Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 5 of 5
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 Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)

Question No. 493—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the government providing NDP members with special briefings in the days prior to April 7, 2022, about the content of the 2022 budget: (a) on what dates did these briefings occur; (b) which NDP members were invited to the briefings; (c) were any NDP staff allowed to attend these briefings, and, if so, which ones; (d) who from the government, including both elected and departmental officials, provided the briefings to the NDP members; (e) what precise information was provided in the briefings; (f) is it the position of the Department of Finance that none of the information contained in the briefings could have had any market implications, and, if so, who determined that position; and (g) if there was any possible market impacting information contained in the briefings, what written assurances, if any, did the government require to ensure that profits could not be made as a result of the advance information provided?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance did not provide any briefings on the content of budget 2022 to New Democratic Party members of Parliament or their staff prior to April 7, 2022.

Question No. 496—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) and information about former prostitution offences committed prior to 2014, in relation to section 210, former section 212(1)(j), and former section 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code: (a) when these offences were committed, what information was entered by police services to the files of offenders in the CPIC; (b) are the circumstances of the commission of a prostitution offence recorded and visible in the CPIC; and (c) has the Parole Board of Canada studied the feasibility of the automation of record suspensions for these former prostitution related offences, and, if so, did the studies conclude that it is possible to automate these record suspensions?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (c), it should be noted that Public Safety Canada does not have input into parts (a) and (b) of this question. The feasibility of the potential automation of record suspensions is currently being studied and considered as part of broader record suspension program reforms. Public Safety Canada, in collaboration with portfolio partners the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Parole Board of Canada, is currently engaging with key criminal justice stakeholders and federal, provincial and territorial partners on the potential implementation of an automated sequestering of criminal records system in Canada. Former prostitution-related offences may be considered for eligibility, along with other offences, as the government moves forward with exploring a potential automated sequestering of criminal records system.
With regard to (a), in relation to section 210, former section 212(1)(j), and former section 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and specific to the offences above, the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, conducted a review on the investigative databank to ascertain what information was entered by police services into CPIC concerning former prostitution offences committed prior to 2014. Findings indicate that information pertaining to these offences remains available under several CPIC records categories, including “accused person”, “wanted person” and “prohibited person”. The criminal record in the identification databank on CPIC does not contain information as to when offences were committed. Only the final disposition information provided by the police of jurisdiction is entered into that criminal record, that information being disposition date, section of the Criminal Code and final disposition information. Charges that do not result in convictions, such as acquittals and withdrawals, are available only to Canadian law enforcement partners for limited criminal identification and investigative purposes and are generally not included in criminal record checks for civil purposes, per the dissemination of criminal record information policy.
With regard to (b), the circumstances of a prostitution offence, or any offence, are only available from the originating agency’s reports and/or record management system. However, there is an option when an individual has been added to the investigative databank of CPIC for an agency to add more information under the “Remarks” field. This field provides investigators with the option to indicate why an individual is of interest or wanted by the police, instructions to the person conducting the query when further action is required, or to clarify any other information related to the record, such as additional convictions, additional warrants, publication bans, failure to attend court, probation or release conditions, and firearms prohibitions. Information as to the circumstances of the offence is not recorded or visible on the criminal record in the identification databank on CPIC.

Question No. 499—
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to COVID-19 vaccines thrown away due to spoilage or expiration: what was the available national wastage rate between May 1, 2021, and April 21, 2022, including the (i) percentage of doses wasted, (ii) number of doses wasted, (iii) number of doses administered?
Response
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i) and (ii), of the vaccines held in the federally managed central inventory, 759,948 doses of the Moderna vaccine expired on March 21, 2022, and an additional 429,450 doses expired in mid-April of 2022. In addition, 3.8 million AstraZeneca doses held by the manufacturer and made available for donation by Canada to COVAX in 2021 expired in March 2022.
The Public Health Agency of Canada does not maintain provincial and territorial wastage figures. Provinces and territories are responsible for the management of wastage and for the disposal of vaccines that have been transferred to their jurisdiction to support vaccination campaigns.
With regard to (iii), as of April 21, 2022, approximately 153.4 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been procured and made available. Of these, more than 83 million doses have been administered.
