has actually recovered; (c) of the recipients in (a), how many received a reduction in their Employment Insurance benefits; and (d) for the reduction in (c), what is the estimated dollar value of the amounts the government (i) intends to recover, (ii) has actually recovered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 725—
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the federal carbon tax or price on carbon: (a) what is the total amount collected from the tax, broken down by province in the 2021-22 fiscal year; (b) what was the total amount dispersed in rebates, or Climate Action Incentive payments, broken down by province for the 2021-22 fiscal year; and (c) what is the itemized breakdown of how the government is spending the difference in the amount between (a) and (b), including how much of each provincial amount is going to back to that province, and in what form?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 727—
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the government's ArriveCAN appliation: (a) since January 1, 2022, how many travellers have presented themselves at the border for entry into Canada without having submitted their information through the application prior to arrival; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by month and point of entry?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 729—
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to the new funding and policy approach for First Nations kindergarten to grade 12 education that took effect on April 1, 2019: (a) what meetings, consultations, and other engagements have taken place to develop and implement regional or local education agreements; and (b) for each meeting in (a), which (i) organizations, (ii) governments, (iii) rights-holding groups, (iv) other representatives, were in attendance at these meetings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 730—
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to the bilingual bonus governed by the Bilingualism Bonus Directive, broken down by province and territory: (a) how many employees have received the bilingual bonus since 2015; (b) of the recipients in (a), how many employees received the bilingual bonus for speaking an Indigenous language; and (c) how many employees are expected to speak an Indigenous language as part of their daily responsibilities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 731—
Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen:
With regard to federal government funding for fiscal years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, allocated within the constituency of London—Fanshawe: what is the total funding amount, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) department or agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 732—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to Statistics Canada's Consumer Price Index (CPI): (a) what is the total number of times the CPI basket weight was changed since November 2015; (b) what are the details of each change, including (i) the date the change was made, (ii) the products removed, (iii) the products added, (iv) the products remaining, (v) what changes were given to the weight of any products, (vi) the weight given to each product after the change; (c) what are the details of all changes to the products included in the "Food purchased from stores" basket share component since November 2015, including, for each change, the (i) date the product was removed, (ii) date the product was added, (iii) description of the changes or alterations to the weighting of the food products in the component; (d) what is the process to make decisions on amendments to the CPI basket weights, including which individuals are required to sign off on the changes; and (e) what is the scheduled date for the next amendment or change to the CPI basket weight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 735—
Ms. Bonita Zarrillo:
With regard to the Canada School of Public Service, broken down by department: (a) how many government employees, broken down by unit and percentage of total employees, have completed the Indigenous Learning Series, as of June 17, 2022; (b) is participation in the Indigenous Learning Series mandatory; (c) are new employees expected to complete any part of the Indigenous Learning Series as part of their training; (d) how many employees have access to the available learning products of the Indigenous Learning Series; (e) are employees, both new and experienced, given time to complete training through the Indigenous Learning Series during contracted working hours; and (f) what percentage of content available through the Canada School of Public Service is available in an Indigenous language?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 736—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program since October 1, 2020, broken down by month: (a) what is the total amount the government has collected in repayments of student loans; (b) what is the total amount of new loans delivered to (i) full-time and part-time students, (ii) students from low-income and middle-income families, (iii) students with dependants, (iv) students with permanent disabilities; (c) what is the total amount of new grants delivered to (i) full-time and part-time students, (ii) students from low-income and middle-income families, (iii) students with dependants, (iv) students with permanent disabilities; (c) how many new applications have been received under the (i) Repayment Assistance Plan, (ii) Repayment Assistance Plan for Borrowers with a Permanent Disability; and (d) how many borrowers have defaulted on their student loans?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 737—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to the Review and Analysis Division (RAD) of the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by fiscal year since 2014-15: (a) how many reviews or investigations were conducted on Muslim organizations and charities; (b) what criteria is used to determine whether an organization's work is (i) religious, (ii) social; (c) what are the criteria that must be met in order for an investigation or review to be initiated under RAD’s responsibilities; and (d) what is the average cost to taxpayers of RAD reviews or investigations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 738—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the government's commitment to combatting systemic racism within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police since 2014-15: what steps have been taken to (i) reform the recruitment and training processes, (ii) collect, analyze, and report race-based data, (iii) establish the RCMP-Indigenous Collaboration, Co-development and Accountability Office, (iv) enhance the access, design and delivery of appropriate education and training using an Indigenous lens?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 741—
Mr. Stephen Ellis:
With regard to communications between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner and the Office of the Minister of Public Safety, including the minister, between April 18, 2020, and May 1, 2020: what are the details of all communications, including all verbal, electronic, written, or other communication, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) sender or initiator, (iv) recipient, (v) form (email, text, etc.), (vi) topics discussed, (vii) summary of what was written or said?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 743—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to passport processing offices, since March 1, 2019, broken down by month until June 21, 2022: (a) how many public service employees or full-time equivalents were working in person at each passport office; (b) how many requests were received for (i) new passports, (ii) passport renewals, (iii) childrens' passports, (iv) urgent passports; (c) what service standards were communicated to the public about when they would receive their passports; (d) how many passports were issued; and (e) what was the number of unprocessed passport applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 744—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the licence for sale of cannabis for medical purposes under Section 26 of the Cannabis Regulations, broken down by province: (a) how many licences have been issued since 2018; (b) how many inspections of licence holders have been conducted by Health Canada, broken down by (i) province, (ii) year, (iii) municipality, (iv) licence classes and subclasses; (c) how many licence holders have been found to be non-compliant with the Cannabis Act or Cannabis Regulations, broken down by (i) province, (ii) year, (iii) municipality, (iv) licence classes and subclasses, (v) violation; (d) what number of enforcement actions have been taken by Health Canada to licence holders found to be in non-compliance, including the number of licences refused, suspended or revoked and the number of administrative monetary penalties issued, broken down by (i) province, (ii) year, (iii) municipality, (iv) licence classes and subclasses, (v) the value of administrative monetary penalties?