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 464—
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to data held by the government related to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine: (a) on what date and how was the government informed of the clinical trial data of the vaccine that was published on November 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine; (b) on what date and how was the government informed of the adverse reactions and side effects of the vaccine as mentioned in the documents released in accordance with the order made by Justice Mark Pittman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on January 6, 2022; and (c) is the government aware of any additional data that will be released by Pfizer this year, and if so, what are the details, including the (i) date the government became aware of the data, (ii) date the data will become public, (iii) summary of data findings?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 465—
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), broken down by province or territory, region, and constituency, and by year from 2017 until now: (a) how many Canadians received the GIS; and (b) of those Canadians receiving the GIS, how many (i) received the maximum amount, (ii) of their spouses received the allowance benefit for couples, (iii) lost the benefit because they filed their income taxes late?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 466—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Conservation and Protection Program, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how many charges, citations, or other type of enforcement action were taken through the program, broken down by type of enforcement action (criminal charges, ticket, etc.), and by type of illegal activity (fishing without a license, illegally caught species, multiple charges, etc.); and (b) of the instances in (a) where charges were laid, what is the breakdown by final judicial outcome (charges dropped, conviction, case still ongoing, etc.)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 467—
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the government's position on farmers using Bovaer to reduce methane emissions from livestock: (a) why has the government not yet approved Bovaer for agriculture use in Canada; (b) has the government conducted any studies related to the potential level of methane reduction that could be achieved in Canada with the approval and use of Bovaer, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings of any such studies; (c) what is the timeline within which a decision on the approval of Bovaer will be made; (d) does the government have an explanation for why the European Union was able to make a decision on Bovaer years ahead of the Canadian government, and, if so, what is the explanation; (e) has the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food taken any specific measures to expedite the decision on whether or not to approve Bovaer, and, if not, why not; and (f) if the response in (e) is affirmative, what are the specific details of each measure taken, including the (i) date of the measure, (ii) specific measure taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 468—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the Canada Digital Adoption Program: (a) how many and which vendors applied to administer the (i) "Grow Your Business" stream, (ii) "Boost Your Business Technology" stream; (b) what metrics and criteria were used by the department when determining which applicants in (a)(i) and (a)(ii) would become administrators, broken down by stream; (c) what is the dollar value of the contracts provided to Magnet to administer the "Boost Your Business Technology" stream; (d) which vendors were awarded the contracts to administer the "Grow Your Business" stream; (e) what is the dollar value of the contracts provided to each of the vendors in (d); (f) what is the number of students hired, as of April 5, 2022, via the (i) "Grow Your Business" stream, (ii) "Boost Your Business Technology" stream; and (g) what is the number of businesses which have applied, as of April 5, 2022, to the (i) "Grow Your Business" stream, (ii) "Boost Your Business Technology" stream?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 469—
Mr. Chris Warkentin:
With regard to the government paying social media influencers to promote the government's messaging, broken down by department or agency: (a) who in each department or agency decides which influencers to (i) hire, (ii) pay; (b) what is the manner in which influencers can apply to get paid to promote the government's messaging; (c) how many applications related to (b) have been received since January 1, 2021; (d) of the applicants in (c), how many were awarded a contract or payment from the government; (e) are there any specific criteria that government-paid influencers must meet, and, if so, what are the details; (f) are the influencers prohibited or in any way censored from publicly voicing their disagreement with any government policies or messaging, and, if so, what are the details of the prohibition; (g) what specific policies are in place regarding the use of social media influencers; and (h) on what date did each policy in (g) come into effect?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 470—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the funding announced in budget 2021 and in the Fall Economic Statement 2020 to support Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people: (a) how much of the $36.3 million has been spent to enhance and support Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ organizations; (b) of the funding in (a), which organizations received funding and how much was received; (c) how much of the $49.3 million allocated for the implementation of Gladue Principles has been spent; and (d) how much of the $8.1 million to develop justice agreements with Indigenous communities has been spent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 471—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the funding announced in budget 2021 to measure progress and provide accountability on the government supports for Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people: (a) what mechanisms have been implemented; (b) how much of the $20.3 million has been allocated; and (c) of the funding in (b), how much have Indigenous partners received, broken down by organization, institution, or governing body?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 472—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to the development of a comprehensive violence prevention strategy announced in the Fall Economic Statement 2020: (a) how much of the $724.1 million announced has been spent; and (b) broken down by province and territory, how many shelters (i) have been newly opened, (ii) are currently in construction, (iii) are planned, but the construction has not begun?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 473—
Ms. Leah Gazan:
With regard to federal government funding for fiscal years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, allocated within the constituency of Winnipeg Centre: 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. 474—
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to government funding for fiscal years 2019-20 to 2021-22 allocated within the constituency of South Okanagan—West Kootenay: 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. 476—
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the government's commitment in budget 2021 on interchange fees for small and medium-sized businesses: (a) what stakeholders did government representatives meet with since April 19, 2021, with the objective of (i) lowering the average overall cost of interchange fees, (ii) ensuring that small businesses benefit from pricing that is similar to large businesses, (iii) protecting existing reward points of customers; and (b) on what dates were the meetings referenced in (a) held?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 478—
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay:
With regard to Canadian mining companies operating abroad and accused of violations, as well as the government and Canadian embassies: (a) do Canadian embassies have a mandate to ensure that Canadian companies are respecting and advocating for human rights, and, if so, what are the full details and implications of these actions; (b) do embassy staff keep a record of all requests regarding (i) services and support provided to companies, (ii) support from human rights advocates; (c) do allegations and accusations of human rights violations have an impact on embassies’ consideration of requests for support or services from Canadian companies, and, if so, what is this impact; (d) have there been cases where embassies have refused to provide support to companies because of allegations of potential violations, and, if so, what are these cases; (e) what institutional mechanisms can Canadian embassy staff turn to when they become aware of human rights or environmental violations committed by Canadian companies abroad, especially companies that have benefited from embassy services or support in the past; and (f) has the government been made aware of human rights and environmental violations by Canadian companies abroad in the case of Goldcorp, as reported in the Hill Times article of March 30, 2022, and, if so, what actions have been taken to address these violations, with regard to (i) Canadian companies abroad, (ii) the affected groups?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 479—
Mrs. Laila Goodridge:
With regard to Service Canada centres located in flood plains or flood zones: (a) how many Service Canada centres are located in a flood plain or flood zone; (b) what is the location of all such centres, including the street address; (c) for each location in (b), is there a contingency plan to be used during a flood, and, if so, what is the plan; and (d) for each location in (b), has an alternate location outside of the flood plain been designated to be used as a temporary Service Canada centre during a flood, and, if so, what is the location?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 480—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to expenditures and other transactions made by the government using the Treasury Board object code 3213 (Losses of money) or any similar code related to the loss of money: (a) what are the details of all such transactions since fiscal year 2018-19, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, including whether the amount represents the amount of government expenditure or the amount of payment being received by the government, (iii) summary of what took place, (iv) description of the items or services involved; and (b) what was the total value of transactions related to (a), broken down by fiscal year since 2018-19?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 481—
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to expenditures and other transactions made by the government using the Treasury Board object code 3214 (Deficits and write-offs not elsewhere specified), or any similar code: (a) what are the details of all such transactions since fiscal year 2018-19, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount being written off, (iii) reason for the write-off, (iv) description of the items or services being written off; and (b) what was the total value of transactions related to (a), broken down by fiscal year since 2018-19?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 482—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to meetings between senior government officials (those at the assistant deputy minister level or higher) and the former Unifor President, Jerry Dias, or events attended by both a cabinet minister and Mr. Dias, since January 1, 2016, broken down by each official: (a) on how many days did each official meet with or attend an event where Mr. Dias was present, including private meetings and informal events that are not listed on the lobbying registry or any official government itinerary; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by year; and (c) what are the details of all such meetings or events, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of meeting or event (in-person meeting, virtual meeting, government announcement, etc.), (iii) agenda items, if known, (iv) known list of attendees, (v) summary of what took place, (vi) government officials that were in attendance?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 483—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to meetings between cabinet ministers or their staff and the former Unifor President, Jerry Dias, or events attended by both a cabinet minister and Mr. Dias, since January 1, 2016, broken down by minister: (a) on how many days did each minister meet with or attend an event where Mr. Dias was present, including private meetings and informal events that are not listed on the lobbying registry or any official government itinerary; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by year; and (c) what are the details of all such meetings or events, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of meeting or event (in-person meeting, virtual meeting, government announcement, etc.), (iii) agenda items, if known, (iv) known list of attendees, (v) summary of what took place, (vi) ministers and exempt staff members that were in attendance?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 484—