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 746—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Canadian Coal Transition Initiative (CCTI) and the CCTI Infrastructure Fund, since their inception, broken down by fiscal year and by initiative: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided under each program to date; (b) how many projects have been funded; (c) in which communities have the projects been funded; (d) what is the timeframe for assessment, review, and approval or rejection of an application, broken down by (i) average timeframe, (ii) median timeframe; and (e) what accountability metrics are in place to ensure that (i) emission reduction targets are met, (ii) workers in the sector find employment in other industries?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 747—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to disability benefits provided by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) since November 2015, broken down by year: (a) what is the median time to process (i) an initial application, (ii) a reassessment application; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were processed after 16 weeks of receiving all the information needed for processing; (c) of the applications in (a), what is the percentage of cases that VAC met its service standard target; (d) how many of the decisions on initial applications submitted for mental health conditions were made in more than 16 weeks, as a (i) percentage, (ii) raw number; (e) of the timeframes in (a), what are the application processing times broken down by recipient groups (i) male, (ii) female, (iii) anglophones, (iv) francophones; (f) what is the total number of applications; (g) how many officers process applications broken down by (i) temporary officers, (ii) permanent officers; (h) what is the volume of backlog of applications; and (i) were the number of total applications processed below the fiscal year target, and, if so, what is the target and what is the number of total applications processed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 748—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to study permits issued by the government since 2018-19, broken down by fiscal year and originating country: (a) how many applications for study permits were received; and (b) of those applications in (a), how many were (i) approved, (ii) rejected?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 749—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to funding received by National Sport Organizations (NSOs), broken down by fiscal year, since 2014-15: (a) what is the total amount of funding received by the NSOs for the (i) Sport Support Program, (ii) Athlete Assistance Program, (iii) Hosting Program; and (b) did any NSOs receive reduced funding or had funding denied during the accountability stage of the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework tool?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 750—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to government funding for fiscal years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, allocated within the constituency of Victoria: what is the total funding amount, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) department or agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 752—
Ms. Lori Idlout:
With regard to the Inuit Nunangat Declaration on Inuit-Crown Partnership signed on February 9, 2017, and the Inuit Nunangat Policy announced on April 21, 2022: (a) how much has been spent implementing the Partnership Declaration annually from fiscal years 2016-17 to date; (b) how has the government ensured accountability in the implementation of the Partnership Declaration; (c) in what ways has the implementation of the Partnership Declaration been audited for efficacy; and (d) what funding has been allocated and approved for the implementation of the Inuit Nunangat Policy annually?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 756—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) high net worth compliance program, broken down by year, from November 2015 to date: (a) how many audits were completed; (b) what is the number of auditors; (c) how many new files were opened; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files in (d), what was the average time taken to process the file before it was closed; (f) of the files in (d), what was the risk level of non-compliance of each file; (g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (j) how many reassessments were issued; (k) what is the total net revenue collected; (l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (m) of the investigations in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (n) of the investigations in (m), how many resulted in convictions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 757—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Pandora Papers, Panama Papers and Paradise Papers cases and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), broken down by each case: (a) how many auditors are currently assigned to each case, broken down by auditor category; (b) how many audits were completed; (c) how many high risk cases of non-compliance were identified; (d) how many new files were opened; (e) how many files were closed; (f) of the files closed in (e), what was the average time taken to process the file before it was closed; (g) of the files closed in (e), what was the risk level of each file; (h) how much money was spent on suppliers and subcontractors; (i) of the suppliers and subcontractors in (h), what was the initial and final value of each contract; (j) of the suppliers and subcontractors in (h), what is the description of each service contract; (k) how many notices of reassessment were issued; (l) what is the total amount recovered to date; (m) what is the value of total reassessments resulting from audits; (n) what is the total net revenue collected; (o) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program; (p) of the investigations in (o), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (q) of the investigations in (p), how many resulted in convictions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 758—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Small and Medium Business Enterprises Directorate, broken down by year, from November 2015 to date: (a) how many audits were completed; (b) what is the number of auditors; (c) how many new files were opened; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files in (d), what was the average time taken to process the file before it was closed; (f) of the files in (d), what was the risk level of non-compliance of each file; (g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (j) how many reassessments were issued; (k) what is the total net revenue collected; (l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (m) of the investigations in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (n) of the investigations in (m), how many resulted in convictions?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-441-564 Cisco and Cisco Systems8555-441-564-01 Cisco and Cisco Systems8555-441-567 Government's use of facial ...8555-441-569 Canada Infrastructure Bank8555-441-572 Canadian Graduate Scholarships8555-441-573 Tax audits conducted by the ...8555-441-574 Canada's smallpox vaccine supply8555-441-575 Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy8555-441-579 Government travel8555-441-585 User fees collected by the ...8555-441-586 Electric vehicle charging s ...