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to meetings between the Prime Minister and the former Unifor President, Jerry Dias, or events attended by both the Prime Minister and Mr. Dias, since January 1, 2016: (a) on how many days did the Prime Minister meet with or attend an event where Mr. Dias was present, including private meetings and informal events that are not listed on the Prime Minister's official itinerary; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by year; and (c) what are the details of all such meetings or events, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of meeting or event (in-person meeting, virtual meeting, government announcement, etc.), (iii) agenda items, if known, (iv) known list of attendees, (v) summary of what took place?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 485—
Mr. Adam Chambers:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), real estate transactions and a report in the Toronto Star on May 30, 2019, about tax evasion in the real estate markets in Ontario and British Columbia: (a) how many Canadians (individuals, companies or corporations) have been identified as having evaded taxes through real estate transactions; (b) how many non-Canadians (individuals, companies or corporations) have been identified as having evaded taxes through real estate transactions; (c) of the Canadians identified in (a), how many of them are being, or have been, reviewed by the CRA; (d) of the non-Canadians identified in (b), how many of them are being, or have been, reviewed by the CRA; (e) how many (i) audits, (ii) reassessments or related compliance actions, have been undertaken against the Canadians identified in (a) by the CRA; (f) of the audits in (e)(i), how many (i) have been closed, (ii) are still ongoing; (g) how many (i) audits, (ii) reassessments or related compliance actions, have been undertaken against the non-Canadians identified in (b) by the CRA; (h) of the audits in (g)(i), how many (i) have been closed, (ii) are still ongoing; (i) how many identified (i) Canadians, (ii) non-Canadians, have availed themselves of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the CRA; (j) how many identified (i) Canadians, (ii) non-Canadians, have settled with the CRA; (k) how much money has the CRA assessed as a result of investigating these cases, broken down by the amount in (i) unpaid taxes, (ii) interest, (iii) fines, (iv) penalties; (l) how much of the money has been collected; (m) how many of these cases (i) are under appeal, (ii) remain open, (iii) have been closed, i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected; (n) how many tax evasion charges have been laid; and (o) how many convictions have been recorded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 486—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to federal transfers through the Low Carbon Economy Fund from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022: (a) how much funding has been allocated, broken down by (i) grants and contributions, (ii) province and territory; (b) how much has actually been transferred since April 1, 2021, broken down by (i) grants and contributions, (ii) province and territory; and (c) for each transfer payment identified in (b), what is the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 487—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the $8 billion Net Zero Accelerator initiative of the Strategic Innovation Fund: (a) how many potential applicants have submitted a statement of interest to date, broken down by (i) small and medium-sized businesses, (ii) large businesses, (iii) province and territory, (iv) potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; (b) how much has been spent to date, broken down by (i) business name, (ii) province and territory; and (c) of the funding in (b), what is the cost per tonne of greenhouse gas emission reductions for each applicant funded?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 488—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the press release dated April 4, 2022, “Government of Canada announces affordable high-speed Internet to help connect low-income families and seniors”: (a) which participating Internet service providers (ISP) will be providing services under Connecting Families 2.0 to rural areas as defined by Statistics Canada; (b) how many eligible households whom received a letter from the government will not be able to participate in Connecting Families 2.0 due to not having a participating ISP service in their geographic area; (c) how many and which census divisions with rural areas will have (i) no participating ISP servicing the area, (ii) less than 50 per cent of the census division serviced by a participating ISP, (iii) less than 25 per cent of the census division serviced by a participating ISP; (d) in the federal electoral district of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, which census subdivisions or municipalities will have no participating ISPs; (e) how will the government increase participating ISPs servicing rural areas; and (f) how will the government ensure that this program provides equal access to the social and economic advantages of affordable internet to both rural and urban low income Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-441-464 Data held by government on ...8555-441-465 Guaranteed Income Supplement8555-441-466 Fisheries and Oceans Canada ...8555-441-467 Use of Bovaer to reduce met ...8555-441-468 Canada Digital Adoption Program8555-441-469 Social media influencers pa ...8555-441-470 Funding to support Indigeno ...8555-441-471 Funding to measure progress ...8555-441-472 Comprehensive violence prev ...8555-441-473 Federal funding in the cons ...8555-441-474 Funding in the constituency ... ...Show all topics
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for the Prime Minister.
First, the World Health Assembly will be meeting next week. Does Canada support Taiwan's participation at next week's meeting?
Second, the International Civil Aviation Organization's upcoming triennial assembly will be taking place in September. Does Canada support Taiwan's inclusion at that upcoming triennial assembly?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, Canada's position on Taiwan is long-standing. We support its inclusion in multilateral fora and multilateral bodies to make sure that its perspective is heard.
Results: 1 - 5 of 5

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data